Time Travel Delusions and Other Junk Science - Page 2

Sledge · 7th November 2010, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

TIME measures MOVEMENT, which is EXPRESSED in terms of SECONDS, MINUTES, HOURS, ETC. What do YOU not understand about this?

I don't understand why you keep saying something that's wrong. I don't understand why you're using the Englishman abroad approach of shouting to make the unintelligible clearer. I don't understand why you think you know better than everyone else.

Perpetual Student · 7th November 2010, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

That is true. And yet, whether crystal fluctuations or anything else, it is STILL a MEASUREMENT of MOVEMENT. The benchmark is the CONSISTENTLY MOVING FLUCTUATION. Without a relatively consistent movement, there can be no understanding of any expression of time.

You're proving my point and arguing with yourself if you think otherwise. Regardless of what you measure "time" against, it will always require a measurement of movement to express "time" (movement of objects) accurately. That's what "time" is and does: measure movement and express it relative to something else.

Come back after you have tried to read the link above.

sol invictus · 7th November 2010, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Yes, they all sound very interesting lively discussions. But can you give me a paper which states ""why does light always appear to move at a constant speed irrespective of direction and this is a major problem"

Because the papers you reference don't seem to be addressing this question at all.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the...niferous_Ether

Read the first two paragraphs. That's from 1887.

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 09:11 PM

Nope. That's my point. "Time" doesn't slow. It MEASURES what slows. The earth may be slowing, and that has nothing to do with time. Time is a standard of measure.

Analogy:

Time and Metric System = systems for measuring something
seconds and centimeters = expressions of the measuring system
movement and length = things being measured FOR
object moving and object's length = things being measured

I do not think the earth slowing has anything more to do with "time" slowing than I would think an article of clothing shrinking in the dryer would have something to do with the "metric system" shrinking. That was the point I made in my post! I suggest you re-read it. You obviously didn't get it if you think I would believe something so ridiculous.

Perpetual Student · 7th November 2010, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

Nope. That's my point. "Time" doesn't slow. It MEASURES what slows. The earth may be slowing, and that has nothing to do with time. Time is a standard of measure.

Analogy:

Time and Metric System = systems for measuring something
seconds and centimeters = expressions of the measuring system
movement and length = things being measured FOR
object moving and object's length = things being measured

I do not think the earth slowing has anything more to do with "time" slowing than I would think an article of clothing shrinking in the dryer would have something to do with the "metric system" shrinking. That was the point I made in my post! I suggest you re-read it. You obviously didn't get it if you think I would believe something so ridiculous.

Read the link.

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 09:13 PM

I was hoping to get some intelligent responses to this post and possibly a guest for my radio show where I discuss such things, but clearly I won't find that here.

drkitten · 7th November 2010, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Yes, they all sound very interesting lively discussions. But can you give me a paper which states ""why does light always appear to move at a constant speed irrespective of direction and this is a major problem"

Because the papers you reference don't seem to be addressing this question at all.

No, they're addressing it. You simply lack the background to understand why a question phrased in terms of "ether drag" is really about the constancy of light speed.

If you need a direct quote, check out Poincare's paper on "The Principles of Mathematical Physics":

Quote:

The most remarkable example of this new mathematical physics is, beyond question, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light.

We know nothing as to what the ether is, how its molecules are disposed, whether they attract or repel each other; but we know that this medium transmits at the same time the optical perturbations and the electrical perturbations; we know that this transmission must take place in conformity with the general principles of mechanics, and that suffices us for the establishment of the equations of the electromagnetic field.

Quote:

Let us pass to the principle of relativity: this not only is confirmed by daily experience, not only is it a necessary consequence of the hypothesis of central forces, but it is irresistibly imposed upon our good sense, and yet it also is assailed. Consider two electrified bodies; though they seem to us at rest, they are both carried along by the motion of the earth; an electric charge in motion, Rowland has taught us, is equivalent to a current; these two charged bodies are, therefore, equivalent to two parallel currents of the same page 306 sense and these two currents should attract each other. In measuring this attraction, we shall measure the velocity of the earth; not its velocity in relation to the sun or the fixed stars, but its absolute velocity.
I well know what will be said: It is not its absolute velocity that is measured, it is its velocity in relation to the ether. How unsatisfactory that is! Is it not evident that from the principle so understood we could no longer infer anything? It could no longer tell us anything just because it would no longer fear any contradiction. If we succeed in measuring anything, we shall always be free to say that this is not the absolute velocity, and if it is not the velocity in relation to the ether, it might always be the velocity in relation to some new unknown fluid with which we might fill space.
Indeed, experiment has taken upon itself to ruin this interpretation of the principle of relativity; all attempts to measure the velocity of the earth in relation to the ether have led to negative results. This time experimental physics has been more faithful to the principle than mathematical physics; the theorists, to put in accord their other general views, would not have spared it; but experiment has been stubborn in confirming it. The means have been varied; finally Michelson pushed precision to its last limits; nothing came of it. It is precisely to explain this obstinacy that the mathematicians are forced to-day to employ all their ingenuity.
Their task was not easy, and if Lorentz has got through it, it is only by accumulating hypotheses.
The most ingenious idea was that of local time. Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their timepieces by optical signals; they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they are careful to cross them. When station B perceives the signal from station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for example, that station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour 0, and that station B perceives it when its clock marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal page 307 to t represents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it, station B sends in its turn a signal when its clock marks; then station A should perceive it when its clock marks t. The timepieces are then adjusted.
And in fact they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on the one condition, that the two stations are fixed. Otherwise the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, whereas the station B flees before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that way will not mark, therefore, the true time; they will mark what may be called the local time, so that one of them will be slow of the other. It matters little, since we have no means of perceiving it. All the phenomena which happen at A, for example, will be late, but all will be equally so, and the observer will not perceive it, since his watch is slow; so, as the principle of relativity requires, he will have no means of knowing whether he is at rest or in absolute motion.
Unhappily, that does not suffice, and complementary hypotheses are necessary; it is necessary to admit that bodies in motion undergo a uniform contraction in the sense of the motion. One of the diameters of the earth, for example, is shrunk by one two-hundred-millionth in consequence of our planet's motion, while the other diameter retains its normal length. Thus the last little differences are compensated. And then, there is still the hypothesis about forces. Forces, whatever be their origin, gravity as well as elasticity, would be reduced in a certain proportion in a world animated by a uniform translation; or, rather, this would happen for the components perpendicular to the translation; the components parallel would not change. Resume, then, our example of two electrified bodies; these bodies repel each other, but at the same time if all is carried along in a uniform translation, they are equivalent to two parallel currents of the same sense which attract each other. This electrodynamic attraction diminishes, therefore, the electrostatic repulsion, and the total repulsion is feebler than if the two bodies were at rest. But since to measure this repulsion we must balance it by another force, and all these other forces are reduced in the same proportion, page 308 we perceive nothing. Thus all seems arranged, but are all the doubts dissipated? What would happen if one could communicate by non-luminous signals whose velocity of propagation differed from that of light? If, after having adjusted the watches by the optical procedure, we wished to verify the adjustment by the aid of these new signals, we should observe discrepancies which would render evident the common translation of the two stations. And are such signals inconceivable, if we admit with Laplace that universal gravitation is transmitted a million times more rapidly than light?
Thus, the principle of relativity has been valiantly defended in these latter times, but the very energy of the defense proves how serious was the attack.

This paper, describing the fundamental importance of the "principle of relativity" and the issue of the velocity of propagation of light, was published in 1904, a year before Einstein issued his theory of relativity.

drkitten · 7th November 2010, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

I was hoping to get some intelligent responses to this post and possibly a guest for my radio show where I discuss such things, but clearly I won't find that here.

You forgot to tell us where your show is, so that we can send a transcript of your blog to the local science faculty....

Perpetual Student · 7th November 2010, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

I was hoping to get some intelligent responses to this post and possibly a guest for my radio show where I discuss such things, but clearly I won't find that here.

The fact that someone as uninformed as you could have a "radio show" is unfortunate for your audience. I will not be listening!

Sledge · 7th November 2010, 09:20 PM

I have to know more about this radio show.

Halfcentaur · 7th November 2010, 09:21 PM

You seem completely ignorant of the topic, and you're making a fool of yourself with the attitude you're presenting. There is a difference between the dimension of time, and the idea of time and the system we use to measure the passing of time.

Try to imagine every moment in the universe happening all at once forever. Time does not do that in the way we [perceive it. You seem to lack the abstract thinking required to imagine time as anything more than a way we me use clocks, but this is your problem, not the scientific community's.

When two identical clocks with super accurate increments are compared after one has been accelerated, there is a clear difference in the rate of the clocks. How do you account for this? How would more or less seconds be created by simply moving a clock fast and in upper orbit? You seem to think time is only the way we measure the passing of time, and you are unable to see time as a force itself.

sol invictus · 7th November 2010, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

Nope. That's my point. "Time" doesn't slow. It MEASURES what slows. The earth may be slowing, and that has nothing to do with time. Time is a standard of measure.

Take two identical clocks. Synchronize them. Now (gently) carry one at the top of a mountain and the other to the bottom of a deep mine. After a while, return them both to the starting point. One will read a larger time than the other.

Same setup, but fly them around the earth in opposite directions. After a while, land the planes at the same airport and compare them. One will read a larger time than the other.

Those experiments have been done. The results are perfectly in accord with Einstein's mathematics. To quote the man himself:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.

Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears.

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 09:22 PM

You are arguing with yourself once again. Regardless of what you measure an object against and express as "time", it is still the MEASURING system that expresses the MOVEMENT of an object RELATIVE to the movement of the STANDARD used to measure it.
In this case, "leap second" becomes the constant unit of measure by which we measure other things that move in order to gain an understanding of the speed of movement. This STILL does not create a "dimension". It merely measures and expresses movement and speed of movement.

Sledge · 7th November 2010, 09:25 PM

Do you honestly think that repeating yourself will win people over, Angie?

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 09:29 PM

"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."

And that is EXACTLY what I said! Without something to measure time (movement) against, TIME has no meaning, because it is merely an EXPRESSION of the speed of movement of something relative to something else! The statement above is saying EXACTLY what I am saying: that TIME doesn't exist outside of an EXPRESSION comparing movement and/or speed of movement to something else!

"Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference."

(As in a dimension with coordinates that could be measured!)

"But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears."

Yep. In other words, if you stop believing that time is a dimension with coordinates, and begin to understand that time is an expression of one set of coordinates as compared to another, you realize that time is indeed, a measuring system that measures everything in comparison to everything else, and that is precisely what I am saying. I couldn't have found a better way of explaining it! Thanks!

Steve001 · 7th November 2010, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

So, you're telling me that an atomic clock is not based on a 24-hour earth day? I'm LOL'ing. How, exactly, do you suppose the clock tells you what "time" it is! What do you imagine that it is based on? Some magical dimension that just happens to have 24 hours in a cycle?

Look here to see the photo of an aluminum ion clock. Notice there are no numbers or hands http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0204204321.htm

Another interesting article
Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity at a Personal Scale
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0923142436.htm

Perpetual Student · 7th November 2010, 09:33 PM

Apparently, AngieMax is an active crackpot. Here are two revealing sources: LINK and LINK For example: "My latest blog post on busting the myths about Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" and how it confuses people."

Sledge · 7th November 2010, 09:39 PM

Oh, it's an internet radio show. That makes sense.

sol invictus · 7th November 2010, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

First, you should know that many scientists question the validity of Einstein's theory.

Nonsense.

Quote:

It is, after all, a theory, and while certain aspects of it may turn out to be true, we do not currently have a way to test it with any degree of accuracy.

Nonsense. The predictions of relativistic quantum field theory are the best-tested predictions in the history of humanity.

Quote:

Articles published in serious scientific journals discussing the experiments done on "clocks" (which are designed to measure and keep pace with the earth as it rotates on its axis in a 24-hour period)

Nonsense, as you've now admitted.

Quote:

a clock is nothing more than a man-made machine designed to MEASURE the movement of the earth.

Silly nonsense, as you've now admitted.

Quote:

Notice in both ridiculous statements, the assumption is made that because time APPEARS to move slower (only because watches move slower at higher elevations, which is an equipment malfunction and has nothing to do with time itself)

Amazing how those "equipment malfunctions" always seem to happen in just exactly the right amounts and in just exactly the right direction to agree with Einstein, isn't it? Remarkable how the GPS system "malfunctions" perfectly so as to correct for the errors of the misguided engineers that designed it taking time dilation into account, how clocks know whether to malfunction and run faster or slower depending on whether the plane their in is flying east or west, etc.

Enough - I'm done.

Halfcentaur · 7th November 2010, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

You are arguing with yourself once again. Regardless of what you measure an object against and express as "time", it is still the MEASURING system that expresses the MOVEMENT of an object RELATIVE to the movement of the STANDARD used to measure it.
In this case, "leap second" becomes the constant unit of measure by which we measure other things that move in order to gain an understanding of the speed of movement. This STILL does not create a "dimension". It merely measures and expresses movement and speed of movement.

Angie, why doesn't everything happen at once instead of happening linearly?
What happens when the moment we experience becomes the past and the moment we look forward to becomes the present?

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 09:44 PM

Please back up your claim that "time" is a force. The word "time" is already taken. If you are claiming there is a "force" in the universe that speeds up and slows down all movement (time) for everything, that's an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary proof, and requires a word that is not already in existence with a different definition.

Bad syntax is how it all boils down. Such a force may exist, but it isn't "time". That's the problem with people who use language and words to interchangeably mean whatever they wish to assign to it, rather than the actual, literal definition.

Most people, when using the word "time", are referring to the constant and simultaneous movement of all matter, and seem to think it is like a river that "flows". This comes from the brain's ability to record memories and remember things that have already occurred (past) and project things that may occur (future) while experiencing things occurring currently (present). There is a continuum of movement (time) but it is made up only of the movements of matter through the three dimensions of space. There is clearly a force causing this movement, (ether), but the force and the movement are two different things, as are the measurement of the movement and its speed. It is important to separate them all for the sake of clarity, otherwise, people begin believing things that simply aren't true. They combine all of the concepts together into a belief system that makes no room for understanding each element of the movement, speed, velocity, space, distance, longevity, etc.

It annoys people to do that, because it makes the mathematical aspects much more complicated, but that is the only way to understand physics with any degree of accuracy.

To those who can't be bothered with accuracy, it's fine to call time a dimension if that's your preference, but it isn't accurate according to the parts of Einstein's theory of relativity that are not in conflict with one another.

Halfcentaur · 7th November 2010, 09:46 PM

So you're making a giant semantic argument. This is English, we have synonyms.

Sledge · 7th November 2010, 09:46 PM

Please learn to use the quote function, Angie. It would be nice to know who "you" is when you're busy being wrong.

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 09:47 PM

Actually, linear timelines may very well be an illusion experienced by the human brain. Ever heard of theory of nonlocality?

Perpetual Student · 7th November 2010, 09:57 PM

You are all wasting your time with this AngieMax. Look at the link I provided. AngieMax is a hardcore crackpot!

LINK

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 09:59 PM

It sounds like many of you believe in "time travel", based on the fact that you imagine time to be a "dimension" one can "travel through". Simply put, traveling back in time (which even Dr. Michio Kaku acknowledges is not possible according to the math) would require every sub-atomic particle in the universe to revert back to its previous location at whatever "point" in the "timeline" at which one wishes to return. That is highly unlikely regardless of whether one climbs into a spaceship and manages to travel faster than the speed of light, or fly around the earth backwards ala "Superman", or get into a particle accelerator machine and push some buttons... thinking outside of the numbers using logic instead of trying to prove schoolboy fantasies with misunderstood scientific concepts could prevent so much wasted effort, as well as funding, which would be better used toward development of usable technologies.

Sledge · 7th November 2010, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

It sounds like many of you believe in "time travel", based on the fact that you imagine time to be a "dimension" one can "travel through".

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 10:03 PM

So, the exact same post on my blog that I posted here proves I am a crackpot? I really have no use for childish name-calling. Personal attacks do nothing to advance intelligent discussion. The fact that such behavior is tolerated here leads me to believe this is an elitist "club" here at JREF more than a place for open discussion among intelligent adults.

Slimething · 7th November 2010, 10:04 PM

Let me get this straight:
1. Time does not exist per se? It is merely an artifactual because we have clocks that say that a change occurred in so many seconds?
2. Time does not exist without movement? So, in a given closed system, if something does not move relative to something else, time does not exist? (How do you know it hasn't moved if time does not exist would be a more valid question.)

I'm not skilled in General Relativity but I've done the math for Special Relativity. The theory is jaw-droppinbly brilliant and, as all scientific theories, is supported by all relevant findings to date. In that theory, time is a variable and its dilation and contraction in certain systems can be calculated with great precision. Moreover, these calculations have proven accurate in observed systems, even those as "slow" and nearby as man-made satellites. This could not be done if time did not exist but was, as you incorrectly put it, only there because a clock says it is.

Look up Special Relativity, do the math and then tell us what is wrong. Name the scientists that you refer to in the OP who doubt the theories of relativity.

Your belief that time does not exist is tragically wrong. I cannot achieve absolute zero by unplugging a clock.

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 10:05 PM

Love the cartoon - it is a great way of expressing what I try to remind people who misunderstand the word "time" on a regular basis. "Time travel" in the minds of people who fantasize about going back in time is literally what you are doing at every moment, even while sitting still, since the earth is rotating on its axis whether YOU are moving or not. Again, the key is MOVEMENT. Not some "dimension". We move through the three dimensions constantly and simultaneously with everything else. Time merely expresses the speed and distance with which we move. That is how a measuring system works, not a dimension.

psionl0 · 7th November 2010, 10:05 PM

No matter how time is perceived, AngieMax has demonstrated that time is something that can be WASTED.

Sledge · 7th November 2010, 10:06 PM

For the love of Sagan, please use the quote function, Angie. You appear to be ranting at me for calling you a crackpot. This is clearly not the case, so please use the quote function if you're not responding to the post immediately before yours.

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 10:08 PM

I never said time doesn't exist. I said time is a measuring system and not a dimension with coordinates, but what MEASURES a dimension with coordinates. HUGE difference.

A clock measures movement and speed of movement. A clock is not time, and a clock neither creates nor causes anything. It merely represents movement. Period.

Misquoting me tells me that you are not reading or understanding the basic scientific concepts that Einstein proposed, which I happen to agree with, at least with the aspects that do not contradict one another.

Aepervius · 7th November 2010, 10:08 PM

The problem is that your take on relativity is wrong, and you seem to think in absolute reference. And from there it go does the drain.

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

No matter how time is perceived, AngieMax has demonstrated that time is something that can be WASTED.

You are correct. Clearly, it was a waste of time to attempt an intelligent discussion here. Mostly what I see is name-calling, bullying, insults, and otherwise childish behavior. How very disappointing and not at all what I expected from an organization for which I have been so fond of for many years.

As a SkepChic, I should have had more sense than to attempt to argue with those who display such childish behavior. Alas, I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be as many of you here do. My bad for possessing the optimism and lack of cynicism required in order to hope for mature behavior from this community.

Sledge · 7th November 2010, 10:13 PM

What dimension does time measure, Angie?

Aepervius · 7th November 2010, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

I never said time doesn't exist. I said time is a measuring system and not a dimension with coordinates, but what MEASURES a dimension with coordinates. HUGE difference.

Is measuring weight measuring movement ? Because I certainly can measure time with measuring a weight. Not very precisely, but yes I can. Hint : it involve innordinate quantity of short lived isotope, and weight.

Frankly you make the same classical error orf thinking that time is an artifact of human, as opposed to a true dimension like space.

*shrug*. I am out of this thread. I would rather waste my time killing some orcs or blood elf in WOW.

Halfcentaur · 7th November 2010, 10:14 PM

Angie, I've seen many people patiently trying to explain to you that you are under some misconceptions. You're basically trapped in an argument over semantics. Nobody here has even attempted to argue that time travel to the past is possible. To imply otherwise seems like a straw man argument to me. You seem to think you've made some kind of "ah-ha" realization, but you haven't. Time is the passage of time, and it turns out this can function as a force in the way we describe the universe. The issue you have with what word we are using is a problem that only exists in your mind.

Nobody claimed to be perfect either, another straw man tactic. Calm down and consider your opposition's points, you seem to have expected a lot of people would agree with you, or you were looking for an argument. It was only after you ignored the points being made to you and began repeating your premise that you began to receive the treatment you're complaining about.

Perpetual Student · 7th November 2010, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by AngieMax

So, the exact same post on my blog that I posted here proves I am a crackpot? I really have no use for childish name-calling. Personal attacks do nothing to advance intelligent discussion. The fact that such behavior is tolerated here leads me to believe this is an elitist "club" here at JREF more than a place for open discussion among intelligent adults.

Your ignorance of relativity and its implications regarding time dilation is not in itself a cause for ridicule. However, your refusal to try to learn and your lack of respect those who have spent decades studying this subject rules you out as being capable of intelligent discussion. Most condemning is your strident insistence that you are correct while maintaining your ignorance -- which makes you a crackpot! Congratulations, you have just joined all the other crackpots on my "ignore" list!

AngieMax · 7th November 2010, 10:24 PM

Funny, I have worked in think tanks for almost two decades, thinking is what I do for a living, and sharing that information via internet radio (AND FM radio as I worked in broadcasting 21 years ago) is what I enjoy most about it. I have not ignored anyone's arguments. I have responded to them as much as time allows, but I am not responding to those arguments that are irrelevant to the topic I presented. Some of the comments made even shored up my argument, because so many people are mentally lazy and do not realize the meaning behind what they are saying!

Mindlessly memorizing and reciting bits of science articles without understanding the SEMANTICS does NOT advance science. Putting someone down for attempting to bring clarity to an issue by being ACCURATE (something we scientists and research analysts/think tankers value in the EXTREME) shows a complete disrespect for science.

I don't see any "patiently trying to explain" anything to me. All I see are hostile statements and condescending claims that do not address the point I posted. I was not looking for anyone to "agree" with me or "argue" either way. I was looking for someone who had an appreciation for clarity in language and communication and who could appreciate the important role they play in science.

I can't begin to tell you how many hours we wasted in think tanks because a brilliant physicist couldn't express himself well and constantly used one word to mean several different things.

Thanks anyway. I've learned a lot - though it's more about the people on this forum than about physics.

7th November 2010, 09:09 PM	#41
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by AngieMax TIME measures MOVEMENT, which is EXPRESSED in terms of SECONDS, MINUTES, HOURS, ETC. What do YOU not understand about this? I don't understand why you keep saying something that's wrong. I don't understand why you're using the Englishman abroad approach of shouting to make the unintelligible clearer. I don't understand why you think you know better than everyone else.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th November 2010, 09:10 PM	#42
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by AngieMax That is true. And yet, whether crystal fluctuations or anything else, it is STILL a MEASUREMENT of MOVEMENT. The benchmark is the CONSISTENTLY MOVING FLUCTUATION. Without a relatively consistent movement, there can be no understanding of any expression of time. You're proving my point and arguing with yourself if you think otherwise. Regardless of what you measure "time" against, it will always require a measurement of movement to express "time" (movement of objects) accurately. That's what "time" is and does: measure movement and express it relative to something else. Come back after you have tried to read the link above.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

7th November 2010, 09:12 PM	#45
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by AngieMax Nope. That's my point. "Time" doesn't slow. It MEASURES what slows. The earth may be slowing, and that has nothing to do with time. Time is a standard of measure. Analogy: Time and Metric System = systems for measuring something seconds and centimeters = expressions of the measuring system movement and length = things being measured FOR object moving and object's length = things being measured I do not think the earth slowing has anything more to do with "time" slowing than I would think an article of clothing shrinking in the dryer would have something to do with the "metric system" shrinking. That was the point I made in my post! I suggest you re-read it. You obviously didn't get it if you think I would believe something so ridiculous. Read the link.
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

7th November 2010, 09:19 PM	#49
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by AngieMax I was hoping to get some intelligent responses to this post and possibly a guest for my radio show where I discuss such things, but clearly I won't find that here. The fact that someone as uninformed as you could have a "radio show" is unfortunate for your audience. I will not be listening!
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ

7th November 2010, 09:20 PM	#50
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	I have to know more about this radio show.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th November 2010, 09:11 PM	#43
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by little grey rabbit Yes, they all sound very interesting lively discussions. But can you give me a paper which states ""why does light always appear to move at a constant speed irrespective of direction and this is a major problem" Because the papers you reference don't seem to be addressing this question at all. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the...niferous_Ether Read the first two paragraphs. That's from 1887.

7th November 2010, 09:11 PM	#44
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	Nope. That's my point. "Time" doesn't slow. It MEASURES what slows. The earth may be slowing, and that has nothing to do with time. Time is a standard of measure. Analogy: Time and Metric System = systems for measuring something seconds and centimeters = expressions of the measuring system movement and length = things being measured FOR object moving and object's length = things being measured I do not think the earth slowing has anything more to do with "time" slowing than I would think an article of clothing shrinking in the dryer would have something to do with the "metric system" shrinking. That was the point I made in my post! I suggest you re-read it. You obviously didn't get it if you think I would believe something so ridiculous.

7th November 2010, 09:13 PM	#46
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	I was hoping to get some intelligent responses to this post and possibly a guest for my radio show where I discuss such things, but clearly I won't find that here.

7th November 2010, 09:15 PM	#47
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by little grey rabbit Yes, they all sound very interesting lively discussions. But can you give me a paper which states ""why does light always appear to move at a constant speed irrespective of direction and this is a major problem" Because the papers you reference don't seem to be addressing this question at all. No, they're addressing it. You simply lack the background to understand why a question phrased in terms of "ether drag" is really about the constancy of light speed. If you need a direct quote, check out Poincare's paper on "The Principles of Mathematical Physics": Quote: The most remarkable example of this new mathematical physics is, beyond question, Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light. We know nothing as to what the ether is, how its molecules are disposed, whether they attract or repel each other; but we know that this medium transmits at the same time the optical perturbations and the electrical perturbations; we know that this transmission must take place in conformity with the general principles of mechanics, and that suffices us for the establishment of the equations of the electromagnetic field. Quote: Let us pass to the principle of relativity: this not only is confirmed by daily experience, not only is it a necessary consequence of the hypothesis of central forces, but it is irresistibly imposed upon our good sense, and yet it also is assailed. Consider two electrified bodies; though they seem to us at rest, they are both carried along by the motion of the earth; an electric charge in motion, Rowland has taught us, is equivalent to a current; these two charged bodies are, therefore, equivalent to two parallel currents of the same page 306 sense and these two currents should attract each other. In measuring this attraction, we shall measure the velocity of the earth; not its velocity in relation to the sun or the fixed stars, but its absolute velocity. I well know what will be said: It is not its absolute velocity that is measured, it is its velocity in relation to the ether. How unsatisfactory that is! Is it not evident that from the principle so understood we could no longer infer anything? It could no longer tell us anything just because it would no longer fear any contradiction. If we succeed in measuring anything, we shall always be free to say that this is not the absolute velocity, and if it is not the velocity in relation to the ether, it might always be the velocity in relation to some new unknown fluid with which we might fill space. Indeed, experiment has taken upon itself to ruin this interpretation of the principle of relativity; all attempts to measure the velocity of the earth in relation to the ether have led to negative results. This time experimental physics has been more faithful to the principle than mathematical physics; the theorists, to put in accord their other general views, would not have spared it; but experiment has been stubborn in confirming it. The means have been varied; finally Michelson pushed precision to its last limits; nothing came of it. It is precisely to explain this obstinacy that the mathematicians are forced to-day to employ all their ingenuity. Their task was not easy, and if Lorentz has got through it, it is only by accumulating hypotheses. The most ingenious idea was that of local time. Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their timepieces by optical signals; they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they are careful to cross them. When station B perceives the signal from station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for example, that station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour 0, and that station B perceives it when its clock marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal page 307 to t represents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it, station B sends in its turn a signal when its clock marks; then station A should perceive it when its clock marks t. The timepieces are then adjusted. And in fact they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on the one condition, that the two stations are fixed. Otherwise the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, whereas the station B flees before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that way will not mark, therefore, the true time; they will mark what may be called the local time, so that one of them will be slow of the other. It matters little, since we have no means of perceiving it. All the phenomena which happen at A, for example, will be late, but all will be equally so, and the observer will not perceive it, since his watch is slow; so, as the principle of relativity requires, he will have no means of knowing whether he is at rest or in absolute motion. Unhappily, that does not suffice, and complementary hypotheses are necessary; it is necessary to admit that bodies in motion undergo a uniform contraction in the sense of the motion. One of the diameters of the earth, for example, is shrunk by one two-hundred-millionth in consequence of our planet's motion, while the other diameter retains its normal length. Thus the last little differences are compensated. And then, there is still the hypothesis about forces. Forces, whatever be their origin, gravity as well as elasticity, would be reduced in a certain proportion in a world animated by a uniform translation; or, rather, this would happen for the components perpendicular to the translation; the components parallel would not change. Resume, then, our example of two electrified bodies; these bodies repel each other, but at the same time if all is carried along in a uniform translation, they are equivalent to two parallel currents of the same sense which attract each other. This electrodynamic attraction diminishes, therefore, the electrostatic repulsion, and the total repulsion is feebler than if the two bodies were at rest. But since to measure this repulsion we must balance it by another force, and all these other forces are reduced in the same proportion, page 308 we perceive nothing. Thus all seems arranged, but are all the doubts dissipated? What would happen if one could communicate by non-luminous signals whose velocity of propagation differed from that of light? If, after having adjusted the watches by the optical procedure, we wished to verify the adjustment by the aid of these new signals, we should observe discrepancies which would render evident the common translation of the two stations. And are such signals inconceivable, if we admit with Laplace that universal gravitation is transmitted a million times more rapidly than light? Thus, the principle of relativity has been valiantly defended in these latter times, but the very energy of the defense proves how serious was the attack. This paper, describing the fundamental importance of the "principle of relativity" and the issue of the velocity of propagation of light, was published in 1904, a year before Einstein issued his theory of relativity.

7th November 2010, 09:21 PM	#51
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	You seem completely ignorant of the topic, and you're making a fool of yourself with the attitude you're presenting. There is a difference between the dimension of time, and the idea of time and the system we use to measure the passing of time. Try to imagine every moment in the universe happening all at once forever. Time does not do that in the way we [perceive it. You seem to lack the abstract thinking required to imagine time as anything more than a way we me use clocks, but this is your problem, not the scientific community's. When two identical clocks with super accurate increments are compared after one has been accelerated, there is a clear difference in the rate of the clocks. How do you account for this? How would more or less seconds be created by simply moving a clock fast and in upper orbit? You seem to think time is only the way we measure the passing of time, and you are unable to see time as a force itself.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	Last edited by Halfcentaur; 7th November 2010 at 09:22 PM.

7th November 2010, 09:22 PM	#52
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by AngieMax Nope. That's my point. "Time" doesn't slow. It MEASURES what slows. The earth may be slowing, and that has nothing to do with time. Time is a standard of measure. Take two identical clocks. Synchronize them. Now (gently) carry one at the top of a mountain and the other to the bottom of a deep mine. After a while, return them both to the starting point. One will read a larger time than the other. Same setup, but fly them around the earth in opposite directions. After a while, land the planes at the same airport and compare them. One will read a larger time than the other. Those experiments have been done. The results are perfectly in accord with Einstein's mathematics. To quote the man himself: Originally Posted by Albert Einstein Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears.
	Last edited by sol invictus; 7th November 2010 at 09:23 PM.

7th November 2010, 09:25 PM	#54
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Do you honestly think that repeating yourself will win people over, Angie?
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th November 2010, 09:29 PM	#55
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event." And that is EXACTLY what I said! Without something to measure time (movement) against, TIME has no meaning, because it is merely an EXPRESSION of the speed of movement of something relative to something else! The statement above is saying EXACTLY what I am saying: that TIME doesn't exist outside of an EXPRESSION comparing movement and/or speed of movement to something else! "Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference." (As in a dimension with coordinates that could be measured!) "But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section VII) disappears." Yep. In other words, if you stop believing that time is a dimension with coordinates, and begin to understand that time is an expression of one set of coordinates as compared to another, you realize that time is indeed, a measuring system that measures everything in comparison to everything else, and that is precisely what I am saying. I couldn't have found a better way of explaining it! Thanks!

7th November 2010, 09:30 PM	#56
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533	Originally Posted by AngieMax So, you're telling me that an atomic clock is not based on a 24-hour earth day? I'm LOL'ing. How, exactly, do you suppose the clock tells you what "time" it is! What do you imagine that it is based on? Some magical dimension that just happens to have 24 hours in a cycle? Look here to see the photo of an aluminum ion clock. Notice there are no numbers or hands http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0204204321.htm Another interesting article Pair of Aluminum Atomic Clocks Reveal Einstein's Relativity at a Personal Scale http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0923142436.htm
Steve001 Muse Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 533	Last edited by Steve001; 7th November 2010 at 09:42 PM.

7th November 2010, 09:33 PM	#57
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Apparently, AngieMax is an active crackpot. Here are two revealing sources: LINK and LINK For example: "My latest blog post on busting the myths about Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" and how it confuses people."
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 7th November 2010 at 09:38 PM.

7th November 2010, 09:39 PM	#58
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Oh, it's an internet radio show. That makes sense.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th November 2010, 09:39 PM	#59
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Nova Roma Posts: 8,419	Originally Posted by AngieMax First, you should know that many scientists question the validity of Einstein's theory. Nonsense. Quote: It is, after all, a theory, and while certain aspects of it may turn out to be true, we do not currently have a way to test it with any degree of accuracy. Nonsense. The predictions of relativistic quantum field theory are the best-tested predictions in the history of humanity. Quote: Articles published in serious scientific journals discussing the experiments done on "clocks" (which are designed to measure and keep pace with the earth as it rotates on its axis in a 24-hour period) Nonsense, as you've now admitted. Quote: a clock is nothing more than a man-made machine designed to MEASURE the movement of the earth. Silly nonsense, as you've now admitted. Quote: Notice in both ridiculous statements, the assumption is made that because time APPEARS to move slower (only because watches move slower at higher elevations, which is an equipment malfunction and has nothing to do with time itself) Amazing how those "equipment malfunctions" always seem to happen in just exactly the right amounts and in just exactly the right direction to agree with Einstein, isn't it? Remarkable how the GPS system "malfunctions" perfectly so as to correct for the errors of the misguided engineers that designed it taking time dilation into account, how clocks know whether to malfunction and run faster or slower depending on whether the plane their in is flying east or west, etc. Enough - I'm done.

7th November 2010, 09:41 PM	#60
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	Originally Posted by AngieMax You are arguing with yourself once again. Regardless of what you measure an object against and express as "time", it is still the MEASURING system that expresses the MOVEMENT of an object RELATIVE to the movement of the STANDARD used to measure it. In this case, "leap second" becomes the constant unit of measure by which we measure other things that move in order to gain an understanding of the speed of movement. This STILL does not create a "dimension". It merely measures and expresses movement and speed of movement. Angie, why doesn't everything happen at once instead of happening linearly? What happens when the moment we experience becomes the past and the moment we look forward to becomes the present?
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965

7th November 2010, 09:44 PM	#61
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	Please back up your claim that "time" is a force. The word "time" is already taken. If you are claiming there is a "force" in the universe that speeds up and slows down all movement (time) for everything, that's an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary proof, and requires a word that is not already in existence with a different definition. Bad syntax is how it all boils down. Such a force may exist, but it isn't "time". That's the problem with people who use language and words to interchangeably mean whatever they wish to assign to it, rather than the actual, literal definition. Most people, when using the word "time", are referring to the constant and simultaneous movement of all matter, and seem to think it is like a river that "flows". This comes from the brain's ability to record memories and remember things that have already occurred (past) and project things that may occur (future) while experiencing things occurring currently (present). There is a continuum of movement (time) but it is made up only of the movements of matter through the three dimensions of space. There is clearly a force causing this movement, (ether), but the force and the movement are two different things, as are the measurement of the movement and its speed. It is important to separate them all for the sake of clarity, otherwise, people begin believing things that simply aren't true. They combine all of the concepts together into a belief system that makes no room for understanding each element of the movement, speed, velocity, space, distance, longevity, etc. It annoys people to do that, because it makes the mathematical aspects much more complicated, but that is the only way to understand physics with any degree of accuracy. To those who can't be bothered with accuracy, it's fine to call time a dimension if that's your preference, but it isn't accurate according to the parts of Einstein's theory of relativity that are not in conflict with one another.

7th November 2010, 09:46 PM	#62
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	So you're making a giant semantic argument. This is English, we have synonyms.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965

7th November 2010, 09:47 PM	#64
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	Actually, linear timelines may very well be an illusion experienced by the human brain. Ever heard of theory of nonlocality?

7th November 2010, 09:57 PM	#65
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	You are all wasting your time with this AngieMax. Look at the link I provided. AngieMax is a hardcore crackpot! LINK
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 7th November 2010 at 09:58 PM.

7th November 2010, 09:59 PM	#66
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	It sounds like many of you believe in "time travel", based on the fact that you imagine time to be a "dimension" one can "travel through". Simply put, traveling back in time (which even Dr. Michio Kaku acknowledges is not possible according to the math) would require every sub-atomic particle in the universe to revert back to its previous location at whatever "point" in the "timeline" at which one wishes to return. That is highly unlikely regardless of whether one climbs into a spaceship and manages to travel faster than the speed of light, or fly around the earth backwards ala "Superman", or get into a particle accelerator machine and push some buttons... thinking outside of the numbers using logic instead of trying to prove schoolboy fantasies with misunderstood scientific concepts could prevent so much wasted effort, as well as funding, which would be better used toward development of usable technologies.

7th November 2010, 10:01 PM	#67
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Originally Posted by AngieMax It sounds like many of you believe in "time travel", based on the fact that you imagine time to be a "dimension" one can "travel through".
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th November 2010, 10:03 PM	#68
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	So, the exact same post on my blog that I posted here proves I am a crackpot? I really have no use for childish name-calling. Personal attacks do nothing to advance intelligent discussion. The fact that such behavior is tolerated here leads me to believe this is an elitist "club" here at JREF more than a place for open discussion among intelligent adults.

7th November 2010, 10:04 PM	#69
Slimething Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Arizona USA Posts: 3,727	Let me get this straight: 1. Time does not exist per se? It is merely an artifactual because we have clocks that say that a change occurred in so many seconds? 2. Time does not exist without movement? So, in a given closed system, if something does not move relative to something else, time does not exist? (How do you know it hasn't moved if time does not exist would be a more valid question.) I'm not skilled in General Relativity but I've done the math for Special Relativity. The theory is jaw-droppinbly brilliant and, as all scientific theories, is supported by all relevant findings to date. In that theory, time is a variable and its dilation and contraction in certain systems can be calculated with great precision. Moreover, these calculations have proven accurate in observed systems, even those as "slow" and nearby as man-made satellites. This could not be done if time did not exist but was, as you incorrectly put it, only there because a clock says it is. Look up Special Relativity, do the math and then tell us what is wrong. Name the scientists that you refer to in the OP who doubt the theories of relativity. Your belief that time does not exist is tragically wrong. I cannot achieve absolute zero by unplugging a clock.

7th November 2010, 10:05 PM	#70
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	Love the cartoon - it is a great way of expressing what I try to remind people who misunderstand the word "time" on a regular basis. "Time travel" in the minds of people who fantasize about going back in time is literally what you are doing at every moment, even while sitting still, since the earth is rotating on its axis whether YOU are moving or not. Again, the key is MOVEMENT. Not some "dimension". We move through the three dimensions constantly and simultaneously with everything else. Time merely expresses the speed and distance with which we move. That is how a measuring system works, not a dimension.

7th November 2010, 10:05 PM	#71
psionl0 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°58'S 115°57'E Posts: 4,788	No matter how time is perceived, AngieMax has demonstrated that time is something that can be WASTED.

7th November 2010, 10:06 PM	#72
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	For the love of Sagan, please use the quote function, Angie. You appear to be ranting at me for calling you a crackpot. This is clearly not the case, so please use the quote function if you're not responding to the post immediately before yours.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th November 2010, 10:08 PM	#73
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	I never said time doesn't exist. I said time is a measuring system and not a dimension with coordinates, but what MEASURES a dimension with coordinates. HUGE difference. A clock measures movement and speed of movement. A clock is not time, and a clock neither creates nor causes anything. It merely represents movement. Period. Misquoting me tells me that you are not reading or understanding the basic scientific concepts that Einstein proposed, which I happen to agree with, at least with the aspects that do not contradict one another.

7th November 2010, 10:08 PM	#74
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,761	The problem is that your take on relativity is wrong, and you seem to think in absolute reference. And from there it go does the drain.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

7th November 2010, 10:11 PM	#75
AngieMax Scholar Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: United States Posts: 53	You're right about that! Originally Posted by psionl0 No matter how time is perceived, AngieMax has demonstrated that time is something that can be WASTED. You are correct. Clearly, it was a waste of time to attempt an intelligent discussion here. Mostly what I see is name-calling, bullying, insults, and otherwise childish behavior. How very disappointing and not at all what I expected from an organization for which I have been so fond of for many years. As a SkepChic, I should have had more sense than to attempt to argue with those who display such childish behavior. Alas, I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be as many of you here do. My bad for possessing the optimism and lack of cynicism required in order to hope for mature behavior from this community.

7th November 2010, 10:13 PM	#76
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	What dimension does time measure, Angie?
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

7th November 2010, 10:14 PM	#77
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,761	Originally Posted by AngieMax I never said time doesn't exist. I said time is a measuring system and not a dimension with coordinates, but what MEASURES a dimension with coordinates. HUGE difference. Is measuring weight measuring movement ? Because I certainly can measure time with measuring a weight. Not very precisely, but yes I can. Hint : it involve innordinate quantity of short lived isotope, and weight. Frankly you make the same classical error orf thinking that time is an artifact of human, as opposed to a true dimension like space. shrug. I am out of this thread. I would rather waste my time killing some orcs or blood elf in WOW.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

7th November 2010, 10:14 PM	#79
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,707	Originally Posted by AngieMax So, the exact same post on my blog that I posted here proves I am a crackpot? I really have no use for childish name-calling. Personal attacks do nothing to advance intelligent discussion. The fact that such behavior is tolerated here leads me to believe this is an elitist "club" here at JREF more than a place for open discussion among intelligent adults. Your ignorance of relativity and its implications regarding time dilation is not in itself a cause for ridicule. However, your refusal to try to learn and your lack of respect those who have spent decades studying this subject rules you out as being capable of intelligent discussion. Most condemning is your strident insistence that you are correct while maintaining your ignorance -- which makes you a crackpot! Congratulations, you have just joined all the other crackpots on my "ignore" list!
	__________________ _{It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman} ξ Last edited by Perpetual Student; 7th November 2010 at 10:16 PM.