about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[Johnny]

When the evidence can be can be interpreted in another way, why accept it as what some claim it to be?

You've obviously accepted it as someone else claims to be.

If gravity has an effect on light, which, according to science, has no mass, then why wouldn't it affect cesium atoms?

It does. But for the nth time, Einstein (do you mind if I just call you Einstein?), time dilation doesn't just affect cesium atoms.

I'm not the one who claimed my intellect was so high. That was the people who administered the tests.

I've never heard someone go on and on about their alleged intellect. It's pathetic really -- kind of like the guy with a massive truck going on and on about how big is truck is. Compensate much? Just shut up about this, its a stupid way to argue and only serves to further the generally held stereotype about you.

I can't even imagine how you justify prancing around in this thread with such arrogance. Over in this thread we learned that you really didn't have the first clue about relativity. In post #29 you reveal that you don't even understand the fundamental tenet of relativity -- the invariance of the speed of light. Someone attempted to explain this concept to you, and you respond with this gem:

"Yes, but relatively it will not travel that much faster than you. Whereas when you are standing still it does travel that much faster than you. So, immobile light is 3 x 10^8 m/s faster than you. But at 99% of that it is not 3 x 10^8 m/s faster than you."​

"Wut". Another attempted explanation occurs, and you followup with another Lighthouse gem:

I never said that it did not travel at that speed. Only that relative to something traveling at 99% the speed of light the light is not traveling that much faster than they are. It is still traveling at that speed, but not that much faster than they are.​

It takes two or three more explanations, and even a video explaining it, before you to finally understood what was being said. After that sad little exchange regarding the most simple of tenets of relativity, I hardly think you have any room to come in here throwing around accolades for your intellect and acting as if we're all the morons and your common sense easily eliminates relativity as a possibility.

Excuse me for not completely trusting a man who spent his later years wearing his socks on his hands.

Thankfully this isn't religion. You don't have to take anyone's word. And got a cite for the sock issue?

 

[chair]

That wasn't much thinking through. The experiment is defined quite well.

I am a scientist. An experimentalist. Given what you have told me so far, I don't understand what exactly we are supposed to do in this experrment. So please explain to me what we are supposed to do. Think of it as a recipe.

 

[Memento Mori]

I am a scientist. An experimentalist. Given what you have told me so far, I don't understand what exactly we are supposed to do in this experrment. So please explain to me what we are supposed to do. Think of it as a recipe.

Really? What kind of scientist?

 

[chair]

Really? What kind of scientist?

Chemist. Physical Chemist to be precise. Spectroscopy.

 

[Memento Mori]

Chemist. Physical Chemist to be precise. Spectroscopy.

That's pretty cool. One of my friends wants to be (and certainly has the ability to be) a Chemist. But I don't know exactly what he wants to do with the degree.

 

[Lighthouse]

You've obviously accepted it as someone else claims to be.

I've accepted what science says about gravity, and the fact that it affects atoms.

It does. But for the nth time, Einstein (do you mind if I just call you Einstein?), time dilation doesn't just affect cesium atoms.

Gravity affects them, time doesn't dilate.

I've never heard someone go on and on about their alleged intellect. It's pathetic really -- kind of like the guy with a massive truck going on and on about how big is truck is. Compensate much? Just shut up about this, its a stupid way to argue and only serves to further the generally held stereotype about you.

I had no reason to mention it until you questioned it. You want me to stop, then stop accusing me of not being smart. You could start with dropping the "alleged."

I can't even imagine how you justify prancing around in this thread with such arrogance. Over in this thread we learned that you really didn't have the first clue about relativity. In post #29 you reveal that you don't even understand the fundamental tenet of relativity -- the invariance of the speed of light. Someone attempted to explain this concept to you, and you respond with this gem:

"Yes, but relatively it will not travel that much faster than you. Whereas when you are standing still it does travel that much faster than you. So, immobile light is 3 x 10^8 m/s faster than you. But at 99% of that it is not 3 x 10^8 m/s faster than you."
​

"Wut". Another attempted explanation occurs, and you followup with another Lighthouse gem:

I never said that it did not travel at that speed. Only that relative to something traveling at 99% the speed of light the light is not traveling that much faster than they are. It is still traveling at that speed, but not that much faster than they are.​

It takes two or three more explanations, and even a video explaining it, before you to finally understood what was being said. After that sad little exchange regarding the most simple of tenets of relativity, I hardly think you have any room to come in here throwing around accolades for your intellect and acting as if we're all the morons and your common sense easily eliminates relativity as a possibility.

:listensst... I didn't watch the video.

And anyone with a brain should conclude that we actually haven't found the true speed of light yet, if it is verifiably always traveling that much faster than we are.

Thankfully this isn't religion. You don't have to take anyone's word. And got a cite for the sock issue?

More misinformation from other people?

 

[fool]

Einstein didn't wear socks on his feet. he hated the way they always got a whole in them at the big toe so he stopped using them altogether.
I sometimes go to bed with socks on my hands to keep large quanities of moisturizer in place due to my excema.
I don't wear underwear under my pants unless it's winter then I wear thermal under wear, but I do have boxer shorts that I wear to bed and of course to walk out the front door to get the morning paper.

 

[Johnny]

Gravity affects them, time doesn't dilate.

Ok, we're back to making concrete statements without argument now. Gravity effects everything. Time dilates.

I had no reason to mention it until you questioned it. You want me to stop, then stop accusing me of not being smart. You could start with dropping the "alleged."

I don't see anyone else whipping out anecdotes about what teachers said about them etc. every time you call them a moron. No one gives a rats ***. You either can competently discuss the issue, or you cannot. You, clearly, cannot. And that makes you the last person that should be in this thread calling people morons and explaining why "anyone with a brain" should understand something.

:listensst... I didn't watch the video.

Maybe that's why it took 4 clarifications before you got the picture.

And anyone with a brain should conclude that we actually haven't found the true speed of light yet, if it is verifiably always traveling that much faster than we are.

Let me let you in on a secret that I didn't bother to explain the last time this came up: In any conceivable situation, an observer can always argue that his velocity is zero -- and his argument is valid from a mathematical perspective. In other words, velocity is always a relative measurement. If I'm sitting in my computer chair, what is my velocity? Of course, that answer depends on "relative to what"? Velocity is always relative, except in the case of the speed of light -- which has a constant velocity relative to anything.

So yea, we have found the true speed of light, and it is the universal constant "c".

More misinformation from other people?

Which apparently you swallowed hook, line, and sinker. You can't even be bothered to verify basic facts, which puts the probability that you actually have a clear understanding of relativity and the evidence for it very very low.

 

[chair]

Gravity affects them, time doesn't dilate.

Lighthouse, when you say "time", what do you mean?

And anyone with a brain should conclude that we actually haven't found the true speed of light yet, if it is verifiably always traveling that much faster than we are.

Why? We often measure the speed of things that are faster than us. More importantly- are you aware of the experiments done to measure the speed of light?

 

[Lighthouse]

Ok, we're back to making concrete statements without argument now. Gravity effects everything. Time dilates.

No proof that time dilates exists, only that gravity effects cesium atoms. And we already knew that.

I don't see anyone else whipping out anecdotes about what teachers said about them etc. every time you call them a moron. No one gives a rats ***. You either can competently discuss the issue, or you cannot. You, clearly, cannot. And that makes you the last person that should be in this thread calling people morons and explaining why "anyone with a brain" should understand something.

They're them and I'm me. Get over it.

Maybe that's why it took 4 clarifications before you got the picture.

I got the picture from the first moment. I just like being annoying. Ask Lucky.

Let me let you in on a secret that I didn't bother to explain the last time this came up: In any conceivable situation, an observer can always argue that his velocity is zero -- and his argument is valid from a mathematical perspective. In other words, velocity is always a relative measurement. If I'm sitting in my computer chair, what is my velocity? Of course, that answer depends on "relative to what"? Velocity is always relative, except in the case of the speed of light -- which has a constant velocity relative to anything.

So yea, we have found the true speed of light, and it is the universal constant "c".

:blabla:

Which apparently you swallowed hook, line, and sinker. You can't even be bothered to verify basic facts, which puts the probability that you actually have a clear understanding of relativity and the evidence for it very very low.

It was someone I thought I could trust.

Lighthouse, when you say "time", what do you mean?

The passing of moments. From one to the next. The succession of these moments. Their duration.

Why? We often measure the speed of things that are faster than us. More importantly- are you aware of the experiments done to measure the speed of light?

I'm just theorizing that we've only, to borrow a phrase from a TV show, "scratched the surface of the tip of the iceberg."

 

[Memento Mori]

Well, LH.

Please do me the favor of not become a physicist or anything directly related to the field.

 

[Johnny]

Please do me the favor of not become a physicist or anything directly related to the field.

Fear not.

 

[Nick M]

All you have to do is go up to the guy claiming to have experienced time dilation, shake his hand and ask him whether or not you and he are there in the room together at the same time. If he answers you tell him his clock is slow.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yep. :up:

Thinking they were wise, they became fools.

Notice how they continue to talk about a mechanical device, and gravity's obvious effects on it, but not the abstract idea of time.

 

[Nick M]

If that were the case, particle accelerators should be able to easily accelerate particles to far beyond light speed.

That would be one heck of an energy source to do that. What about those that have broken the speed of light accelerating?

 

[chair]

...What about those that have broken the speed of light accelerating?

Who? When? What do you mean here?

 

[dan1el]

That would be one heck of an energy source to do that. What about those that have broken the speed of light accelerating?

What are you talking about, silly little retard?

 

[Nick M]

How many hits on google will I get for those that say they accelerated a particle past the speed of light?

 

[Nick M]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/books/review/09JOHNSOT.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html

http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=305

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2796-speed-of-light-broken-with-basic-lab-kit.html

http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/16/german-scientists-claim-to-have-broken-speed-of-light/

In a controversial experiment reported in this weeks journal Nature, scientists at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, New Jersey claim to have broken the ultimate speed limit -- the speed of light. Though hotly contested, some say this achievement could dramatically increase the speeds at which we can send and receive information.

Taught in physics classes the world over, Albert Einsteins theory of special relativity holds that no object or information can move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, or 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second. But NECs Lijun Wang says he created an experiment in which a light beam raced through a gas-filled chamber so quickly, it exceeded the speed of light by a factor of 300. Whats more, the light pulse appears to have left the confines of the chamber before it even entered a seemingly impossible occurrence according to theories of causality, which predict that causes must always precede their effects.

Now, do I have to put 2 and 2 together regarding the age of the universe, how far we can see, why that means it doesn't have to be billions of years old, mitochondrial eve's updated age based on DNA mutation(I am no expert at it, only regurgitating what they say about her, being 6500 years old), etc etc.

Do you want a common sense explination?

Confused? Youre not alone. In fact, even scientists who are familiar with this area of study are unsure about the details of Wangs experiment. And many scientists said the experiments results are still open to interpretation.

They claim it can't be true, becuase it means their theory is wrong, not verifiable, and not provable.

And of course, those that realize it is true, but still want an old universe, say that they arrived before they were sent. They are claiming the non existent space time fabric was broken.

When it is a simple, "GDI". He stretched out the heavens.

The reason this bothers cosmologists is that, so far as they can tell, the universe in front of us and the universe behind us are pretty much the same. They differ in detail, of course -- this galaxy here, that constellation there -- but in the most general sense, creation appears to be homogeneous. Galaxies are distributed in a more or less uniform manner, and in whatever direction you point a thermometer, space is the same temperature. But if certain parts of the universe never interacted, then why is there so smooth a blend?

That was clearly a freudian slip.

300 times the speed of light.

 

[chair]

How many hits on google will I get for those that say they accelerated a particle past the speed of light?

How about you provide a few references for people who claim to have done so?

FYI- I did a Google search for ..they accelerated a particle past the speed of light... I got thousands of hits- but when I read a few of them, they said that one could not exceed the speed of light. You have to read the content- just counting hits doesn't do the trick.

There was a single unconfirmed claim by two scientists in Germany that they had exceeded the speed of light in a particular tunneling experiment.

 

[Johnny]

All experiments which the media misinterprets as "faster than light" are actually examples of scientists toying with phase velocity. Think of it this way: Imagine shining a laser pointer on the wall and moving it back and forth at a steady rate. The red dot on the wall moves back and forth across the wall. The farther away the wall is, the faster the red dot appears to move across the wall. In theory, with a strong enough laser and a very far wall, you could move the laser fast enough that the red dot appears to move across the wall faster than the speed of light. In this case, however, no photons, energy, or information actually moves faster than the speed of light. It just appears that way. That's the same concept as what these researchers do in labs. No energy or information ever moves at faster than the speed of light. They just set up waves in such a way that the phase velocity appears to travel faster than the speed of light. Interestingly, they can actually set up the waves in such that the wave groups actually appear to be moving backwards in time.

Link 1 - article about a book.
Links 2-5 - Phase velocity.