HOLA ..hola comandante.....Dos cerveza por favor! (Sorry the only phrase I know from visiting your fair country.... o7)
Rep +1
Hey, post something in this thread, I'm testing something.
- Thread starter CMDR Nef
- Start date
- Status
Rep +1
The simulation crashes...
Not quite, the theory that light would behaves in a relativistic fashion has been proved experimentally and has observable consequences such as time dilation as explained in the following wall o text:
When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation.
For instance, two rocket ships (A and B) speeding past one another in space would experience time dilation. If they could see inside each other's ships, they would see the other ships' clocks as going more slowly. That is, inside the frame of reference of Ship A, everything is moving normally, but everything over on Ship B appears to be moving more slowly (and vice versa).
From a local perspective, time registered by clocks that are at rest with respect to the local frame of reference (and far from any gravitational mass) always appears to pass at the same rate. In other words, if a new ship, Ship C, travels alongside Ship A, it is "at rest" relative to Ship A. From the point of view of Ship A, new Ship C's time would appear normal too.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#cite_note-6"][6][/URL]
A question arises: If Ship A and Ship B both think each other's time is moving slower, who will have aged more if they decided to meet up? With a more sophisticated understanding of relative velocity time dilation, this seeming twin paradox turns out not to be a paradox at all (the resolution of the paradox involves a jump in time, as a result of the accelerated observer turning around). Similarly, understanding the twin paradox would help explain why astronauts on the ISS age slower (e.g. 0.007 seconds behind for every six months) even though they are experiencing relative velocity time dilation.
They have done experiments on this using atomic clocks, with consistent results.
The example you put forward is easily disproved , we know how starts are formed it's called accretion http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html we can observe the process with I.R imaging. So unless you can provide some scientific basis for you theory that fits our observations of the universe better than einteins theory of special relativity you're falling far short of the definition of fact.
Accretion is also only a Theory. Akin to an electron or a DNA molecule, it is the best representation of realistic fact we can conceive, but it isn't solid fact. 1000 years from now they'll laugh at how primitive our idea of relativistic physics is just like we look back and say, how did they ever believe the earth was flat or the center of all being. I'm actually really starting to enjoy this Loki.
Deleted member 110222
D
Wizardry.
A 'stationary' observer watching this happen, though, would not then measure the beam's speed at almost twice c. Relativity says that all observers always get the same measurement for c.
[video=youtube_share;azXS0q3r9fY]https://youtu.be/azXS0q3r9fY[/video]
I dont follow you at all about dna molecules being a theory, can you elaborate?
And for what its worth, i dont believe humanity will make it another 200 years let alone 1000, the population has tripled in the past 50 years and isn't slowing down the numbers are unsustainable and we're far too pre occupied trying to kill each other to do anything about it.
Last edited:
Only a THEORY?! Someone remind this good commander what a theory actually is.
Loki, I think he's trolling you.
I'm not trying to troll. Enjoying an intelligent debate. I was told it was impossible to use my headlights at light speed and I say nay! Nothing is impossible. All of your science is just pagan voodoo nonsense anyway!
Can anyone show me an actual physical picture of a DNA molecule? We have a pretty good idea of how it fits together and works but it's only a theory not a fact. There are no round squares is a fact.
Atomic THEORY covers the study of electrons, but they can't tell me what one weighs, or what it looks like.
To be clear I meant star formation by accretion is a theory.
I'm not trying to upset anyone, merely stating that some of our modern belief is based on theory not cold solid truth. This is what I get for pulling out a paradox on the Internet. Next time I'll just stick to the memes lol.
And I wish I didn't agree with you Loki but, we are all set on the path to self destruction whistling merrily along the way.
Can anyone show me an actual physical picture of a DNA molecule? We have a pretty good idea of how it fits together and works but it's only a theory not a fact. There are no round squares is a fact.
Atomic THEORY covers the study of electrons, but they can't tell me what one weighs, or what it looks like.
To be clear I meant star formation by accretion is a theory.
I'm not trying to upset anyone, merely stating that some of our modern belief is based on theory not cold solid truth. This is what I get for pulling out a paradox on the Internet. Next time I'll just stick to the memes lol.
And I wish I didn't agree with you Loki but, we are all set on the path to self destruction whistling merrily along the way.
This is madness!
Turning on your lights is not impossible in your example, getting the car to light speed in the first place in spacetime would be the impossible bit (although if you could it would be time that dilated (local to the car) as a result of you turning on the headlights, given speed is a measurement of distance over time, since you aren't changing the distance and since light must behave the way it does the only thing that's left to bend is time)
As for what an electrons looks like, well can you tell me what the wind looks like? No but you can infer its existence based on measurements and observations
And DNA google image: dna under electron microscope
Last edited:
Okay. After a few hours sleep let's carry on. Let's be clear about something. I am not trying to debunk the examples I am using. I am only trying to show that we don't have rock solid irrefutable evidence that these things exist as we say they do. Let me try a different tack. A couple hundred years ago they believed in something called phlogiston. Chemists theorized it was what caused combustion. Psychologists believed that 4 humors controlled behavior. They thought the earth was only a few thousand years old. Nowadays we have different theories, but they are not any closer to fact, they are the closest representation of reality we can conceive, but at the end of the day they could still amount to fantasy.
Deleted member 110222
D
The universe was created by the galactic leprechaun with tiny nipples.
The galactic leprechaun had tiny nipples, or the galactic leprechaun made the universe from tiny nipples?
- Status