Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adyny Rieph
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:01:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Adyny Rieph on 24/09/2010 14:08:47
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 24/09/2010 13:51:10
Originally by: Adyny Rieph You're calling me ignorant for being skeptical about a ridiculous theory that can never and will never be proven properly
It has been proven.
Quote: That an atomic clock can differ in space just means the vastly different atmosphere up there is interfering with the mechanisms.
That's hot how atomic clocks (or, indeed, space) work.
Quote: This means, therefore, that as we reach the present time every instance of every nanosecond, that that church steeple has already reached the present time, and is actually in the future. It is time travelling. Why can I still see it then?
It's worse than that: you're never seeing anything in "the present" ù what you see is always in the past.
Quote: It's ridiculous.
It's also proven to be true. The sooner you realise that the universe is a thoroughly ridiculous thing to begin with, the sooner it will all start to make sense.
Not everything you see is in the past. If I stare at a fly on the wall I'm constantly seeing it in the present, not the past. The present is constantly going and sending the previous present into the past continually. I'm seeing the present, not the past, and the universe isn't ridiculous, it's all good. There are laws that govern everything and they must be adhered to. Black holes are a good example of this. They're insane, like pockets on baby clothes are insane. But they are functioning correctly and adhering to the laws set for them and they can not stray from their only function of sucking things in and generally being vandals. We just don't know exactly what these laws are that they are adhering to. I can tell you one law that everything in the universe must adhere to though, and it's time. A second is a second and I can prove it. I just counted to 10. At the same time some alien from another part of the universe is doing the exact same thing we're doing now, debating ridiculous theories that people think are cool and so they believe. He's travelling 10x the speed of light in his intergalactic crapmobile. He started counting to 10 the very instant I started, and reached 10 at the very instant I did. We was both using atomic egg-timers. Between us, the entire universe advanced 10 seconds and no more, because we both counted to 10. Doesn't matter how fast he was travelling, doesn't matter at all. 10 seconds is 10 seconds.
Edit - last post on the previous page - you'd ask me about evolution and I'll tell you you can see it happening through a microscope if you look at the common cold virus on a petri dish. The difference between evolution and time travel is that while both started out as theories, one has been absolutely and utterly proven beyond any need for argument or debate (unless you believe in an invisible guy in the sky), the other is a completely ridiculous theory that hasn't been proven and can't be proven.
|
Cebraio
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:06:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Adyny Rieph Flies and aliens
You just crossed the line where I can only believe you are a troll.
Also, listen to the lady. What Tippia told you is that you only see things because they reflect light. The light travels from the fly to your eye. Travel takes time, so technically you are seeing a fly from the (very very recent) past.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:08:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Tippia on 24/09/2010 14:11:25
Originally by: Adyny Rieph Not everything you see is in the past.
No, pretty much everything you see is in the past, unless it's occurring in your headà and even then it's iffy (but then we're into discussions such as the "speed of cognition", which is a different topic altogether).
Quote: If I stare at a fly on the wall I'm constantly seeing it in the present, not the past.
No. You're seeing it as it were when the light left the wall.
Quote: and the universe isn't ridiculous, it's all good.
You say that as if it was a dichotomy. And as this thread shows, it's very ridiculous. This is a good thing ù it wouldn't be nearly as fun to live in if it was more serious.
Quote: A second is a second and I can prove it.
A second is also subjective.
àand your example offers no proof at all, btw. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
WarlockX
Amarr Free Trade Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:19:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Adyny Rieph A second is a second and I can prove it.
A second is not a second and HAS been proven. It's been proven over and over and over by ppl who belive the theory and those who doubt it. Ignorant ppl like you have existed forever you don't think you're the first person to have this point of view do you? ----------------------------------------------- Free Trade Corp - Flash page
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:22:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Adyny Rieph Edited by: Adyny Rieph on 24/09/2010 13:51:40 You're calling me ignorant for being skeptical about a ridiculous theory that can never and will never be proven properly as nothing with any mass can ever travel at even a fraction of the speed of light. I don't doubt that clocks say different things when they get put in to space or at higher or lower points of the earth, because clocks are engineered to work for us on this planet. That an atomic clock can differ in space just means the vastly different atmosphere up there is interfering with the mechanisms.
There's a church outside my house that is at least 138 years old with a steeple that must be 200 feet high. That means that the very tip of that steeple is travelling faster than the base of the church as the earth spins and revolves around that big orange thing in the sky. That means that over the 138 years that steeple has been there, the very tip must now be older than the base, and is ageing faster than the base because it is much higher up. This is the theory. This means, therefore, that as we reach the present time every instance of every nanosecond, that that church steeple has already reached the present time, and is actually in the future. It is time travelling. Why can I still see it then? It should have disappeared in to the future by now.
When a window cleaner climbs a ladder to clean a window, if he stays up there for 5 minutes, he should travel in to the future by 1 million trillion billionths of a million billion trillionth of a second. Are window cleaners disappearing off the face of the earth in to the future? No, because they're not travelling through anything, just occupying space at a faster rate than they would if they didn't clean windows for a living.
It's ridiculous.
Edit - Future or past, I don't know, either one is just as insanely ridiculous as the other.
I never realized how geocentrics must have sounded when denouncing the theories and experiments of Copernicus, Kepler and Galilei; or how flat-earthers must have sounded when discussing the ancient greek experiments proving the theory that the earth was round - until now.
To a nature-worshipping germanic savage, it would have been obvious and purely logical to regard the world as a flat disc - because clearly the ground was flat, and you couldn't see anything beyond the horizon (surely where the world has to end). The very idea that the earth is round would be preposterous! Things on the sides and the bottom would surely fall off! What about the water? Clearly water would run down the globe and drip off the bottom too!
To a devout theologian of the middle ages, it would have been obvious and purely logical to regard the earth as the centre of things, with all other celestial bodies revolving around it - because clearly the sun rises, travels across the sky and keeps making laps around the globe. The proof is there for all to see! The very idea that the earth spins around the sun would be preposterous! Just as preposterous as if somebody in a carriage or ship claiming that he was sitting still while the earth and the trees walked and moved (to paraphrase Martin Luther).
To someone holding fast to the idea that time is a universal constant, it would be completely logical and clearly apparent to think that time passes at the same pace in all parts of the universe, and that things such as velocity and gravity have no bearing on the passage of time. The idea that time can vary depending on where you are or how quickly you're moving would seem absolutely stupid. Surely, if things moving at different velocities experienced different speeds of time, a rotating pole would see the far end travel backwards or forward in time independently from the closer end! It's simple logic, and the alternative is patently ridiculous. -----
|
Dr Takiyoma
Traders Industrialists and Miners of EVE R.H.I.N.O.
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:23:00 -
[66]
The problem is your watch is exactly two days slow.
|
WarlockX
Amarr Free Trade Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:25:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai
Originally by: Adyny Rieph Edited by: Adyny Rieph on 24/09/2010 13:51:40 You're calling me ignorant for being skeptical about a ridiculous theory that can never and will never be proven properly as nothing with any mass can ever travel at even a fraction of the speed of light. I don't doubt that clocks say different things when they get put in to space or at higher or lower points of the earth, because clocks are engineered to work for us on this planet. That an atomic clock can differ in space just means the vastly different atmosphere up there is interfering with the mechanisms.
There's a church outside my house that is at least 138 years old with a steeple that must be 200 feet high. That means that the very tip of that steeple is travelling faster than the base of the church as the earth spins and revolves around that big orange thing in the sky. That means that over the 138 years that steeple has been there, the very tip must now be older than the base, and is ageing faster than the base because it is much higher up. This is the theory. This means, therefore, that as we reach the present time every instance of every nanosecond, that that church steeple has already reached the present time, and is actually in the future. It is time travelling. Why can I still see it then? It should have disappeared in to the future by now.
When a window cleaner climbs a ladder to clean a window, if he stays up there for 5 minutes, he should travel in to the future by 1 million trillion billionths of a million billion trillionth of a second. Are window cleaners disappearing off the face of the earth in to the future? No, because they're not travelling through anything, just occupying space at a faster rate than they would if they didn't clean windows for a living.
It's ridiculous.
Edit - Future or past, I don't know, either one is just as insanely ridiculous as the other.
I never realized how geocentrics must have sounded when denouncing the theories and experiments of Copernicus, Kepler and Galilei; or how flat-earthers must have sounded when discussing the ancient greek experiments proving the theory that the earth was round - until now.
To a nature-worshipping germanic savage, it would have been obvious and purely logical to regard the world as a flat disc - because clearly the ground was flat, and you couldn't see anything beyond the horizon (surely where the world has to end). The very idea that the earth is round would be preposterous! Things on the sides and the bottom would surely fall off! What about the water? Clearly water would run down the globe and drip off the bottom too!
To a devout theologian of the middle ages, it would have been obvious and purely logical to regard the earth as the centre of things, with all other celestial bodies revolving around it - because clearly the sun rises, travels across the sky and keeps making laps around the globe. The proof is there for all to see! The very idea that the earth spins around the sun would be preposterous! Just as preposterous as if somebody in a carriage or ship claiming that he was sitting still while the earth and the trees walked and moved (to paraphrase Martin Luther).
To someone holding fast to the idea that time is a universal constant, it would be completely logical and clearly apparent to think that time passes at the same pace in all parts of the universe, and that things such as velocity and gravity have no bearing on the passage of time. The idea that time can vary depending on where you are or how quickly you're moving would seem absolutely stupid. Surely, if things moving at different velocities experienced different speeds of time, a rotating pole would see the far end travel backwards or forward in time independently from the closer end! It's simple logic, and the alternative is patently ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------- Free Trade Corp - Flash page
|
Makko Gray
Gallente Nexus Aerospace Corporation The Volition Cult
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:25:00 -
[68]
Originally by: RaZZZZia the OP fears the eschaton i presume?
Quote:
I am the Eschaton. I am not your God. I am descended from you, and exist in your future. Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone. Or else.
Thanks, Charles Stross, for writing such wonderfull books
Awesome, finally met someone else who read those books.
Prefered Halting State myself, bit easier to read.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar CareBears on Fire The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:34:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Adyny Rieph
Edit - last post on the previous page - you'd ask me about evolution and I'll tell you you can see it happening through a microscope if you look at the common cold virus on a petri dish.
I don't think anyone debates micro evolution. I was discussing the other kind. You know, the kind that causes the YEC crowd to go all nutso. --Vel
|
Jaliri Naskad
The Thorn Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:41:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai Edited by: Alexeph Stoekai on 24/09/2010 07:32:02
Originally by: Mag's
He was agreeing with you, if you missed it.
You sure? Because I'm not getting that at all.
Sorry, Alexeph Stoekai. When I quoted you in my post, I thought I was quoting Adyny Rieph, and thus my sarcasm parade was indeed accidentally misdirected. I'm sorry for generating so much confusion in my (far too late night) attempt at generating confusion.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:42:00 -
[71]
àand speaking of the ridiculousness of the universe, I wonder if this might be a good time to bring up quantum cameras ù those lovely little things that work on the principle of making images of things by not looking at them. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:43:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Jaliri Naskad
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai Edited by: Alexeph Stoekai on 24/09/2010 07:32:02
Originally by: Mag's
He was agreeing with you, if you missed it.
You sure? Because I'm not getting that at all.
Sorry, Alexeph Stoekai. When I quoted you in my post, I thought I was quoting Adyny Rieph, and thus my sarcasm parade was indeed accidentally misdirected. I'm sorry for generating so much confusion in my (far too late night) attempt at generating confusion.
No hard feelings. -----
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:45:00 -
[73]
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Adyny Rieph Edited by: Adyny Rieph on 24/09/2010 13:51:40 You're calling me ignorant for being skeptical about a ridiculous theory that can never and will never be proven properly as nothing with any mass can ever travel at even a fraction of the speed of light. I don't doubt that clocks say different things when they get put in to space or at higher or lower points of the earth, because clocks are engineered to work for us on this planet. That an atomic clock can differ in space just means the vastly different atmosphere up there is interfering with the mechanisms.
There's a church outside my house that is at least 138 years old with a steeple that must be 200 feet high. That means that the very tip of that steeple is travelling faster than the base of the church as the earth spins and revolves around that big orange thing in the sky. That means that over the 138 years that steeple has been there, the very tip must now be older than the base, and is ageing faster than the base because it is much higher up. This is the theory. This means, therefore, that as we reach the present time every instance of every nanosecond, that that church steeple has already reached the present time, and is actually in the future. It is time travelling. Why can I still see it then? It should have disappeared in to the future by now.
When a window cleaner climbs a ladder to clean a window, if he stays up there for 5 minutes, he should travel in to the future by 1 million trillion billionths of a million billion trillionth of a second. Are window cleaners disappearing off the face of the earth in to the future? No, because they're not travelling through anything, just occupying space at a faster rate than they would if they didn't clean windows for a living.
It's ridiculous.
Edit - Future or past, I don't know, either one is just as insanely ridiculous as the other.
I'd ask him what he thinks about Evolution, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
Shhhsh... don't get him into troublesome thoughts on his flat earth in the middle of the universe.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar CareBears on Fire The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 14:57:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Tippia àand speaking of the ridiculousness of the universe, I wonder if this might be a good time to bring up quantum cameras ù those lovely little things that work on the principle of making images of things by not looking at them.
And quantum entanglement. I love that. --Vel
|
LittleTerror
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 15:09:00 -
[75]
If I really said what I believe or know I'd be mocked so I'll stick with mocking the dumb science |
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 15:25:00 -
[76]
Originally by: LittleTerror I'll stick with mocking the dumb science
It's like I don't even have to ridicule you. -----
|
Lylia Lynn
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 15:34:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai
Originally by: Adyny Rieph Edited by: Adyny Rieph on 24/09/2010 13:51:40 You're calling me ignorant for being skeptical about a ridiculous theory that can never and will never be proven properly as nothing with any mass can ever travel at even a fraction of the speed of light....
...
Edit - Future or past, I don't know, either one is just as insanely ridiculous as the other.
I never realized how geocentrics must have sounded when denouncing the theories and experiments of Copernicus, Kepler and Galilei; or how flat-earthers must have sounded when discussing the ancient greek experiments proving the theory that the earth was round - until now.
To a nature-worshipping germanic savage, it would have been obvious and purely logical to regard the world as a flat disc - because clearly the ground was flat, and you couldn't see anything beyond the horizon (surely where the world has to end). The very idea that the earth is round would be preposterous! Things on the sides and the bottom would surely fall off! What about the water? Clearly water would run down the globe and drip off the bottom too!
To a devout theologian of the middle ages, it would have been obvious and purely logical to regard the earth as the centre of things, with all other celestial bodies revolving around it - because clearly the sun rises, travels across the sky and keeps making laps around the globe. The proof is there for all to see! The very idea that the earth spins around the sun would be preposterous! Just as preposterous as if somebody in a carriage or ship claiming that he was sitting still while the earth and the trees walked and moved (to paraphrase Martin Luther).
To someone holding fast to the idea that time is a universal constant, it would be completely logical and clearly apparent to think that time passes at the same pace in all parts of the universe, and that things such as velocity and gravity have no bearing on the passage of time. The idea that time can vary depending on where you are or how quickly you're moving would seem absolutely stupid. Surely, if things moving at different velocities experienced different speeds of time, a rotating pole would see the far end travel backwards or forward in time independently from the closer end! It's simple logic, and the alternative is patently ridiculous.
I think that this topic has fulfilled its purpose.
|
LittleTerror
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 15:41:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai
Originally by: LittleTerror I'll stick with mocking the dumb science
It's like I don't even have to ridicule you.
Its like I don't even have to care, same goes for all the mindless idiots walking around outside.
Nothing amuses me more than standing with a beer in my hand and tab and watching the drones go out to play. |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar CareBears on Fire The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 15:58:00 -
[79]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 24/09/2010 15:59:08 Not that it will convince anyone, but here you go:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
Edit to make a linky
--Vel
|
Melthariumin
Gallente Tactical Reconnaissance
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 15:59:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Makko Gray
Originally by: RaZZZZia the OP fears the eschaton i presume?
Quote:
I am the Eschaton. I am not your God. I am descended from you, and exist in your future. Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone. Or else.
Thanks, Charles Stross, for writing such wonderfull books
Awesome, finally met someone else who read those books.
Prefered Halting State myself, bit easier to read.
My favs are Iron Sunrise and Singularity Sky. Charles Stross is one of my favourite authors aswell. Along with the good old Iain Banks and of course Ken Macleod. Scottish SF rules!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |