james blunt
Well-Known Member
Parlor tricks don't wash with me !
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can religion reject this science ?
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- science
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I am the best theoretical physicist this chitty little rock called Earth as ever seen !
My talents are greatly wasted ...
(That comment excludes Tesla , he was great , )
My talents are greatly wasted ...
(That comment excludes Tesla , he was great , )
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
If only your theories worked in practice. I can only assume they don't because of realty's unfair bias against you.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I have workable physics for photon torpedoes , a space ship that doesn't use rocket fuel , energy ideas and several other ideas . My notions all based on my theory and workable physics .
The bias against me is because science is rather embarrassed that a nobody with no formal qualifications can come along and make them look ''stupid'' .
I've give loads of free workable ideas away already including a much more efficient solar panel design .
that will increase the pE (potential energy) .
I've also posted a perpetual motion and energy device design that'll work according to the physics involved ..
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You do understand that the light clock shows exactly how special relativity predicts time dilation? Because, when the clock is moving, you get a triangular path, which is longer than the simple up-down path when it's stationary (wrt an observer's frame of reference). When we combine that with the observed phenomenon that the speed of light is constant in all frame of reference, time dilation follows from simple maths.
What's more important is that the effect has been observed in experiments and is used in technology and it is exactly as predicted by the theory.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I drew the zig zag line didn't I ? I understand the parlor trick and that is why I easily demonstrated it is incorrect and a parlor trick .
The trick is that Einstein always puts a 1.s imaginary frame in and the action is within that frame . You have been deceived by observer effect !
He does this with most of his work , it is a parlor trick !
if you want to get into more details , the 1.s frame remains constant and the angular path means the light has to travel a greater distance than the 1.s frame so it seems like time slows down if we was to use some parlor trick semantics .
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You have demonstrated nothing.
No, he didn't.
Back to word salad...
james blunt
Well-Known Member
You have demonstrated nothing.
No, he didn't.
Back to word salad...
Yeah ok , you're just pushing to pick my brain ! I have demonstrated it by contracting the imaginary frame to a Planck length and using time Planck . You don't observe any zig zag , you observe a linearity and a time constant ......
Einstein is a cheat ,
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Look the zig-zag path is longer. The speed of light is the same, therefore, light takes longer to travel the zig-zag than the simple up-down. Even you should be able to see that - even if you can't do the maths to derive the exact formula.
And again - the important thing is that experiments and technology agree with Einstein. You are simply wrong - get over it.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Light takes more time to travel a longer length !
The zig zag XY frame is a longer length than the imaginary 1.s Y-frame
It means nothing ....
james blunt
Well-Known Member
It's rubbish in fact, we don't need that to explain it takes an amount of time to travel a distance at a constant speed and it will take more time to travel greater the distance at the same constant speed .
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes. If the clock is stationary (in some reference frame) then it only has to travel up and down. If the clock is moving, it has to travel the zig-zag path - which takes it longer. Therefore, if I observe a moving clock, I observe time going slower than if I was stationary relative to the clock.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
No you don't ! Lets be precise now ,
1) You can't see the light beam unless there is a medium that reflects light such as smoke
2) Any light you see is a direct linearity to your eyes
3) The light clock beam simultaneously exists with you
4) Any slower measurement simultaneously experiences the faster measurement .
.....0.5s
...........1.s
The 0.5s is irrelevant
james blunt
Well-Known Member
We simultaneously start our clocks at 00:00:00 and you return at 00:00:05 according to your clock , my clock says 00:00:10
You have been gone 1.s not 1/2 a second .
You have been gone 1.s not 1/2 a second .
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Your whole post is irrelevant. This is a thought experiment - how you observe it doesn't matter. What matters is that you can use the thought experiment to derive the formula for time dilation (you actually only need Pythagoras and basic algebra) and then use that to predict the results of real experiments.
This has been done and the predictions have been proved to be accurate. That's how science works. That's how we know Einstein was right and James Blunt is wrong. You can't use waffle on a forum to argue against the results of real experiments in the real world. You are arguing against reality itself.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
No, you are talking crap , I've already told you and demonstrated that there is no change in time , no time dilation . I will prove it some more .
You travel away from me 00:00:00 Jan 1st 2019 and you are going to return precisely 1 year later according to your clock at 00:00:00 Jan 1st 2020
Now for the thought experiment we will say that your clock runs twice as slow as my clock . Can you tell me roughly what the time and date my clock measures when you return to my now ?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
As I said, ill-informed waffle on a forum is not a demonstration - the actual experiments are demonstrations. If you can't see why words on a forum don't stand up against real experiments, you're totally beyond hope as far as science goes.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Nope ! You're trying to bury the truth with gibberish and ignoring the questions posed to you . I've already explained your semantics of these experiments are incorrect , you are not willing to be corrected .
My clock measures 00:00:00 July 1st 2020 , you have been gone a year and a half and I inform you that your clock is broken and the measurement is running slow . That is the truth so why keep denying it and lying ?
If the sun and earths orbit slowed down and you was using a sundial to measure time, would you say time as slowed down ?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I tried...
I'm sorry but you are like a robot and a stuck record who willfully avoids any questions and discussion , only replying with present information , the very information that I am pointing out is at error in semantics .
This is what you are doing
me - This is at error
you - this
me - yes that is at error
you - this
me - yes this is the error
you -this
me - you are not considering the error
you - it says this though
me - I know it says that but it is at error
you - but it says this
me- I know it says that and this is the error
you - I give up, it says this .