Summations Only

Spherical Issues if anyone is interested.Not one of EvC's proudest moments.But fun at the time nevertheless!!!

Rest assured that everyone else is benefiting from reading your posts.And thank you, Son Goku.

First, thanks for the info on how the clock actually works. Very interesting.However, the point that should be emphasized: From reading ICAN'T messages, I get the distinct impression that he thinks the frequency emitted by the cesium atom is being changed by the scientists so that it matches their definition of a second. He appears to have it completely backwards. The frequency is what it is. It can't be changed by the scientists. Instead, they measure the frequency and then base the unit of time (the second) based on that. It is the frequency of the clock that determines the second, not the other way around.I don't know if I mentioned the experiment in this thread or another, but the Hafele-Keating experiment tested these ideas and time itself does change. The clocks were synced and were ticking away at the same rate, then the clocks were separated. Two flew away in jets at altitude, one going west and the other going east. The third one stayed on the ground. What did they observe? Exactly what the theory of relativity predicted we would see, a difference in the time that each clock recorded. At altitude, the clocks on the jets ticked faster. Also, there were differences between the planes due to the fact that one plane was going with the rotation of the Earth while the other was not.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

How do you mean space-time is curved? Do you mean lines on a map get curved like a triangle on a spherical surface curves in Riemannian geometry, or do you want to say there is a physical object space-time that is literally capable of undergoing physical distortions? If so, then what that object is made of? The lines are curvilinear trajectories of objects in relative motion so in the first case the curvy hypothesis is a tautology but if the latter is your suggestion you may need to see a doctor. Space and time are categories of the mind. No physical properties. They cannot warp, expand or dilate literally other than in order to produce a wry smile or the Cheshire's grin.

Oh wow. I guess I have a better grasp on GR/SR (I think) than I realized without even knowing it. (Thank you, Carl Sagan.)I thought you guys were trying to explain something much more complicated.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Sonny, I don't see any grounds for your calling ICANT a creationist which is clearly intended to hint that you and the rest of folks here are not.
So far all that has come from you all was a feeble attempt to justify your crypto-creo bigbangist faith with sophistry and appeals to authority.
Your authorities state that post-Planck epoch expansion came they know not from what claiming next that the expanding region is not embedded in anything, i.e., is embedded in nothing into which it miraculously expands. The same old nothing all over your hypothesis.
Whereas ICANT states clearly that not a single speck of anything is being ever created and in ICANT's hypothesis the Universe, if it is expanding, is an object expanding into God which by his suggestion is also a physical object never created either.
Neither your nor ICANT's hypothesis could be tested or falsified but his is a logically consistent one while yours is clearly not making your calling him a creationist look like a case of firm denial and severe projection.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Well, answer the questions then clearly without equivocations and monkey tricks. Those don't wash with the feline, you know. What is exactly curving? Is it a physical object or is it a figure of speech?

What the cock are you talking about? No one asked ME questions that I am supposed to answer. Nevermind the fact that I am absolutley the LAST person on this daggum forum to be answering questions about relativity.You have lost your marbles. You would do well to talk to people that are talking to you. However, I suppose that would take you off this forum because the only people talking to you are cats and the voices in your head. Secondly, even if I did have the knowledge of this subject to break it down Barney style for you, i don't have the patience to put up with your level of Mabus-ness.Hopefully this thread gets shut down soon so you leave it.

Good. You admit at least you have no clue and are a crypto-creo just because Carl Satan was a pleasant weed-smoking chap who assured you that it was cool to be a bigbanger crypto-creo with no clue about physics or anything.

What's the difference? The lines curve on a sphere because the sphere itself is curved. Can you explain the distinction?

Cool to have my own nickname now. Not as good as Vatican, Dr. Inadequate or No No, but I can't complain. So far and again in this post, you repeatedly ask us to justify a version of cosmology not described by any professional cosmologist. I fail to see why we should defend a theory that doesn't exist. Perhaps, for the next thread you should read a proper account of what the Big Bang says. I've recommended Kolb and Turner, you can skip the mathematical parts and still get a good idea of the theory.

If at any point you'd like to come out from under your troll bridge, join reality and have an actual discussion, I'd be glad to. I may not know a whole lot about physics, what with not being college educated, but I am sure I have a better grasp on it than you since I'm not completely and blindingly shit crazy.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Sorry, Tacky, frequency being emitted is sloppy language. Frequency generally is a number of occurrences per reference unit and here it is the number of motions occurring per one motion the direction of which is at the right angle to other motions of the same object.
The number of times the second distance is travelled twice counted is the frequency of light.
Bottom line is: the whole operation consists in comparing three lengths: wavelength of a waving medium; that is the distance between the crests of the waving motion and amplitude which is the distance from the trough to the crest of the same wave. Multiplied or divided by a period which is unit time and is another length here as this is referred to and is established through the constant distance light signal may travel per unit time. The whole thing is circular with the lengths being self-referential.Unless the physical medium putting physical constraints on the speed of light's signal is specified, that is.All of this is a static distance relation and is a matter of perspective. Nothing physically dilates as time is not a stretchable object. Distances travelled and ultimately the distances separating the observers is the only thing that is different resulting in different counts. That is exactly what is being overlooked by the idiotic bigbangists and the rest of the distance dilating cretins.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

I've spent a few hours with your Kolb and Turner catechism book in googlereads after you mentioned it a week ago or so, Sonny. I never skip the Latin the priests presume I do not understand so they can hide behind it. What I do is translate the gist of the absurdity proposed in that tongue in other languages.
Sorry to disappoint you but what I said above is what the mathematics in your bigbangist catechism inevitably resolve to. No escape.