|
Author
|
Topic: Existence
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
Message 309 of 1229 (617280)
05-27-2011 6:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 307 by ICANT
05-26-2011 9:49 PM
|
|
An answer...
ICANT writes: I have no idea what to call something that does not exist.
God? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 307 by ICANT, posted 05-26-2011 9:49 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 310 by fizz57102, posted 05-27-2011 9:19 AM | | Panda has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 337 of 1229 (617798)
05-31-2011 12:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 334 by ICANT
05-31-2011 11:37 AM
|
|
Re: ICANTand Relativity
ICANT writes: fizz writes: And I'll leave you with a quotation, from worthier lips than mine - there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see. Except those who have their heads buried in the sands of dogma and refuses to even look at the evidence.
Please refrain from insulting religious people. Thank you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 334 by ICANT, posted 05-31-2011 11:37 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 342 of 1229 (617965)
05-31-2011 6:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 341 by Taq
05-31-2011 5:50 PM
|
|
Re: ICANT is not alone
Taq writes: It has nothing to do with the gravitational force on the clock mechanism. Time ticks at different rates in different interial frames. This was confirmed in the Hafele-Keating experiment where both planes flew at the same altitude. The clocks went out of synch based on which direction they flew (east vs. west) compared to the stationary clock on Earth. The plane flying with the rotation of the Earth did not show as much time dilation as the plane flying against the rotation of the Earth. The effect of altitude is removed from this experiment. That is the experiment I was trying to think of. Thanks for posting it. I wait to see if ICANT's "clocks are effected by gravity" hypothesis can explain why two planes flying at the same height experience different "clock speeds".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 341 by Taq, posted 05-31-2011 5:50 PM | | Taq has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 343 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2011 1:16 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 344 of 1229 (618089)
06-01-2011 10:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 343 by NoNukes
06-01-2011 1:16 AM
|
|
Re: Hear no SR; see no SR
NoNukes writes: Obviously ICANT's hypothesis is useless to explain either time dilation or clock rate changes when there is no change in the gravitational potential.
I concur (but I am willing to be proved wrong).
NoNukes writes: The aircraft experiment has been mentioned at least one other time. Data from a partial repeat of the experiment has also been presented. I don't believe ICANT has ever acknowledged, let alone attempted to explain, either experiment.
It is a long thread. I skipped a few pages... 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 343 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2011 1:16 AM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 351 of 1229 (618239)
06-02-2011 12:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 350 by ICANT
06-02-2011 11:39 AM
|
|
Re: Existence=?????
Just in case you missed this...
Taq writes: ICANT writes: Time did not dilate the clock just slowed down due to less gravatational force exerted on the mechanism, and returned to normal when returned to earth.
It has nothing to do with the gravitational force on the clock mechanism. Time ticks at different rates in different interial frames. This was confirmed in the Hafele-Keating experiment where both planes flew at the same altitude. The clocks went out of synch based on which direction they flew (east vs. west) compared to the stationary clock on Earth. The plane flying with the rotation of the Earth did not show as much time dilation as the plane flying against the rotation of the Earth. The effect of altitude is removed from this experiment.
This seems to contradict your 'gravatational force' theory. Do you agree?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 350 by ICANT, posted 06-02-2011 11:39 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 373 of 1229 (618391)
06-03-2011 6:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 370 by ICANT
06-03-2011 12:06 AM
|
|
Re: Not right about anything relevant.
ICANT writes: I guess you did not read it the last time I presented it to you. That does not say anything about time slowing down.
But the line above it does:
quote:
( 2 ) Second-older Doppler shift. A clock moving with respect to an ECIF runs slower
relative to coordinate time in that ECIF than if it were at, rest in the ECIF. This is the
time dilation effect due to the magnitude of the relative velocity, sometimes called the
second-order Doppler effect.
I guess you did not read it the last time you presented it to you. Or are you cherry picking your evidence?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 370 by ICANT, posted 06-03-2011 12:06 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Not right about anything relevant.
fearandloathing writes: He tries to use evidence that has been provided for him to look at as proof he is right by cherry picking the bits he thinks support his position, while ignoring what he either doesn't understand, or refuses to admit it proves him wrong.
I agree. But I'll quote this piece of evidence again, as I find it risible that ICANT has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that actual testing proves his ideas false.
Taq writes: It has nothing to do with the gravitational force on the clock mechanism. Time ticks at different rates in different interial frames. This was confirmed in the Hafele-Keating experiment where both planes flew at the same altitude. The clocks went out of synch based on which direction they flew (east vs. west) compared to the stationary clock on Earth. The plane flying with the rotation of the Earth did not show as much time dilation as the plane flying against the rotation of the Earth. The effect of altitude is removed from this experiment.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 374 by fearandloathing, posted 06-03-2011 8:38 AM | | fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 393 of 1229 (618471)
06-03-2011 12:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 392 by Rahvin
06-03-2011 12:26 PM
|
|
Re: Not right about anything relevant.
Rahvin writes: can we all just agree to completely ignore Bolder-dash?
I can't be bothered to reply to such dull and unimaginative insults. When even his abusive posts are boring: he has nothing left.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 392 by Rahvin, posted 06-03-2011 12:26 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 410 of 1229 (618604)
06-04-2011 8:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 407 by ICANT
06-04-2011 1:33 AM
|
|
Re: Not right about anything relevant.
ICANT writes: It makes no difference how many experiments produces contrary evidence.
Taq writes: It has nothing to do with the gravitational force on the clock mechanism. Time ticks at different rates in different interial frames. This was confirmed in the Hafele-Keating experiment where both planes flew at the same altitude. The clocks went out of synch based on which direction they flew (east vs. west) compared to the stationary clock on Earth. The plane flying with the rotation of the Earth did not show as much time dilation as the plane flying against the rotation of the Earth. The effect of altitude is removed from this experiment.
Do you know how many times you have ignored this evidence? It has been presented to you by several people, several times. I guess you have to ignore it, else your god dies.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 407 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2011 1:33 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 414 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2011 10:58 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 417 of 1229 (618628)
06-04-2011 12:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 414 by ICANT
06-04-2011 10:58 AM
|
|
Re: Not right about anything relevant.
ICANT writes: Hi Panda,
Panda writes: Do you know how many times you have ignored this evidence? How can you ignore something that does not exist.
I know how you ignore something that does exist - you claim that is doesn't exist.
quote:
The H & K tests prove nothing.
And you do know that it has been repeated several times, using far more accurate equipment? Hmm...actually, you probably don't know.
quote:
Because the experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified. Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods, and have been shown to be in error.
Well, now you can ignore multiple pieces of evidence in one disingenuous swoop. The Hafele-Keating experiment has been successfully repeated multiple times. A.G. Kelly may have had reason to question the results of the first experiment. But he went silent when more accurate technology was used. The only people that make the mistake of cherry-picking an out-of-date report are people like you.
ICANT writes: That should be enough to get the crank, idiot, stupid posts flying.
I have yet to see you stop. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 414 by ICANT, posted 06-04-2011 10:58 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 570 of 1229 (620359)
06-15-2011 6:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 569 by NoNukes
06-15-2011 6:19 PM
|
|
Re: black holes?
NoNukes writes: and also about the material he receives from would be Einstein's.
quote:
Like Einstein, these people could also be.......patent clerks.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 569 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2011 6:19 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 1116 of 1229 (631077)
08-30-2011 9:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1114 by ICANT
08-30-2011 8:58 AM
|
|
Re: What ICAN'T can't do
ICANT writes: How does the driver survive in a vacuum?
That is such a dumb question. It seems you are unable to understand what a thought experiment is and you don't know how astronauts survive in space. For your sake, I hope you are being disingenuous.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1114 by ICANT, posted 08-30-2011 8:58 AM | | ICANT has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1123 by ICANT, posted 08-30-2011 11:06 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 1129 of 1229 (631121)
08-30-2011 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1123 by ICANT
08-30-2011 11:06 AM
|
|
Re: What ICAN'T can't do
ICANT writes: Are you saying reality has nothing to do with a thought experiment? No, I am saying that if I said "Imagine you lived in a mansion." it would be stupid of you to say "I can't afford to live in a mansion."
ICANT writes: I thought we were trying to understand exactly what would happen in reality by using a thought experiment, silly me. No - not silly. Stupid. And you are definitely not trying to understand anything.
ICANT writes: Astronauts do not survive in a vacuum. So, all astronauts that have been in space have died - or did they use spacecraft and spacesuits to survive in the vacuum of space?
ICANT writes: They have spacecraft to travel in and when working on the outside of the spacestation they wear spacesuits. Correct - they use spacecraft and spacesuits to survive in a vacuum. It seems you actually knew the answer. Then why you would have written something as fucking stupid as "Astronauts do not survive in a vacuum"? - I guess the clue is in the question. So - are your next questions going to be equally stupid and irrelevant? ICANT: "How does the driver survive without food?" ICANT: "How does the driver survive without water?" ICANT: "What is the driver's name?" ICANT: "What is the driver's favourite colour?" Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1123 by ICANT, posted 08-30-2011 11:06 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 1153 of 1229 (632365)
09-07-2011 12:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1152 by Buzsaw
09-07-2011 12:00 PM
|
|
Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
Buzsaw writes: How does that size up to 3LoT, in that there is no perpetual machine?
quote:
Newton's First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1152 by Buzsaw, posted 09-07-2011 12:00 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2