Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by absolute-space, Feb 24, 2016.
Thought you had me on ignore? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
it is a fad derived from individuals believing that they are some sort of intellect and/or genius. this is a result from a notion stemming back from the 80s'-- " everyone is special " if you end-up last, you receive a trophy. welcome too humanity.
I sort of forgot lol
This is the really crazy thing. The guy claims to be using the results of SR & GR, then clearly contradicts them over and over again. Then admits to not knowing any mathematics. Then refuses to read anything that goes into detail on a pop science level.
LIM, physicsbang--this is how azo conducts himself.
if i had access to physforum, i would simply show you.
Please stop lying. We can all read how you claim that SR is false: you deny that the length contraction is anything other than appearance. We can all read how you claim that GR is false: you deny that the cosmological expansion of space is real. These lies do not help your case.
Ah, now we come to the conspiracy theory section of the science denier. So, now you are claiming that your ignorance of mathematics somehow makes you more competent at physics than the people who study physics?
Your ideas will be mere hypotheses, not theories. Since you refuse to engage in the available evidence, you cannot hope to produce something that people might consider seriously.
So, this thread is a prime example of a problem that I've wondered about from time to time. How can one distinguish between a troll and a really uninformed crank? Satire is comparatively easy to pick out; since satirists are trying to highlight the ridiculousness of the position they're putting forward, they tend to emphasize the most flawed aspects of that position, while true believers instead focus on the strongest aspects. Semi-informed cranks also have their signature; their pet theory usually passes muster up to a certain level of analysis, so they offer detailed arguments up to that level but get hand-wavy and/or angry if one tries to push further.
But if I were a troll, fishing for frustrated responses, I would pick a clearly ridiculous position and support it with arguments not quite well-posed enough to be decisively debunked. I would then wrap it all in a shell of faulty math, just to give it that extra air of refutability. On the other hand, that's also what I would do if I were suffering from a critical case of the Dunning-Kruger effect and didn't understand how math is used. So how does one tell the difference? When absolute-space invoked Godel's Incompleteness Theorem above, I thought he had to be a troll, because no one could be misguided enough to think that had anything to do with the subject at hand. But then again, at least a quarter of our country thinks Donald Trump would make an excellent president, so I'm hesitant to put a lower bound on the human intellect.
how do you know he would not be?
a little know reality that only few even know of-- the president is already known before campaigns even begin. not that i am saying that trump will be president, but i am saying that the secrete government has already picked the president, since the president and congress are simply just puppets for the secrete government.
Do you agree that we cannot see light that is in motion from a source to our eyes? For example, you can't be aware now of photons that are half way from your computer screen to your eyes, even though in a couple of nanoseconds from now they will enter your eye and hit your retina.
Do you agree?
If you do not agree, please tell me how your eye/brain can possibly know about what light is doing now some distance away from you. Note that what I want is not some kind of process of mental reasoning about what you think or deduce is probably going on "out there", but an explanation of how you think this is actually, directly, perceivable right now, via your senses (eyes).
You are claiming there is no time delay between light between emitted from your computer screen and you being aware of that light. Is that correct? Note that I'm not counting delays caused by the time it takes a nerve impulse to work its way from your eye to your brain, and stuff like that. I say you're aware of the light at the point when it hits your retina. You say that you're somehow magically aware of the light on the screen the very instant that the screen lights up. you need to explain how you could possibly be aware of that.
How can you possibly be aware of those dots that have not yet reached you eye? Explain.
Are you confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse what you have claimed?
We're not talking about the possibility of light from you reaching my eye at the same time that light from me reaches your eye. Everybody agrees that this can happen simultaneously.
Your claim, on the other hand, is that you see your computer screen before light has had time to travel from it to your eye. That is what our disagreement is about.
I don't know whether this stuff means something to you, but I'm confident that it means nothing to everybody else.
Please don't post this kind of rubbish - or, if it's not rubbish you'll need to explain what you're doing.
we [want to] look into the future, but see only the past. houston, we have a problem. and could not see it coming.
A simple thought experiment ( it can be tested). Visualize this; the sun has set and you are *presently* standing in the dark, but you can see a far off object that is still reflecting light because the sun is still shining over there.
In your present it is dark, but we are still receiving reflected light from other objects. Which means it took time for that light to reach us, even as we are already in the dark. What we see is a still lighted image from our past.
We can see the light from stars which since have gone nova a billion years ago. But we see them as they were a billion (light)years in our past. In our present that star does not even exist anymore.
The guy you're responding to got perma-banned for being a sock puppet.
well, it was not because of the time at c, but the changed angle from the earth's rotation that obscured the setting sun, good illustration though, reminds me of watching the shuttle launches from our driveway, by the time the sound arrived, rattling your teeth, the shuttle had already been silently levitating for a few seconds, , standing on stem light, on a base of steam, oblivious to a deaf person.
The op, not surprisingly, misses the condition that the two mutual observers look simultaneously (achieved by entanglement perhaps, not seriously)at each other. in case* that is so:
both observers travel through time for the 5 minutes , really 1.3 seconds, and they would receive the message simultaneously, the photonstream having crossed paths halfway. both would see each other as being 5 minutes /1.3 sec younger then they were at reception.
We send messages into the future, but receive them from the past.
Since the universe looks roughly the same in all direction, a mythical pair of beings 180 degrees in the other direction would experience a similar time delay, movement through time, the universe must be expanding, move through time in a radial direction, creating a spherical model moving out from the Big Beginning,
* in case the op meant an exchange of messages:, would the original sender not have to wait double the the time to get the return message message from the past. or?
taken to extremes, we see photons of matter that existed ~ 13 billion years ago. Astro-observers a third or quarter of the universe away, see photons from ~13 billion light years away too, not yet quite us, because
"we" were still Virgin Matter just freshly converted from energy, give or take a few million years. In other words,
it is not like looking in the mirror.
Nice example, but I have a much better one. In a thunderstorm you see the lightning several seconds before you hear the thunder clap, proving that light travels faster than sound.
It takes less time for the light of the event to reach your eyes than its sound reaches your ears. In fact, from the two associated phenomena you can estimate the distance where the event occurred.
5 seconds after flash 1 mile? It is easier in kms, metric,
1 second ~ 1 km away + 20%.
To the blind you can be an awesome prophet, predicting thunder they do not know is coming. Good money in that, in religions.
I don't think that is right. The speed of sound is 0.343 km/s. 3 seconds is approximately 1 km away.
I was wrong for so long. Thank you for the correction! in what else could nebel be possibly wrong?
I felt so safe with lightening strike 3 times further away in my mind than in reality***. must have paid no attention in my brownie boy scout training.
my error ratio ~ 1/3. the same as the ESM model, which is suggesting that the furthest matter is 3 times further away in lookback time than the BB.
***PS: realise now too, why I had such respect for thunderstorms. It the discharges make such a big racket, (thor throwing his hammer) from so far away, glad that there was no time delay., most of the time. (one time, one of the close calls, the TV switch was melted in the on position)
No, we see objects in our past.
Separate names with a comma.