Opposing Mainstream Physics - Swan001 (opposition) vs ATS

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangutang

so how did they test the "big bang" theory? you'd think all the matter/stars/objects would explode outward with unbelievable(like the theory) force and never come together yet galaxies are colliding. and not all scientists agree with the big bang theory.


That's the best part of science. You get one idea that fits all the facts you can observe, so does another, so you get competing groups trying to find facts that support one theory but not the other.

This is different, say, than religion where everything derives from "disclosed truth".



and how did they prove the sun is powered by conversion of hydrogen to helium? did they send a probe into the sun? where does all the "hydrogen" come from?


You can tell what elements are in the Sun. You can tell what elements are in other stars. You can know a lot about atoms and how they fuse, and what they produce when they do, and how that has to work. And hell, we can even do it here on the ground. Have done so many times. Grant you, D-T fusion is a bit different than Bethe cycle fusion, but there's only a few reactions you can have.

Hydrogen was pretty much what you got, first generation in the universe.



what sort of experiment did they perform to come up with the hypothesis (and thats all it is) known as a black hole?


Endless experiments involving gravity. When you understand enough about it, you can understand how the math works. Unfortunately, it's not that accessible to the person who dodged math and physics. When you understand how gravity relates to escape velocity, you'll understand the rudiments of singularities. You can get a pretty good first order approximation using nothing but Newtonian physics.



lastly i did not comprehend your last word and sentence. ie; "somewhat falsifiable". did you mean feasible?



No. Falsifiable. If you don't understand how falsifiability relates to science, you don't understand the scientific method.




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

This is what you call a debate?


the thread was flawed from the beginning with you saying "prove me wrong" several times.

You didn't debate, and you certainly didn't prove me wrong. Do you know anything about physics at all, or are you just trolling around?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
I can agree with this (even though I have no background or knowledge to do such a thing). I don't think time slows down, but rather the burning of energy slows down. The energy burned in the aging process slows down.


Hi there! Glad to see you.

Are you referring to entropy - the augmentation of randomness, and loss of heat in say a bucket of hot water?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by jiggerj
I can agree with this (even though I have no background or knowledge to do such a thing). I don't think time slows down, but rather the burning of energy slows down. The energy burned in the aging process slows down.


Hi there! Glad to see you.

Are you referring to entropy - the augmentation of randomness, and loss of heat in say a bucket of hot water?


If we were on a ship moving near the speed of light, how much longer would it take for the process of iron turning into rust? For bread to bake and then to go stale? Would your bucket of hot water stay hot longer? If there is a difference in the time it takes for these things to occur, it's not because of time slowing down, but of atoms slowing down.

If a couple of astronauts fly into space at the speed of light for 25 earth years, and travel back for 25 earth years, when they arrive and find that everyone has aged fifty years, we imagine the still-very-young astronauts saying, "We traveled through time."

I disagree. These astronauts didn't pop out of existence and then popped back into existence 50 years later. They traveled every inch of the distance away from earth and back again without ever leaving this dimension. It wouldn't be time slowing down that kept them young, because as far as time is concerned they were flying for fifty full years; it's that their atoms stopped aging at the speed of light.

Just my thought on this matter.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
It wouldn't be time slowing down that kept them young, because as far as time is concerned they were flying for fifty full years; it's that their atoms stopped aging at the speed of light.
They have a clock on board that shows they were not flying for 50 years. So how can you say "they were flying for fifty full years"? Their clock says they weren't.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by jiggerj
It wouldn't be time slowing down that kept them young, because as far as time is concerned they were flying for fifty full years; it's that their atoms stopped aging at the speed of light.
They have a clock on board that shows they were not flying for 50 years. So how can you say "they were flying for fifty full years"? Their clock says they weren't.


How do we know that time is affected rather than simply the mechanism of the clock?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by jiggerj
It wouldn't be time slowing down that kept them young, because as far as time is concerned they were flying for fifty full years; it's that their atoms stopped aging at the speed of light.
They have a clock on board that shows they were not flying for 50 years. So how can you say "they were flying for fifty full years"? Their clock says they weren't.


LOL The clock is ON the ship. LOLOL The energy used to run it will also slow down.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Short form:


I, as the oppostion, say, "quarks don't exist". Prove me wrong.


That depends on your definition of "exist."


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.


As has been pointed out, you are simply rephrasing the statement. The redshift is caused by the interaction of photons in spacetime, which is expanding.


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.


This is a bit nonsensical. If the motion is uniform, either of the two reference frames could be taken as being motionless. The third reference frame, while remaining equidistant from the other two reference frames, would be perceived as being in motion from them.


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.


Virtual particles have extremely short lifetimes. CERN picks up the particles that result from these ephemeral interactions.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

This is what you call a debate?


the thread was flawed from the beginning with you saying "prove me wrong" several times.

You didn't debate, and you certainly didn't prove me wrong. Do you know anything about physics at all, or are you just trolling around?


Wrong forums for jokes mate




posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
How do we know that time is affected rather than simply the mechanism of the clock?
It's certainly possible to make a clock that's affected by acceleration forces. You can imagine a grandfather clock where the pendulum gets pegged to one side in acceleration and stops...so you have to design a clock that doesn't have this kind of vulnerability.

Atomic clocks measure time the way we define the units of a second (wiki):


the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
The Hafele–Keating experiment used atomic clocks, and has undergone a lot of scrutiny, and has been verified by subsequent experiments, so the criticisms of this experiment have been shown to be in error:


Because the Hafele-Keating experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods, and have been shown to be in error.
If however someone can find a verifiable flaw in the experiment and subsequent experiments due to the clock mechanisms, then they would still have the problems of other time dilation effects seen in radioactive decay rates to address.

I'd say the door is never closed to new evidence, but with all the evidence that's piled up already it becomes increasingly difficult to explain all the previous experiments differently in addition to assessing the new evidence.

Lastly, in debates on this topic, some people seem to have their own unique concepts about exactly what time is. There is no problem with this outside the physics realm for certainly in the human realm time is very subjective. But in the physics realm, since we measure time in seconds and have defined the second as 9,192,631,770 periods etc, then time really is slowing down in a gravitational field (like that on Earth). In some sense gravity is slowing down the clock mechanism, but in this case, this is the way we define time.

For anybody who can find a better way to measure time, and can prove it, their Nobel prize awaits.


Originally posted by jiggerj
LOL The clock is ON the ship. LOLOL The energy used to run it will also slow down.
The point being? You have two different clocks showing that two different amount of times have passed. Relativity says both clocks are right. Assume both clocks have the same power source which is adequate for at least 60 years of accurate time measurement...I'm not sure what you're getting at there. If power loss were an issue it would be a problem with the faster running clock, since the power source is more likely to become drained after 50 years than after a few years...so that argument doesn't even make any sense because it would make the Earth clock run slower, not the one on the space ship.
edit on 3-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


That's all good information and I'm not disagreeing with any of it.

My contention is with this notion


You have two different clocks showing that two different amount of times have passed. Relativity says both clocks are right.

I see two different clocks that have behaved differently due to their exposure to different conditions.

If you will, assume that I sprint at a constant rate equal to the accuracy of an atomic clock. If I run 100 meters in 27 seconds flat at sea level consistently but can shave nanoseconds off of my already blistering pace by moving to some point in elevation, has time actually been affected? I can't see that being the case.

I'd be curious to see one of those clocks placed on the Moon and observe the effects that result. Do you know if anything like that has happened?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Stopped at "prove me wrong".

In science YOU are required to back up your assertions NOT other people. Provide evidence for your claims or your just another nutter.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
I'd be curious to see one of those clocks placed on the Moon and observe the effects that result. Do you know if anything like that has happened?
I'm not sure what you think that would show that hasn't been seen in other experiments, but no, I'm not aware of a clock on the moon, and back in 1969-1972 the accuracy of clocks was nowhere what it is today, when we can do experiments like this without going to the moon:

www.scientificamerican.com...

in the Hafele–Keating experiment the atomic clocks differed after their journeys by just tens to hundreds of nanoseconds.

Thanks to improved timekeeping, similar demonstrations can now take place at more mundane scales in the laboratory. In a series of experiments described in the September 24 issue of Science, researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colo., registered differences in the passage of time between two high-precision optical atomic clocks when one was elevated by just a third of a meter or when one was set in motion at speeds of less than 10 meters per second.
When we can measure the effects of gravity and velocity this precisely, putting a clock on the moon doesn't seem to offer any benefit, though I have no objection to it if you can find the funding to put one there.

Your question about the moon is sort of like asking if we took a radar unit that can see a one square meter object at a certain distance, and asking if the radar would be able to see an object with a cross sectional area of 1000 square meters at the same distance. We think we can predict the answer without doing the experiment, but if someone wants to do the experiment just to make sure, there is no objection, aside from the funding problem due to lack of scientific benefit.

However, we may get an atomic clock on a future Mars probe:


FARNBOROUGH, England — A possible rover mission to Mars within the next eight years may rely on a larger parachutes, atomic clocks and inflatable decelerators, NASA's Mars exploration chief says.
edit on 3-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Here is the summery of what I have collected over the years, sorry for the tangents but when talking about quantum physics all things are related and or connected.

All newtonian physics laws are not laws but rules that are broken every second on other planets,these LAWS are for stationary objects only and NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS STATIONARY.
Light is not a constant to measure with, If your ruler keeps changing length it cannot accurately measure any thing.
For example; the spokes of the rings of Saturn should break up because many rings are traveling different directions, they don't because the massive moving mass of it is causing TIME SPACE RIPPLES AND ROCKS AND DUST ARE TRAPPED THERE.
Sub atomic particles are breaking away from all atoms and flying off many times the speed of light only to return and rebuild the atom that was disassembled, this happens so many times in a nanosecond they cant measure this frequency .
It is like we are in a large living quantum computer and matter is being generated in FRAMES much like a television screen.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

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.


But theories use facts for support otherwise it would be called an assumption. The speed of light is a fact....

Once a theory becomes a fact it is basically now called a law, but make no mistake, theories are based on factual evidence.

I think the bigger mistake (especially here on ATS) is when people suggest an assumption is a theory other than suggesting a theory is a law/fact.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


no light is not a constant, they have slowed it to 38 miles an hour in the lab.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



I'm not sure what you think that would show that hasn't been seen in other experiments,


I think it would show that the clock would show that the difference is in timekeeping, not time. Over the course of time, it's rate would be affected differently than where it was originally calibrated on Earth.

I don't see these clocks operating on a universal constant. Even on Earth you've shown that they are sensitive to changes in elevation and motion.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
I don't see these clocks operating on a universal constant. Even on Earth you've shown that they are sensitive to changes in elevation and motion.
That's the whole idea behind relativity. Time is not constant, it's relative. Maybe you're getting it? Then again maybe not, I'm not sure.



I think it would show that the clock would show that the difference is in timekeeping, not time.
How can you tell the difference between timekeeping with a cesium atomic clock, and time?
edit on 3-3-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 

Don't you find it interesting that the clocks behave as accurately predicted by relativity?
The variation in time corresponds to the calculated value, else the GPS system would not work.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
A thread trying to prove/disprove physics content with no math.
smh.






top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join