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.
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.
Originally posted by swan001
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.
Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more than glorious theory.
edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
And you expect random anonymous people on ATS to answer that?
Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??
Originally posted by swan001
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
And you expect random anonymous people on ATS to answer that?
Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??
There are physicists on ATS too, you know.
And "theories" are NEVER facts. That's why they are called theories. Want it or not.. some theories, especially quantum, are still open for debate.
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Where did I mention "theories"???
Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
you started out with your OP argumentative and are just continuing it. Why?
Originally posted by swan001
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Where did I mention "theories"???
The OP is about theories, but that's what you replied:
Even with all of the scientific evidence and proof??
So Now I told you that theories are not evidences/proofs.
Originally posted by swan001
I, as the oppostion, say, "quarks don't exist". Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
Let's start the debate!
time will not slow down for a fast-moving body
Originally posted by swan001
I also say, "Einstein's Relativity is inaccurate - time will not slow down for a fast-moving body, as any thought experiment involving a third party, always at equal distance from both the "immobile" and the fast-moving body, would show. " Prove me wrong.
I finally say, "if virtual particles exists even in total vacuum, how come the CERN is never picking them up? " Prove to me quantum model is the right one.
Let's start the debate!
Originally posted by swan001
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
Also you are picking things to debate that have ben tested, double tested, triple, etc.
Have you ever been to light speed? Have you ever seen a quark? The purpose of this thread is to determine what's fact and what's nothing more than glorious theory.
edit on 2-3-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
The Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way galaxy, and it's blueshifted. It's the redshifted galaxies that won't collide with us, which is most galaxies. You're suggesting some kind of "tired light theory" and these have been explored and ruled out for reasons which you can find in searching that term.
Originally posted by swan001
I also say, "redshift from other galaxies is not caused by general rush-away-from-each-other movement, as many galaxies actually move towards one another and even collide. Instead, redshift is caused by photon interaction with space itself". Prove me wrong.