The illusive Nature of Time

Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
431
You are the one with the claim. it IS on you to prove me wrong and not the other way around. It's your assertion. It's your onus to provide the theory/evidence.
Note your own claim:

See, here's how this works. You made a claim that all the evidence points against. I asked you to back it up, while I provided a small part of the evidence that says you're wrong, along with simple examples of the phenomena.

Stamping your foot and saying "Nuh uh" is not a counterargument. Your personal preferences cannot apply when there are real, observed, and measured phenomena that support the mainstream view of Relativity.

If you can't bring yourself to believe in gravitational or acceleration time dilation, then you're gonna have to produce at least the rough outline of some model of how the universe works, because you have claimed the current one, for which there exists reams of evidence, is invalid.

Harte
One, I stated a claim and proved evidence that my claim is correct, which you responded to by not saying something that was relevant to my claim and any of the evidence.

"I am beating around the bush, how can you explain that what your observe the data that your senses send to your mind is accurate; can you explain the phenomena that you observed is what you think it is in the first place. your visual information are not proofs that visual information is accurate because they are only visual information, and science is just the study of that. Logic determines the answer not theories only based of mere observation. Why is what the information send to your consciousness by yours senses accurate, could the data be altered along the way, could something be fooling your senses?"

There are philosophies for or against, but to debate this question you need to be debated the question, read about those philosophies the logical reasoning. Don't debate the result of weather the a potential answer to the question debate the question itself.

I provided evidence, what the doctrine of science admits, what the creator of admits, what 99% of scientists would admit, what a little easy deduction could prove; that is not up for debate. What I am debating with you is the actual question itself and for or against based off philosophy that actually is for or against. You are not correct again about my not believing in gravitational or acceleration time dilation, everything exists somewhere right, what I debating is the accuracy of your senses; you cannot know what is accurate when getting the images has a high probability of being inherently flawed causing the picture to be altered.
 
Last edited:

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,673
One, I stated a claim and proved evidence that my claim is correct, which you responded to by not saying something that was relevant to my claim and any of the evidence.
You gave evidence? What evidence did you give?
Do you know what evidence is?
I reposted your claim. You trying to make me repost it again?

You didn't give any evidence at all, and you never will. What that means is you're talking out of your ass. Your feelings are that Relativity doesn't work, but, since you can't understand Relativity, you just want to make silly assertions about it.

If you "feel like" something must not be true, then just say it's based on your feelings and you won't be wasting people's time like this because literally no one cares about how you "feel" about it.

Harte
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
431
You gave evidence? What evidence did you give?
Do you know what evidence is?
I reposted your claim. You trying to make me repost it again?

You didn't give any evidence at all, and you never will. What that means is you're talking out of your ass. Your feelings are that Relativity doesn't work, but, since you can't understand Relativity, you just want to make silly assertions about it.

If you "feel like" something must not be true, then just say it's based on your feelings and you won't be wasting people's time like this because literally no one cares about how you "feel" about it.

Harte
Your large amount of hurled insults shows that is what you have to offer, can you even retype my claim in your own words? I asked how do you know if the data that comes to your consciousness is accurate.

relativety has nothing to do with this, relativity is only correct if you can prove your senses are not an inaccurate form of measurement which is gained through philosophical logic.

three, I stated logic, prove that it is not instead of just saying its a "feeling", when did I describe feelings instead of logical tautologies?
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
431
"
This is where I digress from the special relativity theory. Einstein essentially says that time is relative. I get that, however by agreeing, there is an unprovable assumption that needs to come with that construct. We must assume that there are varying and arbitrary methods to measure time. There simply isn't any. If there were, it still isn't any good because there's no inherent method available for comparison. Hence the phrase,"coordinated universal time".

To be honest, your postulate on time stopping with motion stopping can only be theoretical. Motion doesn't arbitrarily cease. Otherwise we should ask for our money back from 6th grade when inertia was introduced.
"
can you solve this science riddle? If so glad to be working with you
what turns but is does not stop, what moves but never moves into a different section of space uncaused by turning, the gong of a bell against time itself, one side reverberating through history, what am I, where am I, what can I do?
 

SinisterThinking

Junior Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2020
Messages
73
You gave evidence? What evidence did you give?
Do you know what evidence is?
I reposted your claim. You trying to make me repost it again?

You didn't give any evidence at all, and you never will. What that means is you're talking out of your ass. Your feelings are that Relativity doesn't work, but, since you can't understand Relativity, you just want to make silly assertions about it.

If you "feel like" something must not be true, then just say it's based on your feelings and you won't be wasting people's time like this because literally no one cares about how you "feel" about it.

Harte
Science is riddled with unproveable "must be's". For Big Bang to occur something "must be" moving faster than the speed of light. Yet there is zero evidence. In mu estimation, "must be" is no different than "feels like".
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
431
Science is riddled with unproveable "must be's". For Big Bang to occur something "must be" moving faster than the speed of light. Yet there is zero evidence. In mu estimation, "must be" is no different than "feels like".
the accuracy of scientific process is based off an assumption which is no different the "feels like" or "must be" correct? The for or against if ones senses are accurate are based off logos analysis analytical philosophy not science, the part of the scientific doctrine already addresses this by being states as any scientific analysis, any theories are only rest on the foundation of the potential for ones senses to be accurate and admits that is a hope, an assumption, not a fact only a possibility which is not disproven or proven yet and will be determined by other philosophies; which is my point. What I am only stating is already written into the scientific philosophy and other philosophies are for or against, there is no I feel this is true, a quick google search and critical thinking would prove that what I wrote is correct, unless you don't "trust" any external sources of information. I admit debating this can be fun but stating the same things without a response that I do perceive to disprove or prove what was being debated.

do you want to debate or is there a point in responding about this topic?
 

Top