|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ookuay writes:
Could you be slightly more specific? It's not my math; it's Einstein's.There is no mention of alternate timelines in the link you provided. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
I figured it was sort of general knowledge...Einstein is perhaps the most famous physicist and is best known for his theory of relativity. I'm not Einstein so I can't recreate his thoughts but traveling faster than the speed of light should cause one to experience an alternate slower timeline than the rest of the universe. If you're interested, look up "speed of light time travel" or something.
Edit: Instead of "alternate timeline" I would have been more accurate in saying "time-space frame". The overarching point is that time is not man-made. Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
So your point about alternative times lines was factually wrong.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ookuay writes: It is also 'general knowledge' that Einstein showed that it was impossible for anything* to travel faster than the speed of light.
I figured it was sort of general knowledge...Einstein is perhaps the most famous physicist and is best known for his theory of relativity. I'm not Einstein so I can't recreate his thoughts but traveling faster than the speed of light should cause one to experience an alternate slower timeline than the rest of the universe. If you're interested, look up "speed of light time travel" or something."Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." This rather undermines your claims that he posited anything regarding time and travelling faster than the speed of light. And your comment regarding time dilation ("alternate slower timeline"?) seems flawed. It happens at sub-light speeds:
"Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock." tbh: my basic grasp of Einstein's theories seems to surpass your own.You can start reading about Relativity here: Your own link. ookuay writes: I think you would not have been more accurate to say "time-space frame". Instead of "alternate timeline" I would have been more accurate in saying "time-space frame".Are you actually referring to inertial frames? So - going back to your original post:
ookuay writes:
No. Even allowing for incorrect terminology: none of that is correct. @JBR: Time is relative to innate biological clocks, and theoretically moving faster than the speed of light can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
Lol, I know... The point is that Einstein has reason to say that alternate timelines can exist. Note the words "in a vacuum". Earth is not a vacuum. "Alternate timeline" is not incorrect- it's not the terminology used by physicists but definitely works in this context. Thank you for the time dilation example, it goes to prove my point... You can definitely look up time-space frames on your own. Yes, my former statement is correct.
This returns us to the fact that time is not a man-made invention, refuting what Just Being Real was saying some time ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ookuay writes: No, you don't.
Lol, I know ookuay writes: The point is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about but are convinced that you do.
The point is that Einstein has reason to say that alternate timelines can exist. Note the words "in a vacuum". Earth is not a vacuum. ookuay writes: Sure, in the context of you making shit up as you go along.
"Alternate timeline" is not incorrect- it's not the terminology used by physicists but definitely works in this context. ookuay writes: Which is simply a bare assertion due to none of your arguments being valid. This returns us to the fact that time is not a man-made invention, refuting what Just Being Real was saying some time ago.I would not fault JBR for not being even slightly convinced by your counter-claim of "Nuh uh!". Are you a Poe? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Hi Ookuay, welcome aboard!
The evolutionists here usually go pretty easy on other evolutionists. It has been my theory that that's because when a fellow evolutionist is wrong it is usually only in minor ways not worth correcting, but that any evolutionist wrong in major ways would receive as much attention as creationists. It appears possible that you are wrong in major ways that you are attempting to gloss over with hand waves and glibness, so this should be a good test of my theory. Unfortunately that test shouldn't take place in this thread because Einstein's position on alternate timelines is not the topic here. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
Hi Panda,
I noticed you didn't give any backing evidence this time as I'm sure I made my point. Use any words you wish. You gave your example of an alternate timeline and that settles it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
Hi Percy,
Seeing as the speed of light can be surpassed since Earth isn't a vacuum and "alternate timeline" is descriptive enough for "time-space frame", I don't see the problem. Also, I constantly return to the on-topic post by JBR (whereas Panda does not...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Wrong writes: Seeing as the speed of light can be surpassed since Earth isn't a vacuum and "alternate timeline" is descriptive enough for "time-space frame", I don't see the problem. Can you give an example of the speed of light being surpassed because the "Earth isn't a vacuum".....? Frankly you are so confused as to be almost incoherent here...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ookuay writes:
You have never shown any evidence to support your claims. I noticed you didn't give any backing evidence this time as I'm sure I made my point.The only thing you have shown is a startling lack of reading ability. Your claims about it being possible to travel faster than the speed of light "because Earth is not [in] a vacuum" is beyond being simply wrong - it is ridiculous. Are you sure you are not a Poe?If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
No, the point I'd been making was that Einstein had reason to believe that an alternate time-space frame could be observed by surpassing the speed of light (which is impossible only in a vacuum). Obviously I don't know in-depth physics but I was just throwing it out there that time can be observed. Panda's example of time dilation of clocks seems a better example since it is possible at sub-light speeds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22490 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
ookuay writes: No, the point I'd been making was that Einstein had reason to believe that an alternate time-space frame could be observed by surpassing the speed of light... I think people are trying to figure out why you think this. You cited the Wikipedia article on relativity, which doesn't seem to even hint at Einstein ever believing anything like this, but it does make very clear statements that are consistent with what everyone else here understands Einstein to have believed, for example:
Wikipedia article on relativity writes: Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. What was it from this article that led you to believe that Einstein thought differently? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ookuay Junior Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 20 Joined: |
Let me make my point again.
*Theoretically* (though not yet achieved) moving faster than the speed of light (such as neutrinos as per recent Italian experiments) can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable. Einstein thought that FTL travel would split time-space frames (one slower and more contracted) and never said FTL travel was impossible outside of vacuums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3738 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
ookuay writes:
Please quote him directly as your understanding of physics is not good enough for us to take your word for it.
*Theoretically* (though not yet achieved) moving faster than the speed of light (such as neutrinos as per recent Italian experiments) can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable. Einstein thought that FTL travel would split time-space frames (one slower and more contracted) ookuay writes:
Apart from here: "Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." and never said FTL travel was impossible outside of vacuums. Maybe it would help if I break up that sentence for you:
So - the sentence reads as follows:Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This directly contradicts your "*Theoretically*" (unless you simply meant *making shit up*).
ookuay writes:
Then why do you insist on posting this utter nonsense? Obviously I don't know in-depth physics Edited by Panda, : No reason given.If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024