A Paradox of science.

And who cares, part one , part 2, undeniable you lose unless you can prove my protosciecne wrong,

Be bk tomorrow cant keep my eyes open.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and the rest of that definition is: used to infer all the functional dependencies on a relational database.
Those axioms apply ONLY to digital relational databases.
In other words you're STILL talking bollocks.
It's like claiming that people must always use the word "aardvark" sometime before they say "abacus" simply because one word comes before the other in a dictionary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously you get your rocks off by being obtusely and stupidly stubborn against all comers. As I mentioned earlier, wearing this "I will think what I like" like a badge of honour.
Sure you win....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If that makes you happy then I'll agree.
And even admitting that believing this stupidity will not get you anywhere in life, tells me that this highly delusional state you are in, is something to really be pitied. Sad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because in general you don't understand it. Remember when you thought that cesium clocks worked on time-of-flight?
You "have an idea" and you think it's new because you want it to be new - you want people here to stoke your ego. But your posts are pretty typical of a high school senior who has heard about relativity for the first time and has decided "that can't be right because I don't understand it!" Many people move on from there and come to have a better understanding of physics and the world we live in. Many just stay ignorant.

Which path will you choose? So far you are choosing ignorance. You sure you want to double down on that?

No, I mean it's in Fringe, right where it belongs, along with the Bigfoot sightings and UFO stories.

 

Uh, no -- if your idea can't even get any traction on a small, poorly moderated internet science forum that caters to crackpots, much less publication in a real science journal, your every post is an ongoing loss.

 

Along with ghosts, Goblins, Unicorns, Banksia men and Santa Claus.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Firstly I have no ego, secondly it is your own science, you are denying your own science, science history and just about everything that is truthful,
You are not that serious has science types, because if you were you know I am correct and you would be saying omg the same has me what a blunder.

 

Humanity set the distance of movement of the Earth to be a distance equal to 1 second, 0.288 mile to 1 second I believe it was. Science time is distance.

 

You will also find that you have the speed of light being x amount faster than time, I was going to be kind to science, annoy me and I will destroy the rest of it also, you science boys want to play and think you clever ok,

1 mile = 1 609.344 metres

c=299,792,458 m/s

t=0.288 mile/s

t=463.491072 metres/s

c/t=c=646813.87865* faster than time.

 

Oy.

 

oy in deed, please feel free to play with the maths, I am not delusional like you think I am just smart.

 

Please don't destroy the rest of science! Can't just leave us alone! If you destroy the rest of science then I think that means my computer won't work and I need it.

 

So the speed of light is faster than time. Is a black hole heavier than time?

 

I would say so , but it depends on how I read your question to mean.

 

Sorry, to be clear I was talking about a stellar blackhole. I think everyone would agree that massive blackholes in the center of galaxies are heavier than time.
So what do you think, are black holes from stellar collapse heavier than time?

 

In a sense that time is dependant on the observer or object and the dependant time of an observer or object is relative to gravitational fields, an observer or object having mass, I can only presume you are asking does a stellar black hole have more gravitational force than the observers or objects mass?

Which is yes, so I presume I still do not know what you are asking when you refer to heavier and weight.

 

So are you saying time runs at different rates in different gravitational fields? I thought you said that did not occur.

No, I assume that a black hole would have a higher gravity than the observer.

 

I you are asking if there is curvature of space time then no.

 

No.
You persisted on claiming this on the forum where you were banned.
Despite the fact that you said you accepted you were wrong.
You're STILL wrong.

Sheer nonsense.

 

I said a black hole had higher gravity than the observer,

''So are you saying time runs at different rates in different gravitational fields''?

No, time is the experience of the observer, time does not run, each observer experiences time dependant to themselves , they experience a longer existence in their own time reference frame dependant on gravitational fields, two observers will witness no change in time relative to each other, they observe a longer period of their own dependant time.
While you observe an object, you are not counting a period of time the object is there, you are counting a period of time you are there.