ICANT'S position in the creation debate

Wherever it is, if you are sitting there with it, the clock keeps perfect time. If you are moving relative to it, and/or in a stronger or weaker gravitational field, it will run slow or fast relative to another clock that you are sitting with.It is affected by the Earth's gravity (and the gravity of all objects in the Universe, although most of those effects are negligible.) We don't fully understand that yet… but it's not a thing with mass traveling faster than light. Nor is it time running backward for anything. And it's not covered in relativity, which does not work completely when applied to subatomic particles. We're not discussing science fiction. We're discussing people who claim to have found serious problems with relativity when analyzing conditions found in our solar system and for macroscopic objects. If someone found such a problem no, they wouldn't get the Pulitzer prize. What prize woudl they receive?

Yes, a little bit. And they tick differently when they are moving relative to whoever is observing them. It still is exactly the same effect, but the size of the effect is smaller. Right, because the real clocks in the GPS satellites have been adjusted to compensate. Now we're discussing the clock that you introduced, a hypothetical clock that is on a GPS satellite but has not been adjusted. That clock will show a different time from the one on the ground. An observer on the ground will observe the clock on the satellite running a little faster than any clock he has on the ground. An observer on the satellite will observe clocks on the ground running a little slower than any un-adjusted clock he has on the satellite.This isn't theory, these are facts that we observe in the world around us. The theory of relativity is an explanation of these facts.

Well I certainly don't understand it. My one exposure to a course in QM was in the early 70's, and I've forgotten most of it. But whatever it may be, it's irrelevant to the idea of macroscopic objects or subatomic particles moving faster than light.

Yes. Yes, I was wrong about what this sub-discussion is about. It includes your claim that someone would win a Pulitzer prize for figuring out what spacetime is. Obviously you got the wrong prize name, and you're frantically trying to avoid admitting it. Just as you are avoiding admitting your errors about Kant, about Godel, and that loonburger's page to which you linked.You still have not faced the fact that all the support you have for the claim, that nobody knows what spacetime is, is an anonymous Internet posting by someone who appears to have made a serious mistake. See Message 477. Why should we accept his claim, when other professionals (including at least one participating in this thread) claim otherwise?You still have not answered the "why are they right" part of my "Who says, and why are they right?" question. The scientists at the strings conference were posed a totally different question, so their responses are irrelevant.

Distortions of spacetime.

Interesting question. AFAIK we don't know the answer yet.But whether or not we know the answer, spacetime is an aspect of the universe that exists and can be measured objectively. Time exists independent of Man's definitions, and runs at different rates depending on the state of the observer and the observed.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You don't get to travel at the speed of light. You can't speed up that 0.1%. You can speed up almost to it, but you cannot ever reach it no matter what kind of spaceship you envision.

The clocks on the GPS satellites are moving relative to the Earth's surface, quite significantly. No GPS satellites are in geosynchronus orbit. They are at 20,200 km (geosynchronous orbit is at 42,164 km) and the period is 11 hrs 58 min (half the sidereal day period of a geosynchronous orbit). The orbital speed is about 42,164 km/hr whereas the Earth's surface is moving (due to rotation) at 1,674 km/hr at the equator and zero km/hr at the poles.

I thought you were asking the next question, how do gravity and velocity distort spacetime. Gravity and velocity have everything to do with it. In a discussion, repeating refuted claims from pages ago is not addressing the issue. We've pointed out that existence is observed to speed up and slow down. If you claim that existence does not, then you are wrong. How do you account for the observed facts? Well, since you have mass when you are not moving relative to your reference frame, as you approach the speed of light your mass will increase and nothing can push hard enough on you to compensate for that increase in mass. Ever seen E = mc²? Increased energy is increased mass. This is seen every day in particle accelerators.Why does this happen? AFAIK again we don't know, but it a fundamental and observed property of the universe. That is, if your theory is that it doesn't exist then your theory is wrong.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

He meant there is no one thing which is time, and there is no one thing which is space. There is one thing which is both. The clocks run faster or slower because gravity and velocity change the duration/existence. There is no other way to do it."Because it has gravity" is not an answer. What formula relates the two, and why? What aspect of reality is it that changes the transition frequency of cesium atoms? What changes for muons traveling close to the speed of light so that they exist so much longer? Your nutjob pal with the piling-up energy with no source and destination and with no effect on orbits is no help here.Relativity has an answer: the duration/existence exists independent of observers, and is changed. This is consistent with literally tens of thousands of widely varied observations. Your "theory" is not.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The Universe is a concept of Man???? Do tell.

You have misunderzstood the small amount of relativity that has been explained here, and you don't have a clue about the vast majority of thetheory.One of the facts explained early on in all treatments of relativity is the fact that you can't add one velocity to another and come out with an exactly right answer. Most of the time you're close enough … but when you are dealing with velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light, you need to use the correct formula:V = (v₁+v₂)/(1+(v₁*v₂/c²)where V is the total velocity you measure, v₁ is your velocity, v₂ is the velocity of the thing you are measuring, and c is the speed of light. Tjis formula has been experimentally verified over and over agian.Try v₁ = 150,000 and v₂ = c, and see what you come out with.Are you talking about something that is observed with the natural eye?Yes, as much as anything ever is. We don't believe the math without experimental testing.
The problem is your abysmal ignorance.