Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
39 online now:
Hyroglyphx, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (5 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,368 Year: 18,404/19,786 Month: 824/1,705 Week: 76/518 Day: 2/74 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 360 of 687 (522855)
09-05-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by ICANT
09-04-2009 12:50 PM


Re: GPS calculations
Atomic clocks on all the orbiting GPS satellites initiate a precisely simultaneous series of data transmissions.

Boy, your ignorance is even more painful that the usual fundamentalist ignorance.

The point is that if Einstein's theory were not taken into account in the design of the GPS satellites, GPS would not work. This is strong verification of Einstein's theory.

The GPS satellite clocks are deliberately set so that they run slightly slow, about 45 ns per day, when sitting in the manufacturing facility on the Earth's surface. This is because the relativistic effects of the satellite moving relative to the Earth's surface and being subject to less of Earth's gravity combine to speed up the clock by about 45 ns per day.

If relativity were wrong, your GPS unit would be useless.

See Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 12:50 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:37 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 361 of 687 (522858)
09-05-2009 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by ICANT
09-04-2009 4:22 PM


Re: time
Duration does not change just because the atomic clock's pulse rate is changed.

Actually, duration has changed because the clock's pulse rate has changed. The time interval between transitions in cesium-133 is 1/9,192,631,770 seconds by definition. When we see that time interval as different on a moving satellite in a different gravitational field, as we do in the case of the GPS satellites, duration has changed on those satellites relative to us. And duration for us has changed relative to those satellites.

Another good example is muon decay. The half-life of muon decay is 1.56 μs and all half of all muons decay in that time as measured by an observer moving with the muons. But muons decay much slower than that as measured by an observer standing on the Earth's surface and watching fast-moving muons, such as in a particle accelerator or in casscades caused by cosmic rays. Duration for the moving muons is different than it is for us. See Time Dilation and Muon Experiment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 4:22 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 368 of 687 (523036)
09-07-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by ICANT
09-07-2009 6:37 PM


Re: GPS calculations
Time is not running faster only the clock is running faster due to less gravity.

The only way for the clock to run faster is for time to run faster on the satellite. That's the only thing that can affect the frequency of cesium transitions. Gravity itself does not.

And there's sort of two effects; one due to gravity and one due to velocity. If the engineers only compensated for the gravitational effect, GPS would fail. The clocks on the satellites run slower by 7 &mus per day due to relative velocity and run faster by about 45 μs per day due to gravitational effects. You ignored the velocity effect.

(Of course, when yuo do the correction using GR the total 38 &us; correction falls out as one correction).

If you think that putting cesium atoms in a lower gravitation field changes their transition rate without affecting the rate of time's passage feel free to propose a coherent, detailed, mathematically founded theory that explains that and all the other thousands of observations that have verified GR. Similarly explain the velocity effect. Until then we'll stick with the only viable explanation that we've got.

The fact that you don't like GR and its implications is not evidence that GR is wrong. Your unsupported assertions are not evidence that GR is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:37 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 372 of 687 (523080)
09-08-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by ICANT
09-08-2009 5:34 AM


Re: Talking about
Relativity gets some things right but it gets more wrong.

List 'em.

Oh, and… no comment on the lifetime of muons? No comment on the velocity portion of the GPS clock correction? No proposed mechanism by which the frequency of cesium transitions is changed by a variation in the gravitation field without chnging the rate of passage of time?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 5:34 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 3:24 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 395 of 687 (523163)
09-08-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by ICANT
09-08-2009 3:24 PM


Re: Talking about
The only way for the clock to run faster is for time to run faster on the satellite.

Are you sure?

Yes. It's the only viable explanation we've got. And it's been put through the wringer like no other, and passed all tests. Feel free to prove yourself smarter than Einstein and all the relativists that have studied the subject in the past hundred years, and propose another viable explanation which explains all the observed facts that General Relativity does.

Someone may come up with a different theory. But it's going to have to predict all the same things that GR does except for extremes of subatomic sizes and/or black-hole-strength gravitational fields. At velocities and gravitational fields we encounter in our solar system, the predictions of GR are 100% true and confirmed.

That's the only thing that can affect the frequency of cesium transitions.

Then how do they adjust the frequency to sync the satellite atomic clock's to the stationary earth atomic clock's?

They don't adjust the frequency. They can't control that. They change the number of transitions that pass before the clock registers one second. An atomic clock on Earth counts 9,192,631,770 transitions before it registers one more second. A GPS satellite clock on Earth counts 9,192,631,770 - 26,316 = 9,192,605,454 transitions (26,316 = 1/38*10-6, the difference between satellite time and Earth time) before it registers one second. In orbit, the clock continues to count 9,192,605,454 transitions before it registers one second… and these 9,192,605,454 transitions take the same amount of time as 9,192,631,770 transitions on the Earth-based clock because time is running faster on the satellite.

(How it's actually done is more complex, involving PLLs and computers and all sorts of fancy circuitry, but what's actually done is equivalent to what I described above.)

Which is done once each day.

The clocks are reset once each day because there are other effects that make them drift. These are much smaller than the main relativistic corrections. If the relativistic corrections were not applied the clocks would have to be reset every few minutes. And that's exactly what they are doing each day; resetting the clocks, which doesn't affect the transition frequency. Just as setting the time on your alarm clock at home doesn't affect the frequency of the quartz crystal that it uses to measure time.

I am not that smart to propose a theory but how about this
one

I'm not impressed that you can find a uneducated nutjob to back up your claims; you can find anything on the Intertubes. It's up to you to demonstrate that his analysis is valid (Hint: it's trivial to show that it ain't, 'cause the satellites are continuously accelerating but he's trying to analyze the situation using only SR. QED.)

That is not what relativity says will happen

Mostly, it is. The gobbledygook about "Time remain unaffected…" is just that: usupported gobbledygook. We have experience measuring the lifetime of muons far from the surface of the Earth, and it's up to you to demonstrate that our experience is somehow inadequate. The twins do not wind up the same age; I like http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm as a simple explanation of why.

Just a crazy question I have. If the duration of a second is determined by dividing up the duration of a rotation of the earth on it axis, wouldn't the earth have to slow down to make time slow down for the satellite clock?

The duration of a second once had something to do with the rotation of the Earth, but it has not had anything to do with the rotation of the Earth for decades. The duration of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the cesium-133 atom (at Earth's surface) and has been since 1967.

However, the second is just a unit we choose to measure time; time itself (really spacetime) is not dependent on the tools we use to measure it. Just like length exists whether we measure it with a wooden ruler or a steel tape. Even if the second were defined as 1/5,284,000 of the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on its axis, time would still slow down on the satellite clock without changing the Earth's rotation rate because time passes differently on the satellite clock relative to the Earth clock whether the Earth clock is a cesium atomic clock or a rotating Earth or your alarm clock at home or anything that measures time.

We do have to add leap seconds to the atomic clocks because the earth's rotation is slowing down.

Yup. So what? We like to have Mean Solar Time (based on the Earth's rotation) close to Universal Coordinated Time (based on atomic clocks). But that's just an arbitrary preference we've chosen. Leap seconds are not necessary to measuring time, and could be discarded without affecting the fact that the time runs faster on the satellite than it does on Earth.

Whether I like or dislike GR has nothing to do with it being right or wrong. It doesn't make any difference what I think. It is either right or it is wrong. There are things that are wrong.

List 'em. The "paper" you linked to doesn't help you.

Your assertions don't make it right either

Nobody's assertions do. But I'm not going to try to reproduce the equations and figures and explanations in this medium Here's some links that support my explanations.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/04/scott-rebuttal-i-gps-relativity.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/GPS/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf

I also recommend Global Positioning System: Theory and Practice, but it's a little expensive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 3:24 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 10:03 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 397 of 687 (523165)
09-08-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by ICANT
09-08-2009 5:13 PM


Re: Time
Does the atomic clocks in the satellite's tick slower because time slow's down?

OR

Does the atomic clocks in the satellite's tick slower because of their environment? Which is 11,000 miles above the earth in a geo-synchronous orbit, or a circular polar orbit.

The former.

How can all the clocks be synchronous in the different orbit's if relativity is correct?

The transformation to view one satellite's clock from the point of view on another satellite is much more complex that your pal's "paper" would have it, and ends up with reality agreeing with the predictions of relativity when the transformation is carried out correctly.

You can't ignore acceleration just because you are looking at the satellites at one instant of time. They are always accelerating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 5:13 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 6:20 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 413 of 687 (523202)
09-08-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by ICANT
09-08-2009 6:20 PM


Re: Time
Explain how something can be accelerating and continuint to circle the earth in just under 12 hrs.

Wow. I just have to echo the others. You hope to understand how the clocks on the satellites can stay in sync and you don't even know that any motion other than a straight-line motion involves acceleration? You have a good couple of years of studying before you have a hope of understanding the explanations.

Well I just look at all the examples and just don't see how the clocks going in different directions can stay in sync if relativity is correct.

Oh, I believe that you don't see it. It's too bad for you that reality is not affected by your inability to comprehend it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 6:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 414 of 687 (523205)
09-08-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by cavediver
09-08-2009 6:21 PM


Re: Time
Outstanding, ICANT, you've done it! With this simple observation, you have proven the past 100 years' physics completely wrong:

Actually it's not his observation; it's his nutjob pal's observation from The Direct Verification of Length Contraction and Time Dilation in Modern Satellite Systems and Cosmological Studies. If you're looking for howlers you can't go wrong looking there. He actually derives an equation for "the work done on an object to confine it to motion in a circle": dE/dt = mv2/2.

ICANT's specifically referring to Figure 5 and the surrounding text.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2009 6:21 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 423 of 687 (523268)
09-09-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by ICANT
09-08-2009 10:03 PM


Re: Talking about
This locked frequency is then divided by 9,192,631,770 to give the familiar one pulse per second required by the real world.

To adjust my clock to operate on a satellite I have to adjust the pulse rate. to account for the environment it is going to be in.

No, you don't have to adjust the pulse rate. You can't adjust the pulse rate; only gravity/acceleration and relative velocity can affect the pulse rate. Just adjust the divisor. As I already explained.

I'm not impressed by your rebutal either.

What's wrong with it? I pointed out that he used the wrong transformation between coordinate systems, and I explained why the transformation was wrong. If you think I'm in error, explain why.

Would you classify Godel and Kant as uneducated nutjob's also? I guess you would, because you did.

Kant knew nothing of relativity. Neither Godel nor Kant wrote anyting like the ridiculous mish-mosh that your source did, which anyone who's taken freshman physics can easily detect as fallacious. If they had written anything like that "paper", they would be uneducated nutjobs.

Lets see: the rotation of the earth is slowing down so we have to add a leap second to the atomic clock so it can be in sync with the earth's rotation but the earth's rotation has noting to do with the length of a second.

A second is defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the cesium-133 atom (at Earth's surface). Period. For the convenience of some (mostly astronomers, IIRC) there is another unit that is called a second but really shouldn't be; it's a small fraction of a mean solar day. It is not usable in most scientific fields and is not relevant to discussions of physics.

We don't have to add a leap second to keep the two in sync. We decided, arbitrarily, to add leap seconds to keep the two in sync for the convenience of astronomers.

I see you missed the important part of my point; no matter how we define a second, time passes differently on the satellite clock relative to the Earth clock whether the Earth clock is a cesium atomic clock or a rotating Earth or your alarm clock at home or anything that measures time.

You want to tell me what spacetime is?

It's the four-dimensional continuum that forms the Universe and, to us, is most easily described mathematically by three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.

You want to tell me how many of my links you've read and studied until you understand what they are saying (even if you don't believe it)?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 10:03 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 2:23 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 436 of 687 (523353)
09-09-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 433 by ICANT
09-09-2009 2:23 PM


Re: Talking about
I can't adjust the pulse rate.

I know. But you didn't earlier today. You wrote immediately before:

To adjust my clock to operate on a satellite I have to adjust the pulse rate to account for the environment it is going to be in.

Now you realize you can't adjust the pulse rate. Good, you learned something.

Is time running faster on the satellite?

Or

Does gravity/acceleration and relative velocity change the pulse rate to make time appear to run faster on the satellite?

Both, except it's not "appear to run faster". It does indeed run faster.

{ABE} These are only true only from the point of view of an observer on Earth.

So whatever causes the difference all I am doing is adjusting the satellite clock so it will sync with the stationary clock on earth

Yes.

In 1949, Godel postulated a theorem that stated…

In a formal deductive system, a [postulate is a] proposition accepted without proof, from which other propositions are deduced by the conventional methods of formal logic.

A postulate is an unproven assumption. If he had proved his postulate, now, that would be interesting.

It's the four-dimensional continuum that forms the Universe and, to us, is most easily described mathematically by three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.

Nice opinion. But I had rather been given the scientific answer which is:
"what is space-time?". Alas, there is no answer, at least not for now, and maybe never.

Why is that answer better than mine?

I'm not impressed by your rebutal either.

What's wrong with it? I pointed out that he used the wrong transformation between coordinate systems, and I explained why the transformation was wrong. If you think I'm in error, explain why.

Still waiting for an explanation.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 2:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:12 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 459 of 687 (523434)
09-10-2009 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 441 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:12 PM


Re: Talking about
Does the velocity and gravity cause the pulse to change?

The velocity and gravity cause the pulse rate to change when we are observing it from some vantage point in a different gravitational field / acceleration and /or non-zero relative velocity

What difference would it make if you were on the satellite with the clock?

Since you would be in the same gravitation field / acceleration and there would be no relative velocity, you would observe the pulse rate to be the same as if you were on Earth with the satellite. But you would observe the pulse rate of the clock left on Earth to have changed.

This is basic popular-science relativity. This is not the place to write a new popular science book. If you want to learn enough to discuss it, start with a good popular science book on relativity. Relativity Simply Explained is good.

A postulate is an unproven assumption.

You mean like the universe beginning to exist 13.7 BYA.

No, not at all like that. The Universe beginning to exist 13.7 BYA has lots of evidence supporting it. Godel's postulate, if indeed it exists, has none.

I took a quick look on the Web and was unable to find any reference to Godel's postulated problem, other than yours. Science reporters are famous for getting the details wrong, and sometimes the main thrust wrong. I do find that Godel found a new solution to Einstein's field equations in 1949, but that solution precludes an expanding universe and therefore does not apply to our universe. If you want to claim that Godel found some problem with relativity, you're going to need a better reference.

What happens to time when you exceed the speed of light?

Oh, come on. Get real. Go read a book.

What is spacetime? Is one of the top 10 unanswered science questions.

Who says, and why are they right?

I never looked at the numbers and still haven't. All I looked at was the picture. You got satellites going in very different directions, even crossing each others path's. All the examples with clocks going in opposite directions keep different time.

Not if you do the transformation correctly. Not doing the transformation out in full with the proper math often leads to error, especially for one as ignorant as you or as ignorant as your source. Your source thinks that satellites are continuously increasing their energy from some unknown source and remaining in their same orbit! He thinks that you can ignore acceleration if you look at a situation at an instant of time!

Relativity is often counterintuitive. If you don't do the math, you often get the wrong answer. There are many examples for which, once someone's done the math, the results are explainable non-mathematically; but this ain't one of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:12 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 460 of 687 (523436)
09-10-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:42 PM


Re: Time changes
So I don't make any adjustments to my clock. I take my clock on the satellite into orbit and it will keep perfect time with the clock on the ground.

Nope, you will observe the clock on the ground to be running slower than yours. By the exact amount that the observer on Earth thinks your clock is running faster than his. All observers in all possible states of motion agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:42 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 5:34 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 477 of 687 (523526)
09-10-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by ICANT
09-10-2009 5:34 PM


Re: Time changes
Nope, you will observe the clock on the ground to be running slower than yours. By the exact amount that the observer on Earth thinks your clock is running faster than his. All observers in all possible states of motion agree.

I don't think so.

You think wrong. It's been experimentally demonstrated over and over again in lot of varied, clever, and independent ways. For example, if you were right GPS would not work. But GPS works. Therefore&hellips;

Which clock has the correct time?

Both. What time is correct depends on the circumstances. Physicists do not refer to "correct" time" but instead refer to "proper" time; time as measured by an observer in moving along with the clock that is being considered.

JonF writes:

Oh, come on. Get real. Go read a book.

Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers

If I could put myself in the same point in spacetime where I was yesterday at noon, would it still be yesterday at noon?

Yes...but it would involve time travel and Nature doesn't seem to want to play that game with us.

All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program.

You asked what happens to time when you travel faster than light. I tried to hint that you may have heard "you can't go faster than light" at some time in your life. Your response is irrelevant.

If your original question, which was:

What happens to time when you exceed the speed of light?

was meant seriously, then you need far more background information than you're going to get in a discussion group thread; you should start with a very simple and basic book. If it was not meant seriously, then stop wasting my time.

JonF writes:

Who says, and why are they right?

You forgot the "why are they right" part. I guess you think that the support of the physicists at the U of M seminar lends authority? Think again.

quote:
Perhaps readers who are not familiar with the current impossibility of reconciling relativity and quantum theory, may be visiting this site expecting to find an answer to the question "what is space-time?". Alas, there is no answer, at least not for now, and maybe never. At the University of Michigan's Strings 2000 seminar the participants proposed a list of the ten most important unsolved problems in fundamental physics. Number 5 was - "Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions?" In other words, what are space and time, and what is the strange combination of Space and Time that is the Spacetime Continuum?

You need a remedial reading comprehension course. I'm not sure about what's going on with the author of that page.

"Why is…" is not equivalent to "what is…". In other words, the author's "In other words…" is used as an introduction to a question that is totally different from the one listed by the physicists. And without the support of the physicists, he's just another guy on the Internet.

I agree that nobody knows why spacetime is as it is. But we do know what spacetime is. And the question you asked was:

You want to tell me what spacetime is?

I told you what it is. Of course, I'm just another guy on the Internet… except I can back up my claims. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/space-time%20continuum and http://www.answers.com/topic/spacetime.

You got any credible references that say that physicists don't know what spacetime is?

Who got the Pulitzer Prize for answering that question?

I don't know. Certainly not Paul Stewart Snyder, the author of that page. Who did?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 5:34 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 11:03 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 478 of 687 (523527)
09-10-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by ICANT
09-10-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Time changes
These are the 10 questions and presenters.

Do you really, really think that "why" and "what" are synonyms?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 9:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5517
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 482 of 687 (523565)
09-11-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by ICANT
09-10-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Time changes
Since the pulse rate of the atom has been altered it is not measuring duration properly as it is pulsing at less than a second.

It depends on who's observing it. It's relative. If you are observing it from the ground, yes. If you are sitting on the satellite watching it, no.

So my clock and the ground clock can not both be correct.

They can be and are both correct ... from the point of view of a particular observer.

They can be and are both wrong ... from the point of view of another observer.

There is no such thing as a time that is correct for all points of view. What's correct for an observer on the satellite is wrong from an observer on the ground. What's correct for an observer on the ground is wrong for an observer on the satellite.

If I understand what I read relativity say

You don't.

time stops when you reach the speed of light

You never reach the speed of light. Nothing with mass can. But you can get arbitrarily close to the speed of light, and slow time down until it almost stops relative to an outside observer that is not traveling anywhere near the speed of light. No matter how fast you go, you will think that your clock is running correctly.

If you can exceed the speed of light time will then run backwards and you will be traveling in time.

You cannot exceed the speed of light so the rest of your statement is meaningless.

But then we come to Godels postulate that if time did not pass it would be no time at all.

Godel's postulate, if it exists, has yet to be related to the real world.

It seems when the quantum gravity theory is worked out time will disappear.

You don't understand the most fundamental facts of relativity. Your assessment of what string theory promises is without any meaning whatsoever.

Let's see. So far you've claimed Kant (who never heard of relativity theory) found some problem with relativity theory, you've claimed that Godel found some problem with relativity theory (but the only trace of this is a short popular science article), you've found a nutjob who doesn't even understand basic Newtonian physics who claims there's a problem with relativity, you've claimed that nobody knows what spacetime is based on your theory that "why" and "what" are synonyms, and you don't even know the name of the most prestigious science prize (try googling "pulitzer prize).

In a medium famous for ignorant loons, you are one of the most ignorant and looniest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 11:03 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:12 AM JonF has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019