A Paradox of science.

No its correct so don't even bother to try, it is the truth and you can not argue the truth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

deleted

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So are you saying that if my resting heart rate is 60 beats/min, in a different gravitational field it might take 2 minutes for my heart to beat 60 times?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not sure about heart beat, but as a comparison yes,

 

Well there you go! That is an idea that is falsifiable. You are saying that a person would experience a slowing of time when they are in a stronger graviational field. So if experimentation or calculation shows that is true then you have support for your idea, it does not prove it but it supports it. Now if the opposite is true where a persone did not experience a slowing of time in a higher graviational field then the idea is wrong.

Unfortunately for your idea experimentation in relativity has shown that a person would not experience a slowing of time in a higher graviational field. Everyone would experience there own time as passing normally.

Well I guess it is "back to the drawing board" for you. This is what we call a "swing and a miss".

 

Huh, do I need to mention the Keating experiment and SR, experiment shows exactly what I am saying to be true. Not experiencing a slowing down of time, experiencing their own time dependency to gravitational fields.

''for your idea experimentation in relativity has shown that a person would not experience a slowing of time in a higher graviational field. Everyone would experience there own time as passing normally.''

That agrees with what I am saying,

 

Your ego comes through loud and clear on this forum. You become angry when people doubt your theories, and resort to childish personal attacks when your ego is threatened.

What is "my science" and which part am I denying?

There's that ego again.

 

ps. completely gone of track he content.

You mistake ego for a passion in trying to get science to understand. If you thought you knew something that the rest of the world just seemed to be missing the reality of, do you not think it would be important to share this information with the world and persist until someone or somebodies understood the context properly?
I only have so long in life and several years I have sat here and done nothing but think and trying to share my ideas about science that the reality of seemingly has been lost in time.
Do you realise personally how hard it is to think so deep with ideas that defy present reality and try to tell yourself you are wrong, but you are unable because all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

 

There you are - EGO.
You think that YOU alone are correct and that every scientist throughout history, including those alive today, are wrong.

In other words your ego is over-riding what little rationality you have.

 

It sure would. Here's an example from my own life:

When I was 13 I started playing with DC motors. I thought "what if I hooked up the shaft of a motor to the shaft of a generator and then wired them together? They would run forever!" I tried it and it didn't work. I talked to a science teacher about it and he explained drag and resistance and the laws of thermodynamics. He said that the small amount of drag would slow down the motor, which would make the voltage out of the generator lower, which would slow down the motor more etc.

But I didn't quite understand all that, and besides - I knew I was right. There had to be a way to make it work. Then I learned about transformers! With a transformer I could take an AC motor, drive an AC generator with it, then take the voltage and TRANSFORM IT HIGHER! That way instead of going slower and slower, the increase in voltage would make the motor go faster and faster! In fact you might need a second generator to provide more drag so it didn't overspeed. You could then use the extra power to run your house, or your electric car, or whatever. It would be like interest on money in a savings account (a concept I didn't 100% understand either at the time) so it had a clear basis in reality.

It took several more years to learn why I was wrong, and why such a device would never work. Fortunately I was open to learning. Are you?

Spend that time learning instead of posting and you will be much happier overall. Thinking without learning or experimentation is mental masturbation.

Yes, went through that 30 years ago. Put your ego aside and accept that you may be wrong.

 

I think he's just entertaining himself. It might be fun to go to another forum and create a persona like TC. Then I could spout total idiocy and see if I can induce apoplexy amongst the established members...

I have just discovered the finger theory - this will overturn all science as we know it. The square root of a mushroom is a cloud. This is obvious from Ado's theorem and shows that Lie algebras are in fact a lie. If I take the inverse mandrake we discover that squaring a cloud will give us a mushroom, which is extremely profound. If I put twice as many clouds on my pizza I will have mushrooms and everyone knows that mushrooms are magic - so that bridges science and psychic phenomena - hence the "finger" theory to replace that old "toe" theory.

My math is unassailable - prove me wrong.​

I can see where this could be great fun...

 

Ah yes, "Prove me wrong", the cry of the crank throughout the ages.

Along with, "They didn't believe Galileo".

It works the opposite way round in science. It is YOU, the advocate of the new hypothesis, that has to propose ways to test your idea to see if it can be falsified.

But I don't know why I'm bothering. You are obviously barking.

 

edit - You think that evidence and maths alone are correct and that every scientist throughout history, including those alive today, are wrong.

 

Math isn't really correct - it is self-consistent and useful. But correct? Depends on how it's used. "Two horses plus two angstroms is four kilowatts" would be meaningless (but the unitless math would be correct.)
All evidence is by definition correct. How it's interpreted is the key.

Didn't see anyone say that other than you.

 

The maths and the evidence says it is all wrong not me, not my evidence , your evidence.

I will quote in my own words in my learning what science said to me .


Science said - '' We use to measure the passage of time by the Earth's rotation, 1 rotation was 24 hrs or 86400 seconds the equivalent of 0.288 miles/s of the Earth's spin. Practically we used the Earth as a ruler and then went on to calculate speed by using the Earth's spin and the now invented time.
We then realised the earths spin was fluctuating so this was not an accurate way to record time. We then decided to make 1 second of time of the earths spin to be equal to a constant amount of beats of a Caesium atom effectively to avoid the fluctuation in the spin of the earth. A constant that was just a different ''colour'' but also fluctuated by gravitational field and motion of itself from the motion thought to be constant, a different colour that still represented 0.288 mile/s and still was not a constant''

 

You keep saying that but you keep not knowing what that "evidence" is.

OK great! Let's see whether you understand science:

That's more history than science, but OK - let's go with that.

We invented a method to measure time - we did not invent time.

Right - we became better and better at measuring time, and came up with ever more accurate standards for it. (As well as more accurate standards for weight, voltage, current etc.)

No, colors don't represent distance.

So overall you understood about half of what science says on this subject from your post above. Learning more might clear up your misconceptions.

 

You seem to be totally incapable of effectively communicating. You know seem to be saying you are in complete agreement with time dilation wrt general relativity.

 

We invented a method to measure our own time, not to measure time.
By colour I was saying you changed the colour of the second by changing time device, but the second was still a second based on the history.

 

Im not, I am saying simply swap space time, x,y,z and time to matter, us, we are the x,y,z and t in a space.

 

1 second does not represent 0.288 m/s. A second is a unit of time it is not a velocity.