Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
The illusive Nature of Time
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SinisterThinking" data-source="post: 197797" data-attributes="member: 12714"><p>Sorry, no. Time dilation happens every, single time a particle is accelerated in a particle accelerator.</p><p></p><p><strong>Sorry no. I'm pretty certain(at 95% accuracy), the folks at CERN would say your statement is false.</strong> </p><p></p><p></p><p>"scientists actually rely on time dilation to slow the particle's clock so they even have time to observe it."</p><p></p><p><strong>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.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>then you need to explain why clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth.</p><p></p><p><strong>Your use of "faster" is really interesting. Anyone not familiar with what you are referring to,</strong></p><p><strong>especially when you use it in conjunction with "fixing", presumes devistation without this fix.</strong></p><p><strong>I only needed to read about Grace Hopper(20 years ago) to realize that the times your dealing with here</strong></p><p><strong>are about the length of a hair strand at light speed. If it was anyone other than Einstein, scientists would have </strong></p><p><strong>ignored it(It's way easier to get NSF funding if you use Einstein somewhere in your grant proposal). </strong></p><p><strong>Since time dilation wasn't tested in space until 2016, how did we manage?</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Every reading has to correct for this error.</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>No, it just does. What's the point of having information when you don't apply</strong></p><p><strong>it? At that point it's just some code and a header. </strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Regarding the rest of your drivel.</p><p></p><p><strong>Why do you insist on using words like "drivel". This is an awful way to</strong></p><p><strong>carry on conversation. Every single, solitary, scientific fact starts with someone</strong></p><p><strong>observing something, then if the passion is there, they pursue it through the scientific method.</strong></p><p><strong>You really need to reduce your oppressive speech. People just like to converse for fun, throw ideas around.</strong></p><p><strong>Sometimes the ideas are awesome, sometimes they sound like "Star Wars" logic. It doesn't matter.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>then solipsism is your only possible position.</p><p></p><p><strong>If I was stuck on a deserted island, I'd rather have Descartes and Locke to help me find food than Einstein.</strong></p><p><strong>Seriously, your use of this word is uniquely strange. When we talk about relativity, we have to say,"relative to what?"</strong></p><p><strong>No matter how you dice it up. The relativity of time ALWAYS requires observation. When we report our observation, isn't solipsism</strong></p><p><strong>our only possible position to report from? Maybe a better word would be constructivism?</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SinisterThinking, post: 197797, member: 12714"] Sorry, no. Time dilation happens every, single time a particle is accelerated in a particle accelerator. [B]Sorry no. I'm pretty certain(at 95% accuracy), the folks at CERN would say your statement is false.[/B] "scientists actually rely on time dilation to slow the particle's clock so they even have time to observe it." [B]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.[/B] then you need to explain why clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth. [B]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?[/B] Every reading has to correct for this error. [B] 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. [/B] Regarding the rest of your drivel. [B]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.[/B] then solipsism is your only possible position. [B]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?[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
The illusive Nature of Time
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top