It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Satellites see into the future?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Yes, that's exactly how I used to think, but the pool analogy is Newtonian one. Think in terms of "quantum theory" and that whole analogy needs to be re-worked. Have you checked out the thread on quantum here? Everyone should, you still may hold your position on this topic, however, the whole subject will fascinate you, I guarantee it.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by djbj597922 I believe our satellites can see our realities future not other realities futures.


Why do you believe that satellites can see the future? If you reject physics in favor of some new age thing, why even buy into special relativity at all?

It seems that if you're making stuff up, you could just make up something a lot simpler. Let's say you can see the future in an ink pool. That used to be a somewhat more popular thing in times gone by. Saves putting up satellites.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


How odd that GPS actually works as designed, then.

I guess I can stop having to consider the effects of time delays in circuits, too, how handy.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by AABacon
 



Yes, that's exactly how I used to think, but the pool analogy is Newtonian one. Think in terms of "quantum theory" and that whole analogy needs to be re-worked. Have you checked out the thread on quantum here? Everyone should, you still may hold your position on this topic, however, the whole subject will fascinate you, I guarantee it.


I'm not completely "sold" on the whole quantum theory thing yet. Great, quantum theory predicts infinite possibilities, but reality indicates one determined direction. Again, we can use the pool analogy. Never forget, that Q-ball is still only going to be hit at one spot and one angle, it won't be hit from an infinite possibilities.

Once that Q-ball is struck, it's end game. Whatever probability of place and angle has already collapsed and all extant events after that prime causation are now determined events. We can apply this to the big bang if you want. That was our primal Q-ball, the prim cause already occurred and all matter within the universe is still moving accordingly to that initial prime causation. Reality already collapsed.

The illusion of free will being based on previous stored experience or abstract thought is still an effect of that prime causation and doesn't lend to any infinite possibilities. We only have two possible choices with any given choice, do or don't do. Each choice being determined not by infinite quantum paths, but by stored past experience or abstract thinking of an outcome.

I've read many sites that explain quantum mechanics and takes the "magic" out of it that we see sensationalized in the media. I wish I had saved those sites or remembered how I got to them. QM just isn't as fanciful as an uneducated editor of some website might make it sound and it does appear to behave with classical explanations. At least from what I've read.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by sirnex
 


How odd that GPS actually works as designed, then.

I guess I can stop having to consider the effects of time delays in circuits, too, how handy.


Of course they still work as they should. We're accounting for gravitational influences acting upon the satellites. Just like a clock on Earth isn't measuring 'time' as it's only measuring the positions of the sun and rate of rotation of a planet. An object in orbit is influenced by variable gravity when going in and out of weak to strong fields, giving the appearance of a "time dilation effect" No such dilation has actually occurred and all that has occurred is the confirmation of gravities variable nature.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Of course they still work as they should.


Since they work by measuring "time" very very closely, it's a wonder that they work, since according to you, there is no time.



We're accounting for gravitational influences acting upon the satellites. Just like a clock on Earth isn't measuring 'time' as it's only measuring the positions of the sun and rate of rotation of a planet.


I haven't seen too many clocks that measure the sun's position, with the exception of a sun dial.



An object in orbit is influenced by variable gravity when going in and out of weak to strong fields, giving the appearance of a "time dilation effect" No such dilation has actually occurred and all that has occurred is the confirmation of gravities variable nature.


Nope, the value of the gravitic field at a point influences the rate at which time passes. Other things do as well, such as acceleration.

I think you have a terminology/concept confusion going on between "time of day" "absolute time" and "duration". Don't go all time-cubey over it.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Since they work by measuring "time" very very closely, it's a wonder that they work, since according to you, there is no time.


No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.

No, your absolutely right.



I haven't seen too many clocks that measure the sun's position, with the exception of a sun dial.


The first clock *was* a sundial. That was THE first thing used to "measure time". All other clocks invented after that are based off that same principle and unit of measure. We check the accuracy of a water, sand, candle time piece with a sun dial. We can make a mechanical representation or a digital representation. Yet, in the end every clock is based off the principles of a sun dial and the mechanics behind it.


Nope, the value of the gravitic field at a point influences the rate at which time passes. Other things do as well, such as acceleration.


No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.


I think you have a terminology/concept confusion going on between "time of day" "absolute time" and "duration". Don't go all time-cubey over it.


Hmm...

Time of day: Noon = sun's position in sky is straight up

Duration: Change of sun's position between noon and 4pm = Measure of suns position from point A to point B.

Absolute time: A hypothetical concept derived from Newtonian physics.

I'm sorry... what was your argument again? I got caught up in my rambling.


EDIT: To bold a certain word to emphasize it's lack of importance to your argument



[edit on 12-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.


I think you're over imagining the "whipping in and out" part - do you envision that as causing the atomic clock to mis-measure due to vibration or something? What is your view of the mechanism that somehow causes EVERY measurement of duration made to equally mis-measure? Other than by "whipping"?




The first clock *was* a sundial. That was THE first thing used to "measure time". All other clocks invented after that are based off that same principle and unit of measure. We check the accuracy of a water, sand, candle time piece with a sun dial. We can make a mechanical representation or a digital representation. Yet, in the end every clock is based off the principles of a sun dial and the mechanics behind it.


Oddly, not only do I have a number of "time of day" clocks that do not follow the measurement of the slant angle of sunlight in order to develop their "digital representation" of the time of day, but work with many a clock signal on electronic designs, none of which use a sunlight measurement either. So the "principle" and "mechanics" are quite a bit different.



No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.


You seem very stuck on this inappropriate "whipping" image as somehow explaining why, say, decay rates of radioactive materials also change. Or, why, say, the decay rate of accelerated muons change. Perhaps they're whipped.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
who cares... the time we get the signal it is the past allready.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



I think you're over imagining the "whipping in and out" part - do you envision that as causing the atomic clock to mis-measure due to vibration or something? What is your view of the mechanism that somehow causes EVERY measurement of duration made to equally mis-measure? Other than by "whipping"?


Ah, a semantics man... How about I change the wording to moving in and out? Is that better my semantic arguer?

I'm also curious if you can't possibly grasp a simple concept. All semantics aside, do you really think gravity has no influence on an atomic clock?

Clock A is stationary under constant force of gravity

Clock B is moving/whipping (however you want to argue the semantics of it) in and out of variable gravitational forces.

For me, this is like a duh realization. It's like your trying to argue that a weak and strong magnet both have the same field of effect on iron fillings.



Oddly, not only do I have a number of "time of day" clocks that do not follow the measurement of the slant angle of sunlight in order to develop their "digital representation" of the time of day, but work with many a clock signal on electronic designs, none of which use a sunlight measurement either. So the "principle" and "mechanics" are quite a bit different.


*sigh* and my all time favorite *facepalm*

If the history of time keeping is beyond your comprehension, then may I suggest google as a start point on your road of discovery?


You seem very stuck on this inappropriate "whipping" image as somehow explaining why, say, decay rates of radioactive materials also change. Or, why, say, the decay rate of accelerated muons change. Perhaps they're whipped.


Yikes, there you go with semantics again. I really do love people who resort to semantics when they can't refute a point.

How about you try replying again without the semantics?


EDIT: I'm going to have you conduct an amazingly simple experiment.

Go outside at 12pm noon with a sun dial, a digital clock, an analog clock and a pair of eyes.

Note the position of the sun and the time indicated on all three devices.

Go outside again at 4pm and note the position of the sun and time indicated on all three devices.

What can you now deduce about 'duration'?

Proceed to stupidly tell me your digital/anolog clock is in no way a representation of the suns position.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I'm also curious if you can't possibly grasp a simple concept. All semantics aside, do you really think gravity has no influence on an atomic clock...
Clock B is moving/whipping (however you want to argue the semantics of it) in and out of variable gravitational forces.


I notice you're still not addressing it. What change in the clock do you consider that "moving/whipping/prancing/cavorting" "in and out of variable gravitational forces" is causing, so that any form of time measurement has exactly the same change?

Note that the clock does NOT have to "move/whip/dance" in and out of "variable gravitational forces" to do this.





*sigh* and my all time favorite *facepalm*

If the history of time keeping is beyond your comprehension, then may I suggest google as a start point on your road of discovery?


May I suggest you try addressing the issue? I am quite familiar with the history of timekeeping, however, you seem to be fixated on your faux concept of all time being related to the day/night cycle and somehow a Swiss con job to sell watches to actually deal with anything that requires an answer.

The concept of the measurement of duration somehow seems beyond you. I assure you, that thing you're connecting to the internet with is full of clocking signals and trace routes that had to be done just so with respect to the flight time of signals, none of which have jack to do with sundials, the date, a Mayan calendar, or the day of the week.



Yikes, there you go with semantics again. I really do love people who resort to semantics when they can't refute a point.


Your entire premise seems a sort of bizarre quibble. It is entirely demonstrable that time dilation exists. GPS has to account for it. You can't refute it - your entire argument here seems to be a few emoticons and an appeal to "whipping in and out" without any sort of rational statement as to what you think the mechanism for the dilation is, or how it affects ANY timekeeping measurement in the same way in that circumstance. I'm quite sure you'll do the same again in response to this, and you'll try to dodge once more.

But then, the past doesn't exist for you, right? So no doubt it'll seem just as clever and fresh when you do so again.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



I notice you're still not addressing it. What change in the clock do you consider that "moving/whipping/prancing/cavorting" "in and out of variable gravitational forces" is causing, so that any form of time measurement has exactly the same change?

Note that the clock does NOT have to "move/whip/dance" in and out of "variable gravitational forces" to do this.


Somehow you've managed to take two angles of the discussion, combine them into one and claim I'm avoiding some invented issue? Please re-read our discussion from the beginning.

Your attempting to combine two separate topics of our discussion, one on time dilation and one on how a clock is related to the position of the sun.

Unfortunately, I have addressed both issues and I have followed up with asking you to do two things, one of which was asked more than once.

For the topic of 'time dilation' I answered with this:

No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.

For the other topic, I left you with a rather simple experiment any five year old could do. You then counter that with this garbage? Cute.



May I suggest you try addressing the issue? I am quite familiar with the history of timekeeping, however, you seem to be fixated on your faux concept of all time being related to the day/night cycle and somehow a Swiss con job to sell watches to actually deal with anything that requires an answer.

The concept of the measurement of duration somehow seems beyond you. I assure you, that thing you're connecting to the internet with is full of clocking signals and trace routes that had to be done just so with respect to the flight time of signals, none of which have jack to do with sundials, the date, a Mayan calendar, or the day of the week.


Your talking about rates as being equal to time. Computers don't clock things by time, they clock things with a quartz oscillator, how about you learn how something works before you attempt to use it in your argument?

Again, I gave you a simple experiment. Did you perform it, or were you still at school around 12pm today? Was wondering where you went off to.


Your entire premise seems a sort of bizarre quibble. It is entirely demonstrable that time dilation exists. GPS has to account for it. You can't refute it - your entire argument here seems to be a few emoticons and an appeal to "whipping in and out" without any sort of rational statement as to what you think the mechanism for the dilation is, or how it affects ANY timekeeping measurement in the same way in that circumstance. I'm quite sure you'll do the same again in response to this, and you'll try to dodge once more.

But then, the past doesn't exist for you, right? So no doubt it'll seem just as clever and fresh when you do so again.


GPS doesn't account for time dilation.

Here is a neat article about Quasars and how they disprove this silly notion of time dilation. www.physorg.com...


There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong. Or, quasars may not be located at the distances indicated by their redshifts, although this suggestion has previously been discredited. Although these explanations are controversial, Hawkins plans to continue investigating the quasar mystery, and maybe solve a few other problems along the way.


The other possibility was that the so called "dark matter" was ALL black holes, but the astrophysicists think this is pretty unlikely and are still hanging onto undiscovered novel particles.

If time dilation exists, it exists for ALL objects in the universe. We have a 28 year study involving 900 quasars all 900 show no signs of time dilation, what so ever, period. You can continue hanging onto a dying model, or you can accept the damn evidence smacking you in the face.

Einstieinian physics is a dead end, and no amount of rubber sheets and bowling balls is going to save it.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
No, your right.... Gravity would have no influence on an atomic clock whipping in and out of weak to strong gravitational influences making it measure the rate of oscillation differently than a stationary clock on Earth under a constant rate of gravitational force.


Wow - it's like I was able to predict you'd say the same thing...again. And once more, you fail to find any refutation or explanation of WHY it would "measure the rate of oscillation" differently - other than of course your ever present "whipping" comment.




Your talking about rates as being equal to time. Computers don't clock things by time, they clock things with a quartz oscillator, how about you learn how something works before you attempt to use it in your argument?


Ah, but you insist there is no such thing as duration, right? Other than by some sundial thing. Which was where I first started gigging you with the obvious, and this was one of the examples I first used, now you're finally responding with something other than your same old cut and paste whipping statement. At last, some response that wasn't obviously from a bot.

Well, first off they don't have to clock with a quartz oscillator although most do. And, hey, a similar oscillator is used to run that digital clock you swear is using a sundial inside.

Yes, I understand them quite well, been designing with them for some 21 years now, which is one of several reasons I find you amusing.

Duration exists, it has jack to do with sundials or water clocks or whatnot, and we use it all the time in really practical applications - one is the computer you're in front of, as well as pretty much any digital circuit that runs at any speed.

It also varies with gravitational fields and with accelerated frames of reference. That's also true, and demonstrable, although you're no doubt going to paste your little whipping paragraph again, once more without any sort of thought.



GPS doesn't account for time dilation.


You could not be more incorrect. Well, let me restate that, you are equally as incorrect there as you are in your other statements on the thread.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Again, I gave you a simple experiment. Did you perform it, or were you still at school around 12pm today? Was wondering where you went off to.


Actually, I was off doing a CFD thermal analysis of a heatsink I'm banging together for a military card - there's not much room, the part dissipates a lot of heat (comparatively) and the ambient's sort of high. Unfortunately, this one's the stock XMC version which requires air cooling, the conductive cooling version of this, ironically, will be much easier to do.

But then, it could never happen in your world where time doesn't exist - if I set the time step for "eternal now" in the simulator, it won't converge. Alas.




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I am fairly certain that you are not able to see into the future. I believe that time is relative to mass. As your mass builds through acceleration(the case of a satellite), time actually slows down for the observer. If you were able to revolve around a black hole without actually going in you would be surrounded by an enormous amount of mass and time would actually be slower there, than on earth. But this does not mean you would be able to see into the future, you would actually be TRAVELING into the future. In order for you to be able to report back what you saw in the future, you would need to be able to travel back in time. (Oh my brain is starting to hurt)

In the case of the satellite, it actually ages less while in orbit, but by us on earth it doesn't actually go anywhere. I think since we are all traveling into the future, the only way to be able to report back what is happening is through some sort of signal. The technology is beyond me, but I guess if you had the technology and had it preprogrammed into the satellite computers to send data back to a certain time, say one hour, then that would be possible. But it isn't really seeing into the future, it is just aging at a rate that is less than us.

Back to the idea of mass slowing down time. If you had a giant structure, say the pyramids, you would actually be aging at a slower rate, because time would be distorted by the mass. Now you wouldn't be able to observe it, but that doesn't mean it isn't occurring. If it were observable, it wouldn't matter much, because you wouldn't be able to tell anyone whats going to happen because you would be subject to all of the events going on, but in your case they would appear in fast forward. So the next time your watching a movie, fast forward and that would be, visually the idea I am trying to get across.

The problem with going back in time is not only scientifically a problem, but philosophically as well. There are some paradoxes that you can google. Look for the "Mad Scientist" paradox. Also, Stephen Hawking's, Into the Universe, talks about this. Actually, all of it is from the series because it explains it so well.

Into the Universe

I can't get the link to embed, so I put it directly on here.

[edit on 13-5-2010 by UFORacer56]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by UFORacer56]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 



Wow - it's like I was able to predict you'd say the same thing...again. And once more, you fail to find any refutation or explanation of WHY it would "measure the rate of oscillation" differently - other than of course your ever present "whipping" comment.


I see two possible problems with this statement and how it was derived. One being you can't read, two being your not intelligent enough to comprehend a simple thing. What part of gravitational influence are you having trouble with? How many more times do I have to listen to you stupidly exclaim I haven't given any possible reasons why an atomic clock in orbit would not work the same as one stationary?

What grade you in? Have they gone over reading comprehension yet? I can point you to some websites if you'd like to get a jump start on it.


Ah, but you insist there is no such thing as duration, right? Other than by some sundial thing. Which was where I first started gigging you with the obvious, and this was one of the examples I first used, now you're finally responding with something other than your same old cut and paste whipping statement. At last, some response that wasn't obviously from a bot.


I don't recall saying there was no such thing as duration, although I do recall explaining what duration is, albeit rather simply, but enough that anyone with half a brain can extrapolate the meaning into other things.


Well, first off they don't have to clock with a quartz oscillator although most do. And, hey, a similar oscillator is used to run that digital clock you swear is using a sundial inside.


Wow, that was awfully weak. Semantics again huh? OK, let me generalize and just say crystal oscillator instead. Remember that experiment I asked you to conduct? Obviously you didn't bother, which I can't hold you accountable for since you were in school at lunch time.

Let's begin with, I never said works with a sundial inside. There is no need to be a complete lying smart ass, now is there? If you feel corned and feel the need to lash out with smart ass lies, then please take that time to step away from the thread and allow yourself to cool down a bit so as to make a more *intelligent* reply instead.


Now that is out off the way, let's continue. Now, when I say the clocks work on the same principle, all showing the position of the sun in the sky rather than indicating a "fundamental unit of time", I mean exactly that, they accurately depict the position of the sun in the sky, not a "fundamental unit of time". Hence the reasoning behind that simple experiment.

Let's use a different example shall we, the planetarium. Our solar system works vastly different than a planetarium does, I'm sure we can agree on that right? Yet, a planetarium can accurately depict the position of the planets and stars in the night sky through mechanical means, or in the case of software, through digital calculations. A clock, be it sundial, analog or digital does the same thing, but depicts the suns position instead.

Hopefully this is a bit clearer for you to understand.


Yes, I understand them quite well, been designing with them for some 21 years now, which is one of several reasons I find you amusing.


Designing what? Computers or clocks?


Duration exists, it has jack to do with sundials or water clocks or whatnot, and we use it all the time in really practical applications - one is the computer you're in front of, as well as pretty much any digital circuit that runs at any speed.


I never said duration doesn't exist. I do recall giving a very simple explanation of how one may measure duration, which any intelligent person can extrapolate into other systems.


It also varies with gravitational fields and with accelerated frames of reference. That's also true, and demonstrable, although you're no doubt going to paste your little whipping paragraph again, once more without any sort of thought.


I would post it again, but you just keep arguing semantics. If I can't hold a mediocre level of intelligent discussion with you, then there is no reason to repeat myself over and over.


You could not be more incorrect. Well, let me restate that, you are equally as incorrect there as you are in your other statements on the thread.


Ah, ignore the quasar study and vehemently thump your foot down and scream YES IT DOES. Cute.


While I wish I could equally resort to such childish antics, I'll reserve that for some other time.

BTW, have you bothered looking up time does not exist yet? If you can bother yourself for just five minutes you'll find a nice article where the person who deals with GPS's admits it doesn't correct for time dilation. Heh... time dilation, what a silly term!



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex What part of gravitational influence are you having trouble with? How many more times do I have to listen to you stupidly exclaim I haven't given any possible reasons why an atomic clock in orbit would not work the same as one stationary?


Likely as many as you dodge the question on it. Other than to cut and paste the same short paragraph about whipping in and out of gravitational fields.

"It doesn't work the same because it doesn't work the same" is sort of circular, eh?




Ah, ignore the quasar study and vehemently thump your foot down and scream YES IT DOES. Cute.


While I wish I could equally resort to such childish antics, I'll reserve that for some other time.

BTW, have you bothered looking up time does not exist yet? If you can bother yourself for just five minutes you'll find a nice article where the person who deals with GPS's admits it doesn't correct for time dilation. Heh... time dilation, what a silly term!


Alas, it seems that there are tens of thousands of links that agree with me, just on GPS!

I'm pretty sure you're referring to Tom van Flandern, who gets peed on constantly in physics forums. Might as well quote Bearden too, he's about as legitimate.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


LMFAO!!!


When your ready to discuss the points I made, let me know, OK?


Like I said, do that google search, the whole 'time does not exist' is pretty recent research. In fact, they realized there was a problem with the concept of time when they attempted to put quantum gravity and GR together, every time they did, the equations showed time didn't exist. Considering you can't be bothered to do a simple google search given the correct search terms, I'm surprised you haven't learned this yet.

You enjoy your dying physics my simple minded friend. Maybe someday you will mature enough to realize how uneducated you sounded in this thread. Never forget, science changes and the Earth is not the center of the universe.


[edit on 13-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
You enjoy your dying physics my simple minded friend. Maybe someday you will mature enough to realize how uneducated you sounded in this thread. Never forget, science changes and the Earth is not the center of the universe.


We'll see. People like you come and go here, along with the theory of the week.

Considering you weren't even aware of the fact that the GPS constellation compensates for time dilation (three sources of it, in fact), I'm not too worried about your opinion. Hey, let me know when you get around to reading the pile of links I posted, we can work up to muon decay rates after you take the first step.

Well, really, the first step for you is probably going to be getting past high school algebra. No doubt you have a new form of math you won't have to learn in order to use, too.

Go enjoy conservapedia and Tom van Flandern though, you might also stop by Ken Adachi's, it's just as accurate.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


[qupte]We'll see. People like you come and go here, along with the theory of the week.


LMFAO... says the guy who's been here a total of four months.


Your too funny!



Considering you weren't even aware of the fact that the GPS constellation compensates for time dilation (three sources of it, in fact), I'm not too worried about your opinion. Hey, let me know when you get around to reading the pile of links I posted, we can work up to muon decay rates after you take the first step.


Yes, let's ignore the whole Quasar issue and claim "time dilation" still exists.


Better yet, get your lips off Einsteins ass, it's a nearly 100 year old physics model that's being proven wrong with such research.



Go enjoy conservapedia and Tom van Flandern though, you might also stop by Ken Adachi's, it's just as accurate.


Too be honest, I've never heard of any of those. Like I said, quick easy simple google search will enlighten the pants off ya. Or you can continue being an uneducated smart ass hanging onto a dying almost 100 year old *stolen and edited* physics model. Which might I add, what Einstein took out explains everything without rubber sheets and bowling balls.




[EDIT TO ADD]

BTW, if I wanted to do my homework I could come up with sources that "prove" the Earth is flat and the center of the universe based off observational evidences. Wrong sources don't make right facts.


[EDIT TOO ADD MORE]

I think it's absolutely great that you blatantly and purposefully avoided twice now (that's just being conservative BTW) the explanation of why clocks don't measure time. I not only gave you a simple experiment to prove this, but I went so far as to explain it. Yet, you ignore it. Why is that? Is it because you can't stupidly refute the mechanics behind a planetarium either? Is it because your finally getting the point I've been trying to drive into that thick head of yours?

You do more bitching than you do refuting. It's cute, but annoying, like arguing with a three year old about nap time.


[edit on 13-5-2010 by sirnex]




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join