It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Ir0nM0nkey
Originally posted by thegreatestone
surely time doesnt exist, only now exists, and now, now now and now, u know wot i mean
I agree - I see 'time' like a beam of light travelling through darkness.
What I mean is that 'time' exists only at the tip of the moving light - there is no 'time' before, nor does 'time' exist in front of the 'tip'.
Time is in the instance.
Time does exist
You pointed me to an article in 2007 here is something for you
Atomic clocks are shown to age slower
Though it doesn't prove it without a doubt we are in Einstein's favor there.
General Relativity is still used. They use it because it is a good theory and...www.physorg.com...
Sorry it took some TIME to get those links.
Originally posted by sirnex
Sure, if you subscribe to an archaic, nearly century year old model of the universe that has consistently been *observably* proven false.
Or do you prefer the original conception of time developed by ancient man over six thousand years ago?
What is interesting is that the method of travel calls for something kind of similar to what you describe, a warp in space time, although the phenomena for how the warp is achieved is slightly different. In the example provided in the article, it calls for black holes. Unfortunately such things are physically impossible and violate both GR and SR, but that simple fact is just willy nilly dismissed by most astrophysicist's because black holes are useful to explain angular momentum in galaxies. Not surprisingly, a simpler explanation does indeed exist and is reproducible in the lab using plasma physics that does explain angular momentum in galaxies to a 'T'.
An atomic clock does not measure time at all. Atomic clocks measure the rate of oscillation in the atom being measured. In other words, you count 1+ for every measure. There is not a single device ever invented on this planet that actually measures time.
Good theory by who's standards? Do you equate the necessary requirement to invent unfalsifiable and unobservable thing's as constituting a 'good theory'?
As I mentioned earlier, the expansion hypothesis is based solely upon an assumption, an unproven one at that and one that has been utterly defied by observations of quasars. This assumption in order to be correct must by nature and physical law apply to all things in the universe. Quasars are not observed to have any time dilation and nor do their apparent redshift match their apparent brightness leading to many false calculations as to their true distances. There is no other means of determining an expanding universe other than this assumption of redshift.
Your ignoring that QR/GR being reconciled show that time does not exist at all. Your ignoring that all attempts to measure time at the plank scale show that time does not exist; And perhaps, the worst is that your naively calling a series of events a measure of time.
Do you also think things are hot/cold because they are hot/cold?
Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
reply to post by LightFantastic
Why do I get a feeling that that was the only problem you could find? You said you had found a lot. Just write them all down at once and then I'll answer it as best I can.
Like I said if you can't see the genius in Einstein's theories then it would be of no use to try and refute mine with you.
And consistently proven right.
Time is time whether it be described as a river or arrow.
Now you are telling me that an object can't have an energy density equal to infinity is impossible? But that is in accordance with Einstein's theories oh wait a moment you don't believe those now.
Atomic clocks measure precise increments of duration. They measure how long something lasts. Or how much time it has been since said object was changed in anyway.
I determine how "good" a theory is by how it helps understand the universe and by how logical it is. I also use the research on the theory to help me understand the theory.
Then please tell me why is that redshift there?
Of course if a motion was instantaneous then it would be void of time. Wait that would mean time has to actually exist for an event to occur unless said event was instantaneous.
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
Now your claiming to be a genius on par with Einstein? Man your an arrogant pompous ass.
Try to be gentle with him - he is still a child I believe.
And don't forget that he mentioned he didn't want any Einstein bashing in the OP.
Actually, if you knew anything at all about the two people you name drop in your cute little pdf there, you would know that neither of them believed black holes to be possible and neither of them thought their equations showed such a ridiculous object. Goto google and search this "black holes don't exist", an ATS thread will pop up showing another members research on this along with links to all the relevant papers.
I know, he's a 13 year old who pretends to be friends with John Hutchison. I already called him out on that in U2U and he admitted it was BS. He's an arrogant pompous ass making up thing's as he goes. !3 or 50 doesn't change his attitude towards this subject.
Can you point me to where he says this?
Not gravitational attraction magnetic attraction. These electrons are moving, the nanotubes are arranged in a way in which the electrons are attracted to one another. So they move as a whole layer. The layer itself is repelled by the power of the magnets magnetic fields. The magnets themselves are moved by a pushing process. Causing this layer to be moving at high speeds.
The electrostatic repulsion between electrons is from memory 10^36 greater than the gravitational attraction.
I can give you proof. You are most likely not going to believe it.
Apparently you thought this was a perpetual motion machine.
I knew you would try and shoot it down as soon as you came.
And can you please refrain from name calling.
And we also took some pictures would you like to see those as well?