I challenge the world , bring it on!

[james blunt]

You are misusing "static" again, and apparently unfamiliar with virtual particles, the existence of which has been proven by Hawking radiation. I see how you were, in fact, trying to answer my question, but you seem to lack the foundational concepts to understand it. May I recommend "A Brief History of Time" as a good starting point? Dr Brian Cox also tackles some of this stuff in a relatively easy to understand manner, so you might like to look up some of his documentaries if you're interested in learning more.

I love it! When you people come on and try to gain cognitive control , a tactic of accusing the person needs to learn.

Would you like me to give you the history of time ?

Would you like me to show how the present duration of a second is equal to a speed ?

I am here teaching not learning.

 

[james blunt]

Ummmm..... No.
It seems that you cannot grasp the idea that as this Universe, which is unbounded, expands, that it EITHER expands the space within itself (thus causing 'fixed' points to move away from each other with the expansion), OR creates new space with infinite new points.......... this second aspect which you reject, thus leaving you tied to the former, in which case your points do move.

Hmmm, you have no idea, are you distinguishing the difference between space and the Universe?

We are talking about space.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I simply can't imagine why this totally rational guy has been banned from so many forums. It's a total headscratcher.

 

[james blunt]

I simply can't imagine why this totally rational guy has been banned from so many forums. It's a total headscratcher.

Because I refuse to accept things to be true that are not true and do not logically work. My logic uses two main postulates:

1) Possible

2) Impossible

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I love it! When you people come on and try to gain cognitive control , a tactic of accusing the person needs to learn.

Would you like me to give you the history of time ?

Would you like me to show how the present duration of a second is equal to a speed ?

I am here teaching not learning.

Sure. Tell me "the history of time" as you understand it. I was trying to be helpful to someone with an interest, but by all means, if you know better, enlighten us.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Because I refuse to accept things to be true that are not true and do not logically work. My logic uses two main postulates:

1) Possible

2) Impossible

Let me guess, you disprove quantum and string theories with "common sense"?

 

[james blunt]

Sure. Tell me "the history of time" as you understand it. I was trying to be helpful to someone with an interest, but by all means, if you know better, enlighten us.

I am a bit defensive sorry, I have had many years of people trolling me and telling me I have not learnt anything, them being subjective and making assumptions rather than any truths.


The history of time is pretty straight forward, the use of sundials, the use of orbit to measure time and clocks , and now the Caesium standard.
A 24 hr day measured by the rotational period, was used to devise the mechanical clock. 24 hrs on a clock being equal to one rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun.
Later in time, the Earths rotation was found to be a variate, so we needed more accuracy , so came up with the caesium clock, we timed how many cycles the Caesium emitted to equal 1 second of the mechanical clock , a measure of 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second which we use this day.
However silly science never considered that the mechanical clock second was equal to a rotation speed, top of my head I think it was 0.288 mile/s , something like that without doing the full workings.
So anyway , science swapped this over to the Caesium, so in affect 9,192,631,770 oscillations is equal to 0.288mile/s and that is the present speed of time.

Yea a proper stuff up .

 

[james blunt]

Let me guess, you disprove quantum and string theories with "common sense"?

String theory is a bit garbage. Quantum theory is ok , it depends on specifics. I approve of the truth and will disprove untruths or correct the semantics where possible.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I am a bit defensive sorry, I have had many years of people trolling me and telling me I have not learnt anything, them being subjective and making assumptions rather than any truths.


The history of time is pretty straight forward, the use of sundials, the use of orbit to measure time and clocks , and now the Caesium standard.
A 24 hr day measured by the rotational period, was used to devise the mechanical clock. 24 hrs on a clock being equal to one rotation of the Earth relative to the Sun.
Later in time, the Earths rotation was found to be a variate, so we needed more accuracy , so came up with the caesium clock, we timed how many cycles the Caesium emitted to equal 1 second of the mechanical clock , a measure of 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second which we use this day.
However silly science never considered that the mechanical clock second was equal to a rotation speed, top of my head I think it was 0.288 mile/s , something like that without doing the full workings.
So anyway , science swapped this over to the Caesium, so in affect 9,192,631,770 oscillations is equal to 0.288mile/s and that is the present speed of time.

Yea a proper stuff up .

O.M.G.

 

[FearGod]

Quite clearly you do not understand physics, the skin of the balloon has a magnitude of permeability , space has zero permeability, learn some physics before you comment without rational thought.

F= 0 acting on the balloons surface from the space.

u = 0

Did you create the space inside the balloon? now can you manage the volume of the space
inside the balloon?

Scientists just don't know what is beyond this universe, they know that the space is expanding,
but what makes it expanding and where it goes is mind boggling.

Scientists based their theories according to their observations but that doesn't mean
they know really how things had worked.

Take for example evolution, scientists have evidences that life has been evolved from simple
organisms to a more complex ones, natural selection is their explanation for the mechanism
of evolution, those who were fitter and able to survive and passing their genes to the next generation
is what they believe is the work of nature, religious people who believe in evolution think that it has been
done by ID and not just the work of nature alone, but the fact is still a fact, life has been evolved.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

String theory is a bit garbage. Quantum theory is ok , it depends on specifics. I approve of the truth and will disprove untruths or correct the semantics where possible.

Go ahead. Support your claim.

 

[james blunt]

O.M.G.

I can explain it more intricate , but I think you may understand.

 

[james blunt]

Go ahead. Support your claim.

Which claim? I have lots of ''claims''.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I can explain it more intricate , but I think you may understand.

When someone offers to explain"the history of time" and then presents a history of timekeeping... that's... well, pretty special.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Which claim? I have lots of ''claims''.

The claims you just made? Starting with "String theory is a bit garbage"?

 

[james blunt]

Did you create the space inside the balloon? now can you manage the volume of the space
inside the balloon?

Scientists just don't know what is beyond this universe, they know that the space is expanding,
but what makes it expanding and where it goes is mind boggling.

Scientists based their theories according to their observations but that doesn't mean
they know really how things had worked.

Take for example evolution, scientists have evidences that life has been evolved from simple
organisms to a more complex ones, natural selection is their explanation for the mechanim
of evolution, those who were fitter and able to survive and passing their genes to the next generation
is what they believe is the work of nature, religious people who believe in evolution think that it has been
done by ID and not just the work of nature alone, but the fact is still a fact, life has been evolved.

I did not create the space in the balloon, the space existed in the box .

Evolution is a trick one, I do have a few opinions but would rather keep that to myself.

 

[james blunt]

The claims you just made? Starting with "String theory is a bit garbage"?

In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string looks just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string. In string theory, one of the many vibrational states of the string corresponds to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries gravitational force. Thus string theory is a theory of quantum gravity.

Little to no logic, it reads like gibberish , contradicts, just awful .

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Little to no logic, it reads like gibberish , contradicts, just awful .

Uh-huh.

That's it, I'm out.

 

[FearGod]

I did not create the space in the balloon, the space existed in the box .

Evolution is a trick one, I do have a few opinions but would rather keep that to myself.

I din't say you created the space, but the volume of the space inside the balloon, please be specific.

 

[james blunt]

Uh-huh.

That's it, I'm out.

HUh? You lost me there, you asked me about string theory, I replied with the answer. if I was peer viewing string theory I would put it in the bin.