|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2023 18:21:51 GMT
When you say, "It isn't true," yeah, it's your job, cucpake. I’m pretty sure that if this guy had claimed “elves and gremlins did it” and I said he was wrong, you wouldn’t feel the need to be so obtuse and ridiculous. But then again, you are so far gone I wouldn’t be too surprised. All I need to say is that at around the 1:43 mark or so he makes two claims: “That implied outside observers were necessary to collapse the wave function” and “Observers would bring about the physical existence of the fundamental particles that make up reality”. None of the experiment data suggests either conclusion, which is why you don’t see any mainstream physicists saying such things. Anyone who thinks otherwise has the responsibility to show how it does. In fact, the vast majority of experiments aren’t even performed with people around actually participating—the experiments are typically automated and use random number generators to place or remove detectors. Any scientists “observing” the results are doing so hours or days later, looking at reports of compiled data on a computer or print out with no conscious input during the actual experiment. So what kind of silly “burden of proof” games are you going to play next? Me: Of course, if it's true, you realize the implications. The sociopath: It isn't true. The guy doesn't have a clue. Ergo, it's up to the sociopath to prove it isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 21, 2023 18:37:01 GMT
Ergo, it's up to the sociopath to prove it isn't true. I did, but you are so unfathomably stupid you didn't get it. Let me repeat the salient paragraph: In fact, the vast majority of experiments aren’t even performed with people around actually participating—the experiments are typically automated and use random number generators to place or remove detectors. Any scientists “observing” the results are doing so hours or days later, looking at reports of compiled data on a computer or print out with no conscious input during the actual experiment.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2023 18:47:13 GMT
Ergo, it's up to the sociopath to prove it isn't true. I did, but you are so unfathomably stupid you didn't get it. Let me repeat the salient paragraph: In fact, the vast majority of experiments aren’t even performed with people around actually participating—the experiments are typically automated and use random number generators to place or remove detectors. Any scientists “observing” the results are doing so hours or days later, looking at reports of compiled data on a computer or print out with no conscious input during the actual experiment.Interesting. So, what causes the effect then?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 21, 2023 19:05:43 GMT
I did, but you are so unfathomably stupid you didn't get it. Let me repeat the salient paragraph: In fact, the vast majority of experiments aren’t even performed with people around actually participating—the experiments are typically automated and use random number generators to place or remove detectors. Any scientists “observing” the results are doing so hours or days later, looking at reports of compiled data on a computer or print out with no conscious input during the actual experiment.Interesting. So, what causes the effect then? No one knows. The implications are that cause and effect, and time, do not work as we conventionally understood them to work. We may never get an answer. I'm personally betting that we'll never figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 21, 2023 20:21:04 GMT
I'll watch the video later but I'm guessing this is related to the recent proof that particles violate local realism? I've seen some disagreement among physicists over what it means. Best I can tell, he uses the light slit experiment to seemingly show that consciousness plays a significant role in quantum physics and ultimately in how the physical world works. I've watched the video and it is related. The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for experiments showing the universe is not locally real. A Scientific American article on the same. So yeah, it's mind blowing. Apparently, particles do not have predefined properties before being observed. But, IIUC, there isn't such a thing as a "particle" in the sense that if you could shrink to the size of an electron that you could see a piece of tiny matter. An electron is a flowing negative point charge, according to Feynman. Other particles are points in a field that take on properties as needed, if I understand how this works.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 25, 2023 11:29:30 GMT
The most practical and useful thing to understand about "quantum mechanics" is that it picks up where Newtonian physics left off. Newtonian physics described motion and energy as completely as our powers of observation at the time allowed. As we studied subatomic phenomena later it appeared that Newtonian descriptions of point masses did not apply to subatomic "masses" and it even questioned whether we should refer to them as masses. Some "scientists" liked to "blame" Newton for his "obvious failure" and promote themselves, their schools, and their countries by belittling the accomplishments of Newton. Those efforts can make following the actual science difficult for students. Only recently has Wikipedia presented the topics in an easier to follow format. Despite being recognized mostly for his science fiction, Issac Asimov has written on actual physics rather well, in a way easy for students to follow. I for one never assumed Newtonian physics should apply to subatomic phenomena and was never critical of Newton about it. Rather I considered it a failure of his critics to falsely assume his physics should apply to subatomic phenomena. It is called "quantum" mechanics because, for example, electrons can only hold at specific, fixed (quantified) energy levels "above" the nucleus because it is their nature and the nature of the atom. It is not the nature of Newtonian masses. On the different topic of how "consciousness" might influence material, most of us set that aside as the search for the "psi particle" and, fascinating as that search can seem, it has never been productive so far. Another "overblown" criticism of Newton is "relativity." Most actual science of relativity remains beyond the reach of the high school laboratory, and even most college laboratories. The people who have seen "proof" are a rather extremely elite group. There really is no "practical" use of the theory still. Some people think the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system "proves" relativity. Although the GPS satellites are indeed traveling at very high velocities, they are still not anywhere near the velocity of light. The GPS system would work just fine if there were no relativity and the math would be far simpler. Relativity only introduces a bunch of unknowns into the equations (try it yourself), making them impossible to solve without computer technology generating "guesses" that can then be verified by ordinary math. The corrections necessary for "relativity" remain near or below the corrections necessary for variations in the electronic components caused by manufacturing limitations. When the equipment is "calibrated" it can be set to correctly identify the known location of a known receiver and the numbers set to "confirm" relativity. If the corrections necessary for relativity were much greater, the computer guesses would be wrong far more and further off the mark and quite a problem.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 25, 2023 21:01:57 GMT
The most practical and useful thing to understand about "quantum mechanics" is that it picks up where Newtonian physics left off. Newtonian physics described motion and energy as completely as our powers of observation at the time allowed. As we studied subatomic phenomena later it appeared that Newtonian descriptions of point masses did not apply to subatomic "masses" and it even questioned whether we should refer to them as masses. Some "scientists" liked to "blame" Newton for his "obvious failure" and promote themselves, their schools, and their countries by belittling the accomplishments of Newton. Those efforts can make following the actual science difficult for students. Only recently has Wikipedia presented the topics in an easier to follow format. Despite being recognized mostly for his science fiction, Issac Asimov has written on actual physics rather well, in a way easy for students to follow. I for one never assumed Newtonian physics should apply to subatomic phenomena and was never critical of Newton about it. Rather I considered it a failure of his critics to falsely assume his physics should apply to subatomic phenomena. It is called "quantum" mechanics because, for example, electrons can only hold at specific, fixed (quantified) energy levels "above" the nucleus because it is their nature and the nature of the atom. It is not the nature of Newtonian masses. On the different topic of how "consciousness" might influence material, most of us set that aside as the search for the "psi particle" and, fascinating as that search can seem, it has never been productive so far. Another "overblown" criticism of Newton is "relativity." Most actual science of relativity remains beyond the reach of the high school laboratory, and even most college laboratories. The people who have seen "proof" are a rather extremely elite group. There really is no "practical" use of the theory still. Some people think the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system "proves" relativity. Although the GPS satellites are indeed traveling at very high velocities, they are still not anywhere near the velocity of light. The GPS system would work just fine if there were no relativity and the math would be far simpler. Relativity only introduces a bunch of unknowns into the equations (try it yourself), making them impossible to solve without computer technology generating "guesses" that can then be verified by ordinary math. The corrections necessary for "relativity" remain near or below the corrections necessary for variations in the electronic components caused by manufacturing limitations. When the equipment is "calibrated" it can be set to correctly identify the known location of a known receiver and the numbers set to "confirm" relativity. If the corrections necessary for relativity were much greater, the computer guesses would be wrong far more and further off the mark and quite a problem. In my experience, scientists don't blame Newton for being wrong, and in fact don't think of his laws as being wrong, but instead being the correct first approximations for everyday objects at everyday speeds. They have the utmost respect for his contributions to the modern day understanding of physics. As for relativity and satellites, you're missing an important contributor to the need for relativistic compensation for GPS navigation. Besides the orbital velocities of the satellites, there's the effect of time dialation caused by earth's gravitational well. Clocks run slower at sea level than they do at higher altitudes regardless of speed. At GPS orbital distances there is a net orbital time gain of 400 picoseconds per second. This is cumulative, so in one day the time discrepancy is 34 microseconds. Light travels at 300 million meters per second, so this discrepancy would produce a 10 kilometer error in one day. Clearly not acceptable! GPS systems absolutely must make this relativistic correction to be useful. Gravitational time dilation
Global Positioning System History
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 25, 2023 21:53:51 GMT
The most practical and useful thing to understand about "quantum mechanics" is that it picks up where Newtonian physics left off. Newtonian physics described motion and energy as completely as our powers of observation at the time allowed. As we studied subatomic phenomena later it appeared that Newtonian descriptions of point masses did not apply to subatomic "masses" and it even questioned whether we should refer to them as masses. Some "scientists" liked to "blame" Newton for his "obvious failure" and promote themselves, their schools, and their countries by belittling the accomplishments of Newton. Those efforts can make following the actual science difficult for students. Only recently has Wikipedia presented the topics in an easier to follow format. Despite being recognized mostly for his science fiction, Issac Asimov has written on actual physics rather well, in a way easy for students to follow. I for one never assumed Newtonian physics should apply to subatomic phenomena and was never critical of Newton about it. Rather I considered it a failure of his critics to falsely assume his physics should apply to subatomic phenomena. It is called "quantum" mechanics because, for example, electrons can only hold at specific, fixed (quantified) energy levels "above" the nucleus because it is their nature and the nature of the atom. It is not the nature of Newtonian masses. On the different topic of how "consciousness" might influence material, most of us set that aside as the search for the "psi particle" and, fascinating as that search can seem, it has never been productive so far. Another "overblown" criticism of Newton is "relativity." Most actual science of relativity remains beyond the reach of the high school laboratory, and even most college laboratories. The people who have seen "proof" are a rather extremely elite group. There really is no "practical" use of the theory still. Some people think the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system "proves" relativity. Although the GPS satellites are indeed traveling at very high velocities, they are still not anywhere near the velocity of light. The GPS system would work just fine if there were no relativity and the math would be far simpler. Relativity only introduces a bunch of unknowns into the equations (try it yourself), making them impossible to solve without computer technology generating "guesses" that can then be verified by ordinary math. The corrections necessary for "relativity" remain near or below the corrections necessary for variations in the electronic components caused by manufacturing limitations. When the equipment is "calibrated" it can be set to correctly identify the known location of a known receiver and the numbers set to "confirm" relativity. If the corrections necessary for relativity were much greater, the computer guesses would be wrong far more and further off the mark and quite a problem. In my experience, scientists don't blame Newton for being wrong, and in fact don't think of his laws as being wrong, but instead being the correct first approximations for everyday objects at everyday speeds. They have the utmost respect for his contributions to the modern day understanding of physics. As for relativity and satellites, you're missing an important contributor to the need for relativistic compensation for GPS navigation. Besides the orbital velocities of the satellites, there's the effect of time dialation caused by earth's gravitational well. Clocks run slower at sea level than they do at higher altitudes regardless of speed. At GPS orbital distances there is a net orbital time gain of 400 picoseconds per second. This is cumulative, so in one day the time discrepancy is 34 microseconds. Light travels at 300 million meters per second, so this discrepancy would produce a 10 kilometer error in one day. Clearly not acceptable! GPS systems absolutely must make this relativistic correction to be useful. Gravitational time dilation
Global Positioning System History
Perhaps you skipped over the part where I asked you to reduce the number of unknown variables in the equations. Relativity introduces them. There are too many.
Have they finally given up on time dilation caused by velocity? Perhaps that is because someone disproved it. I know I did here About that Clock on the Train .
As for time dilation caused by gravity, that is another thing. Let's go. Okay, let's say that atomic clocks are extremely accurate but get variations when operated at various heights. Is the difference necessarily caused by time "dilation"? No, not necessarily. It could be that the variations in gravity are having effects of all sorts on the operation of the clocks, not necessarily that time itself must be different. So how do we know which is the cause? The simple answer is we do not. That is not a "proof" of time dilation. It only proves that for some reason we cannot know, the clocks function differently.
As for the clocks on the satellites, I doubt they are as accurate as Earthbound atomic clocks, but even if they were, the necessity for constant updates coordinating them with some common time standard would be necessary. The less accurate the clock, the more important the updates. As I already mentioned the differences are too small in comparison to other imperfections to be significant.
We missed an excellent opportunity to not only prove but accurately measure relativity with NASA space flights to the moon. Still the human witnesses onboard are an extremely elite group, but the data could have been historical.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 25, 2023 22:00:40 GMT
Interesting. So, what causes the effect then? No one knows. The implications are that cause and effect, and time, do not work as we conventionally understood them to work. We may never get an answer. I'm personally betting that we'll never figure it out. This is part of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, isn’t it?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 25, 2023 22:14:01 GMT
No one knows. The implications are that cause and effect, and time, do not work as we conventionally understood them to work. We may never get an answer. I'm personally betting that we'll never figure it out. This is part of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, isn’t it? There is a connection, but the video that started the thread was more specifically about the way it manifests itself in the double slit experiments.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 25, 2023 22:26:49 GMT
This is part of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, isn’t it? There is a connection, but the video that started the thread was more specifically about the way it manifests itself in the double slit experiments. There seems to be an impish quality at the nexus of wave-particle duality.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 25, 2023 22:41:31 GMT
In my experience, scientists don't blame Newton for being wrong, and in fact don't think of his laws as being wrong, but instead being the correct first approximations for everyday objects at everyday speeds. They have the utmost respect for his contributions to the modern day understanding of physics. As for relativity and satellites, you're missing an important contributor to the need for relativistic compensation for GPS navigation. Besides the orbital velocities of the satellites, there's the effect of time dialation caused by earth's gravitational well. Clocks run slower at sea level than they do at higher altitudes regardless of speed. At GPS orbital distances there is a net orbital time gain of 400 picoseconds per second. This is cumulative, so in one day the time discrepancy is 34 microseconds. Light travels at 300 million meters per second, so this discrepancy would produce a 10 kilometer error in one day. Clearly not acceptable! GPS systems absolutely must make this relativistic correction to be useful. Gravitational time dilation
Global Positioning System History
Perhaps you skipped over the part where I asked you to reduce the number of unknown variables in the equations. Relativity introduces them. There are too many.
Have they finally given up on time dilation caused by velocity? Perhaps that is because someone disproved it. I know I did here About that Clock on the Train .
As for time dilation caused by gravity, that is another thing. Let's go. Okay, let's say that atomic clocks are extremely accurate but get variations when operated at various heights. Is the difference necessarily caused by time "dilation"? No, not necessarily. It could be that the variations in gravity are having effects of all sorts on the operation of the clocks, not necessarily that time itself must be different. So how do we know which is the cause? The simple answer is we do not. That is not a "proof" of time dilation. It only proves that for some reason we cannot know, the clocks function differently.
As for the clocks on the satellites, I doubt they are as accurate as Earthbound atomic clocks, but even if they were, the necessity for constant updates coordinating them with some common time standard would be necessary. The less accurate the clock, the more important the updates. As I already mentioned the differences are too small in comparison to other imperfections to be significant.
We missed an excellent opportunity to not only prove but accurately measure relativity with NASA space flights to the moon. Still the human witnesses onboard are an extremely elite group, but the data could have been historical.
No one (except for you it seems) has "given up on time dilation caused by velocity". If you actually read the first link I gave above, you will notice that the net time dialation is a combination of gravitational and orbital speed effects. The second link, further below in the article, has this info: No need to lament a missed opportunity with Apollo astronauts, once again in the first link there are multiple experimental confirmations of gravitational time dialation (including one using clocks on airplanes and another in an earthbound lab).
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 25, 2023 22:49:17 GMT
Perhaps you skipped over the part where I asked you to reduce the number of unknown variables in the equations. Relativity introduces them. There are too many.
Have they finally given up on time dilation caused by velocity? Perhaps that is because someone disproved it. I know I did here About that Clock on the Train .
As for time dilation caused by gravity, that is another thing. Let's go. Okay, let's say that atomic clocks are extremely accurate but get variations when operated at various heights. Is the difference necessarily caused by time "dilation"? No, not necessarily. It could be that the variations in gravity are having effects of all sorts on the operation of the clocks, not necessarily that time itself must be different. So how do we know which is the cause? The simple answer is we do not. That is not a "proof" of time dilation. It only proves that for some reason we cannot know, the clocks function differently.
As for the clocks on the satellites, I doubt they are as accurate as Earthbound atomic clocks, but even if they were, the necessity for constant updates coordinating them with some common time standard would be necessary. The less accurate the clock, the more important the updates. As I already mentioned the differences are too small in comparison to other imperfections to be significant.
We missed an excellent opportunity to not only prove but accurately measure relativity with NASA space flights to the moon. Still the human witnesses onboard are an extremely elite group, but the data could have been historical.
No one (except for you it seems) has "given up on time dilation caused by velocity". If you actually read the first link I gave above, you will notice that the net time dialation is a combination of gravitational and orbital speed effects. The second link, further below in the article, has this info: No need to lament a missed opportunity with Apollo astronauts, once again in the first link there are multiple experimental confirmations of gravitational time dialation (including one using clocks on airplanes and another in an earthbound lab).
Not to pick on you, but I have noticed that many people who believe in time dilation are especially mentally impaired and cannot put things in their own words. They only "link" articles that they imagine make sound arguments. It's too bad how many articles out there do not make sound arguments. I hope they are not giving good science a bad name. I hope I don't give good science a bad name. I do however put things in my own words sometimes.
I am not seeing what difference it makes which sorts of corrections are made at once or separately. My arguments stand.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 25, 2023 23:05:36 GMT
No one (except for you it seems) has "given up on time dilation caused by velocity". If you actually read the first link I gave above, you will notice that the net time dialation is a combination of gravitational and orbital speed effects. The second link, further below in the article, has this info: No need to lament a missed opportunity with Apollo astronauts, once again in the first link there are multiple experimental confirmations of gravitational time dialation (including one using clocks on airplanes and another in an earthbound lab).
Not to pick on you, but I have noticed that many people who believe in time dilation are especially mentally impaired and cannot put things in their own words. They only "link" articles that they imagine make sound arguments. It's too bad how many articles out there do not make sound arguments. I hope they are not giving good science a bad name. I hope I don't give good science a bad name. I do however put things in my own words sometimes.
I am not seeing what difference it makes which sorts of corrections are made at once or separately. My arguments stand.
Good science has nothing to worry about concerning you giving it a bad name, as there's no chance that a competent team of scientists would ever let you get close to it. I have justified the "belief" in time dialation according to special and general relativity with references to multiple experiments, which you ignored and instead went for a line insulting me. So be it. Your arguments stand solely in your ignorant mind.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 25, 2023 23:42:59 GMT
A couple posters here are way out of date on physics.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 26, 2023 0:42:23 GMT
Not to pick on you, but I have noticed that many people who believe in time dilation are especially mentally impaired and cannot put things in their own words. They only "link" articles that they imagine make sound arguments. It's too bad how many articles out there do not make sound arguments. I hope they are not giving good science a bad name. I hope I don't give good science a bad name. I do however put things in my own words sometimes.
I am not seeing what difference it makes which sorts of corrections are made at once or separately. My arguments stand.
Good science has nothing to worry about concerning you giving it a bad name, as there's no chance that a competent team of scientists would ever let you get close to it. I have justified the "belief" in time dialation according to special and general relativity with references to multiple experiments, which you ignored and instead went for a line insulting me. So be it. Your arguments stand solely in your ignorant mind.
By the way, did you actually claim that time dilation caused by velocity is still science? I could not believe anyone is that stupid. I thought it must be some typo or hack or some such thing.
Even before I came along many people noticed that velocity is entirely relative. A single object cannot have a velocity. A single object can only have a velocity relative to some other object or its other "frame." If it is a well constructed train the people on it as it moves might not be aware they are moving. They can toss a ball in the air and it will come down to their hand, even though their hand has moved along with the train. (I can explain how that works.) They might remain unaware they are moving until they look out a window. Now how can such "velocity" change how time is experienced? Which object experiences faster time, and which slower time? Each object is motionless from its own point of view or "frame of reference." If there are two objects A and B and from the point of view of object A it is still, and object B is moving east, then from the point of view of object B it is still and object A is moving west. Which one will experience faster time?
Where I went to school it was important that we put things in our own words in order to show the teacher that we understood what we read. Apparently other schools required students to copy word for word what they imagined to be "authority." They then cloak themselves in the authority they imagine the article had. It fails miserably because they cannot put anything in their own words or follow a meaningful conversation.
No, there is no time dilation caused by velocity, you obvious troll. No, there is no proof of time dilation caused by gravity, nor would you ever be able to form a coherent argument that there is.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 26, 2023 0:51:14 GMT
Good science has nothing to worry about concerning you giving it a bad name, as there's no chance that a competent team of scientists would ever let you get close to it. I have justified the "belief" in time dialation according to special and general relativity with references to multiple experiments, which you ignored and instead went for a line insulting me. So be it. Your arguments stand solely in your ignorant mind.
By the way, did you actually claim that time dilation caused by velocity is still science? I could not believe anyone is that stupid. I thought it must be some typo or hack or some such thing.
Even before I came along many people noticed that velocity is entirely relative. A single object cannot have a velocity. A single object can only have a velocity relative to some other object or its other "frame." If it is a well constructed train the people on it as it moves might not be aware they are moving. They can toss a ball in the air and it will come down to their hand, even though their hand has moved along with the train. (I can explain how that works.) They might remain unaware they are moving until they look out a window. Now how can such "velocity" change how time is experienced? Which object experiences faster time, and which slower time? Each object is motionless from its own point of view or "frame of reference." If there are two objects A and B and from the point of view of object A it is still, and object B is moving east, then from the point of view of object B it is still and object A is moving west. Which one will experience faster time?
Where I went to school it was important that we put things in our own words in order to show the teacher that we understood what we read. Apparently other schools required students to copy word for word what they imagined to be "authority." They then cloak themselves in the authority they imagine the article had. It fails miserably because they cannot put anything in their own words or follow a meaningful conversation.
No, there is no time dilation caused by velocity, you obvious troll. No, there is no proof of time dilation caused by gravity, nor would you ever be able to form a coherent argument that there is.
Velocity of GPS satellites relative to GPS devices on earth, you obtuse fool.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 26, 2023 0:55:25 GMT
A couple posters here are way out of date on physics. Yeah, one in particular seems to be completely ignorant of anything that happened post 1850. It wouldn't surprise me if this one denied a connection between electricity, magnetism and light.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 26, 2023 1:04:03 GMT
By the way, did you actually claim that time dilation caused by velocity is still science? I could not believe anyone is that stupid. I thought it must be some typo or hack or some such thing.
Even before I came along many people noticed that velocity is entirely relative. A single object cannot have a velocity. A single object can only have a velocity relative to some other object or its other "frame." If it is a well constructed train the people on it as it moves might not be aware they are moving. They can toss a ball in the air and it will come down to their hand, even though their hand has moved along with the train. (I can explain how that works.) They might remain unaware they are moving until they look out a window. Now how can such "velocity" change how time is experienced? Which object experiences faster time, and which slower time? Each object is motionless from its own point of view or "frame of reference." If there are two objects A and B and from the point of view of object A it is still, and object B is moving east, then from the point of view of object B it is still and object A is moving west. Which one will experience faster time?
Where I went to school it was important that we put things in our own words in order to show the teacher that we understood what we read. Apparently other schools required students to copy word for word what they imagined to be "authority." They then cloak themselves in the authority they imagine the article had. It fails miserably because they cannot put anything in their own words or follow a meaningful conversation.
No, there is no time dilation caused by velocity, you obvious troll. No, there is no proof of time dilation caused by gravity, nor would you ever be able to form a coherent argument that there is.
Velocity of GPS satellites relative to GPS devices on earth, you obtuse fool.
Not only are you oblivious of the arguments here, you are being mean. The mean part doesn't bother me. The misinformation does.
You know they banned people for misinformation? Something about that changed. Now people like you will be the first to be banned if anyone is. I don't believe you will be banned though. It is too obvious how irrelevant your opinions are to require a moderator.
It appears you still cannot understand that velocity is entirely relative and there is no proof of time dilation caused by gravity. Think about it some more or don't. It doesn't matter to me what you think.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 26, 2023 3:52:36 GMT
A couple posters here are way out of date on physics. Yeah, one in particular seems to be completely ignorant of anything that happened post 1850. It wouldn't surprise me if this one denied a connection between electricity, magnetism and light. Wow, I didn't know Sarge was a physicist.
|
|