SinisterThinking
Junior Member
- Messages
- 73
Sorry, no. Time dilation happens every, single time a particle is accelerated in a particle accelerator.
Sorry no. I'm pretty certain(at 95% accuracy), the folks at CERN would say your statement is false.
"scientists actually rely on time dilation to slow the particle's clock so they even have time to observe it."
Isn't this like using carbon dating? The presumption of fact(based on experiments with way less that 100% accuracy) only compounds the margin of error of the resultant data.
then you need to explain why clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth.
Your use of "faster" is really interesting. Anyone not familiar with what you are referring to,
especially when you use it in conjunction with "fixing", presumes devistation without this fix.
I only needed to read about Grace Hopper(20 years ago) to realize that the times your dealing with here
are about the length of a hair strand at light speed. If it was anyone other than Einstein, scientists would have
ignored it(It's way easier to get NSF funding if you use Einstein somewhere in your grant proposal).
Since time dilation wasn't tested in space until 2016, how did we manage?
Every reading has to correct for this error.
No, it just does. What's the point of having information when you don't apply
it? At that point it's just some code and a header.
Regarding the rest of your drivel.
Why do you insist on using words like "drivel". This is an awful way to
carry on conversation. Every single, solitary, scientific fact starts with someone
observing something, then if the passion is there, they pursue it through the scientific method.
You really need to reduce your oppressive speech. People just like to converse for fun, throw ideas around.
Sometimes the ideas are awesome, sometimes they sound like "Star Wars" logic. It doesn't matter.
then solipsism is your only possible position.
If I was stuck on a deserted island, I'd rather have Descartes and Locke to help me find food than Einstein.
Seriously, your use of this word is uniquely strange. When we talk about relativity, we have to say,"relative to what?"
No matter how you dice it up. The relativity of time ALWAYS requires observation. When we report our observation, isn't solipsism
our only possible position to report from? Maybe a better word would be constructivism?
Sorry no. I'm pretty certain(at 95% accuracy), the folks at CERN would say your statement is false.
"scientists actually rely on time dilation to slow the particle's clock so they even have time to observe it."
Isn't this like using carbon dating? The presumption of fact(based on experiments with way less that 100% accuracy) only compounds the margin of error of the resultant data.
then you need to explain why clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth.
Your use of "faster" is really interesting. Anyone not familiar with what you are referring to,
especially when you use it in conjunction with "fixing", presumes devistation without this fix.
I only needed to read about Grace Hopper(20 years ago) to realize that the times your dealing with here
are about the length of a hair strand at light speed. If it was anyone other than Einstein, scientists would have
ignored it(It's way easier to get NSF funding if you use Einstein somewhere in your grant proposal).
Since time dilation wasn't tested in space until 2016, how did we manage?
Every reading has to correct for this error.
No, it just does. What's the point of having information when you don't apply
it? At that point it's just some code and a header.
Regarding the rest of your drivel.
Why do you insist on using words like "drivel". This is an awful way to
carry on conversation. Every single, solitary, scientific fact starts with someone
observing something, then if the passion is there, they pursue it through the scientific method.
You really need to reduce your oppressive speech. People just like to converse for fun, throw ideas around.
Sometimes the ideas are awesome, sometimes they sound like "Star Wars" logic. It doesn't matter.
then solipsism is your only possible position.
If I was stuck on a deserted island, I'd rather have Descartes and Locke to help me find food than Einstein.
Seriously, your use of this word is uniquely strange. When we talk about relativity, we have to say,"relative to what?"
No matter how you dice it up. The relativity of time ALWAYS requires observation. When we report our observation, isn't solipsism
our only possible position to report from? Maybe a better word would be constructivism?