If you look above at the articles I posted, we have undertaken a number of experiments using atomic clocks that show that it's true and a real effect. Spooky it is, but real MelT
I know from the g'day -,but where? My family moved out to Brisbane from the UK about 20 years ago, I stayed in the UK. I've only been there a few times, but it really is exceptional from what I've experienced so far. Forget landscapes and water-sports, it's the people. They are on the whole good. honorable and kind.and, given the choice in a tight situation, I'd rather have an ozzie at my back than the rest of the world put together. I hope that doesn't sound too OTT,, but you should be rightly proud of your country and the kind of people it can turn out. I never cease to be impressed. MelT
I didn't see this response yesty. I'll answer it first......... I'm afraid you are wrong about that. Atomic clocks measure vibrations just like every other kind of clock. Radio isotope decay is only used to measure time on geological levels. And no. I disagree. It does not indicate a flow of anything. Again, the clock only shows an absence of a thing. There is a vibration, then another vibration, the "not vibration" between the two is called a second. And again, I ask you: If it measures something different from what I keep calling a "not vibration," then please give me your definition of the thing that is being measured. You still have not done that. We are measuring one complete event: the passing of two vibrations. No. The cup is the only thing that has moved. You might imagine a camera snapping pictures at the speed of milliseconds. In each photograph the cup is still, but it is in a different space than it was in the millisecond before. I have said that I think this is incorrect, and I have said why. You keep telling me no, but not saying why. Is it because you say so? Support your ideas please. I'm not saying that about this universe right now. In this universe the observer exists. The existence of the observer has already set the rule. However, before the observer existed I say that there was no time at all. I was using this as a metaphoric example. Yes, some scientist did say it. I can't remember who, but it doesn't matter. The point was that the observers presence, and emergent self awareness, created time. Once it was created the rules were different. There's no point in asking what was "before" that because "before" didn't exist. No. I'm talking about time period. I don't know. You are talking about doing something that we can not do. The math claims that this is true, but we can never test it can we? Scientists have been wrong before. You know that in the future we will discover something that was not possible before. Finally, I don't know what more of an example I can give you. It is not time that we measure, but events. All events happen in the now. To anything that has no consciousness or self awareness each thing that happens is a new thing that is independent from anything that happened before now. Before now is a concept created by something that has memory. Before now, exists only in the memory. The effects of before now, have already occurred. Those effects occurred in their own now. Before now has no meaning to anything except a conscious observer. The next now or future, has not occurred yet. It doesn't exist in any place except the mind of the observer. Past, and future are only semantic concepts that conscious observers use and we only do that because we have memory and imagination.
I said that two things can't be in the same place at the same time, which has nothing to do with one thing being in two places at one time. That is interesting though, and would seem to show that the the thing was not, in any way, constrained by time. That seems to support my theory. Special relativity doesn't need to work if there is no time. Special relativity is only a concept developed by an observer. I find it strange that these "special" ideas about reality that everyone so doggedly clings to, only happen every couple of hundred years or so. Furthermore, when they do happen, noone believes it for twenty years or more. Then, all of a sudden, it's taken as the gospel truth. You realize that sooner or later the guy to disprove Einstein, is going to come along and do what Einstein, did to newton. Of course the new guy won't be believed by anyone for twenty years or more, but no matter.
Yes. But the point is that we built he telescope based upon our perceptions, and we really have no way of knowing if it is showing us what is really there. If the optics are off how would you know? Only possibly through using another device that shows the correct view, and we can never know if that one is showing what is really there. You can test this yourself using binoculars. Just look through them at something fifty feet away through them. Then go look at it with your naked eye. A rock, for instance, will be recognizable as the same rock, but even so it will still look different to the naked eye. The optics make things look just a tiny bit grainy. You know what I mean. The binoculars do not exactly reproduce an image the way the eye does.
No. In fact, I'm very clearly saying the opposite. We create the devices to make up for our lacking human capabilities. However, when we do that we are creating devices according to what we think we know about reality. The information we get from our devices is post fact information. The picture of the tree is not the tree. The information we get about reality from our devices is not the reality, or more correctly, it is a facsimile of what was the reality during the now when information was collected. Not quite sure if you're trolling me here. What we "know" about reality after "investigation by science......." means: We perceived these things through studying these things. Correct? We study these things by the rules of the scientific method. Correct? The scientific method was devised by a man (Bacon?) Correct? Ok here's the point: when we study reality we base our conclusions on what we know. Our conclusions are not always correct, and it's because our perceptions are not always correct. Well, that would be a pretty statement if it were true, but we know it's not true. Right now, what we KNOW to be correct is what Einstein, for instance, has told us is correct. Our perception is that he was right. When the new Einstein, (or Newton.) comes along, all of the followers of Einstein, will choose to deny the new guy. However, after twenty years or so (when the next generation is beginning to take over science) the new guy will begin to get a following. People will start to try and prove him right. They will find reasons to believe he was right because everything is possible. They will do experiments to prove he was right, and they will find out that he was. Those new perceptions will then begin to guide things that humans do. We will build new devices based upon the new truth, and the devices will mostly do what they were intended to do. Our perceptions of reality will change, and that will cause us to act in different ways, which will change reality more. We have only to look to history to see the repeating pattern. I thought my point was clear. Of course the device is going to help us further define the thing the device was designed to help us further define. That's why we made it. If the devices don't do that, we throw the device away, then we make another device that does what we expect it to do. It's true that sometimes we discover things we didnt expect. However, that is the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Most of the time we discover exactly what we expect to discover.
Cheers I live in Melbourne, Australia is still a unique place. We are so free to be ourselves. I read things on GC and wonder wtf??? It must be the culture of a country that deludes the minds of young people.
But, if it is true it may only be true on the scales at which the experiments were done. We also know that under extreme circumstances matter behaves differently than it does under normal or less extreme circumstances. Do you think it is possible that if one were to achieve infinite mass then one might also attain infinite gravity? Are you sure that if you were to travel at light speed you wouldn't become a black hole? lol. Still, the idea is moot. You say, IF we could travel at light speed, then x would happen. However, we can not travel at light speed. Math is not the universe, it is only a representation of the universe that was devised by observers.
Sorry, I've read your posts over and over and can see no merit in what you claim, let alone proof. You have 'what if', science has proof, but you want to denigrate that by using illogical statements like the following: Ok here's the point: when we study reality we base our conclusions on what we know. Our conclusions are not always correct, and it's because our perceptions are not always correct. The error you are continually making is suggesting that all scientific advancement is based upon our perceptions. It isn't. The LHC is not bound by human perception and niether is the data that it sorts and collates by itself. Predictive math that can prove effects unequivocally. It's a weak reductionist argument to keep referring any form of science to being held back by the limits of our perceptions. I don't buy that or your theory, sorry. I have said that I think this is incorrect, and I have said why. Yes, simply that you don't believe it true and that your own theory of reality is correct. I'm sure science will be staggered and amazed that it has been wrong all this time. I don't buy your logic, so saying that you are right just because you say you are doesn't hold water. Prove science wrong with data. You keep telling me no, but not saying why. Is it because you say so? Support your ideas please. That;s an interesting take on the situation.I have given evidence, including known experiments that prove my POV. You haven't given any evidence at all so far other than your own guesswork. Please provide peer-reviewed papers that prove that the atomic clock experiment works because of the actions you suggest? Calculations? Evidence? Or is your sole argument going to keep being that you think it is flawed. If it is then its flaws should be easy for you to prove. Evidence, not a theory, not a guess and a hope. Actual data that shows that the experiments I posted are wrong and you are right. MelT
Not to mention one that people have been using since the time of Galileo to try and claim that whatever conclusions scientists are coming to are wrong. The church tried to tell galileo that he was wrong about the moons of jupiter because god can make anything look any way he wants and have it still be a different way....lol and thats where skeptics fall short. They can never present counter-evidence they just say "nah thats not true:"
Yes. You're right, and I apologise. I did indeed come to a stoner haven, and join a science discussion, while stoned (on bubble kush no less!) for the purpose of earning a phd in quantum physics. In fact, (no, don't laugh,) I really thought I might have discovered the grand unification theory! You were right to spit your greenish globules of hubris in my face, and I promise not to wipe it off until I have properly learned my lesson. (even though my eye-lids stick shut when I blink sometimes.) Some people have those bulbous, air filled growths atop their necks. You get fascinated, even hypnotized, by the way the thing wiggles back and forth making spooky noises. Sometimes they explode and emit a noxious, ichor-like odor. I hope that I have not, in any way, suggested that you were such a person. If there was someplace in my writing where I called you a pretty parrot, then I beg your forgiveness. I can't find the place where I wrote that, and I am very embarrassed about it. I also couldn't find where you answered a single one of my questions, including your proper definition of time. I asked for that definition several times in my feebleness, but somehow I missed your response. I also tried to find the post in which I said that science was always wrong. It must be my sticky eyes because I can't find that either. However, thanks to your generous and imaginative addition to the conversation, my hopes of becoming a Nobel laureate are still strong. I will redouble my efforts, cross my fingers, and pray to my reductionist churches most popular deity. I am sure the proper data (that I won't have to experience through my own perceptions,) will be sent to me in a vision very soon. I'll let you know when I receive it. Until then, thanx so very much for your inspirational instruction. I am truly humbled.
What an odd post? You came here with a theory, which you refused to let go of, despite us giving evidence in a pleasant and open way. It was you who escalated this into the land of 'science is based on perception' and arguments. Now that you can't come up with evidence against my proof, I am now a hell-demon? Please...... Nobody cares if you are right or wrong here. If we thought ill of everyone who posted a duff theory then we would have no members, including myself. I/We have nothing against you, you were wrong, that's all. MelT
Im sort of agreeing with some of what your saying but just curious about this opinion. This observer do they need be self conciously aware? eg Dinousaurs we know existed so im sure there reality was consistant of moments of existance as we know it measurable pace equal to everyone and everything. But what that meant for the dinosaurs is a donut. The "time" regarding "general relativity" in relation to the "speed of light" is like a counter argument to explain why shining stars do not grow smaller in their (viewed) brightness if being accelerated towards. ?. So therefore "light" travelling through the universe gets side tracked by gravity and does the "time shuffle" and all sorts of unusual events can be said to occur. What about if its brightness exists in the distance? and thats why it doesnt change shape when moving closer to the source of it.
Again, you seem to have missed the point. I'm sure that you realize that I could go to google and find scientific data to oppose any proof you offer about anything. I didn't come here to do that. Next: you didn't offer anything to any of the questions I asked you. You didn't define the nature of time. (please point to the post, if you did.) When I explained what a clock measures, you didn't give any kind of answer to the questions I asked you. In fact, you didn't say much of anything to me until I started talking about perception. Only then did you start to become really involved, and in spite of how you keep saying so, you didn't offer any kind of support to your "nunh uh!" response. It's all right there in the posts, show me the "data" you offered. Point it out. But again, that wasnt why I came here. I did posit a theory, and you're right, I didn't give it up just cause you said so. Yeah, I argued against the idea that math is the universe. Sure math can predict a lot of things, but people make mistakes. Yeah, I argued against an idea that can not be tested and was completely meaningless to this conversation. The hubris I was referring to was in the fact that you didn't even bother to join in my conversation. Instead you sat back resting on someone else's laurels. I could be wrong. I don't even keep a single theory for all time. I look at others theories, I come up with my own theories, and it simply doesn't matter if you and I have it right or wrong. What's going to happen if I die today believing in a scientific theory that I was wrong about? You're lying to yourself if you suppose that you were not trying to be insulting in the last post you made to me, and further so in the whole "prove God doesn't exist." crap. Your signature says it all, and I'm sorry I missed it before we got into this. Do you really think you know what the truth is? That's hubris. In the end, all I was looking for was an imaginative conversation.
Yes. In my theory the observer has to be self aware. I would think that most living creatures that properly interact with their environment would be self aware enough to require time. In order to even think about a single thing, instead of all things at once, you have to have a place holder between your thoughts. That is the nature of time. As I was pointing out with the clocks. The time we measure is really just a place holder between two vibrations. I'm not really sure what you are asking here.
The above is your version of events. Didn't join in with your conversation? What you actually mean is that I wouldn't reject science to entertain your idea (because it was wrong), the two are different. If you don't want to believe the scientific answers provided then it's obviously you right not to. But it renders talking about your theory pointless, and ends up as being just you telling everyone else what you personally think, without evidence. All you have provided thus far is words. In the end, all I was looking for was an imaginative conversation. That ignored science. A conversation is two-sided. It doesn't consist of you saying that you are right no matter what. What's going to happen if I die today believing in a scientific theory that I was wrong about? As I have tried to point out, nothing at all. We don't care if it's right or wrong, so you taking criticism of it personally is silly. See above, all of us have been wrong here at some time or another. Why so defensive? MelT