Types Of Clocks Which Have Actually Measured Time Dilation

[mrg]

Life is tough, AWOL.  Wear a hat.

[A-wal]

I find it ironic that you call me A-hol but in the short time you've been here well over half of your comments have been nasty remarks.

 

You obviously feel the need to vent to make yourself feel better about something. I have no idea what's bothering you so much but I suggest you do something to address it because this obviously isn't working for you.

[billvon]

The logic breaks down once the power of gravity exceeds the speed of light.

That's like saying "when the power of magnetism exceeds the speed of a train."  The two measures have almost nothing to do with each other.

At the small scale the "electron"(aka "down" quark)

Electrons are not down quarks.  They are completely different subatomic particles.

Edited May 25, 2017 by billvon

[mrg]

Electrons are not down quarks.  They are completely different leptons.

 

Not to pick on you, BLV -- I have other people I can pick on -- but would you call a quark a "lepton"?   They're fermions like electrons, but the building blocks of hadrons.

 

[billvon]

Not to pick on you, BLV -- I have other people I can pick on -- but would you call a quark a "lepton"?   They're fermions like electrons, but the building blocks of hadrons.

 

You are correct; I have edited the post.

[AmishFighterPilot]

That's like saying "when the power of magnetism exceeds the speed of a train."  The two measures have almost nothing to do with each other.

 

Electrons are not down quarks.  They are completely different subatomic particles.

 

I am referring to the total pull of the black hole exceeding the power needed to accelerate to the speed of light and beyond.

 

Also, if electrons aren't that similar to down quarks, why does an electron get pooped out of a decaying free neutron?

[AmishFighterPilot]

I am afraid this does not make any sense, at all, and contains some completely wrong statements. You will not get a decent discussion with people here if you come up with word salad like this.

 

Explain where you are confused then. Simply because you can't make sense of it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.

[AmishFighterPilot]

The trouble with coming up with a story that makes sense to you is that you're free to imagine anything you like and it's very unlikely that it will match reality unless it's based on real observations and makes predictions that could prove it wrong.

 

I can't really follow what you said, it's written too ambiguously and there's huge logical leaps in there that don't seem to make a lot of sense.

If I was just imagining I would say "god did it". I came to this forum to work out some thoughts, and if I had them all figured out I would not need to post in an "alternative theories" forum would I?

[mrg]

Simply because you can't make sense of it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.

 

As the audience says in the UK Xmas pantos:  "OH, BUT IT DOESN'T!"

Edited May 25, 2017 by mrg

[AmishFighterPilot]

As the audience says in the UK Xmas pantos:  "OH NO IT DOESN'T!"

I never said I was right or that it was articulated well. It absolutely does make sense even if my terms are not what you prefer. Do you serve any function here other than trolling?

[mrg]

Heavens, mon -- if you insist on being silly, you have to expect people are going to laugh.

[AmishFighterPilot]

Laughing is fine, but you don't laugh in a jovial way. Instead you prefer to condescend. If this is not the place to flesh out vague ideas, what is? I'm not professing gospel here, just thinking outside the box. Its ok if that gets silly. Silly leads to amazing insights sometimes. Einstein himself figured out many concepts intuitively through oddball observations. Now if he had PUBLISHED those things as just loose thoughts it might have ruined him. This place is not a place to publish finished ideas, its a place to work out alternative ideas. If odd ideas bother you, why do you come in to an Alternative Theories forum?

[exchemist]

Laughing is fine, but you don't laugh in a jovial way. Instead you prefer to condescend. If this is not the place to flesh out vague ideas, what is? I'm not professing gospel here, just thinking outside the box. Its ok if that gets silly. Silly leads to amazing insights sometimes. Einstein himself figured out many concepts intuitively through oddball observations. Now if he had PUBLISHED those things as just loose thoughts it might have ruined him. This place is not a place to publish finished ideas, its a place to work out alternative ideas. If odd ideas bother you, why do you come in to an Alternative Theories forum?

The trouble is that "thinking outside the box" covers a wide range of behaviour. On the one hand it can mean learning physics, thinking imaginatively about the outstanding problems in physics and addressing them clearly. On the other, it can mean stringing together random phrases from physics, in a nonsensical stream of rubbish.  

 

To illustrate what I mean by this, I am going to go through (in a following post) what you said in one of your previous posts, to show you the problems. 

[JMJones0424]

Gravity/the speed of "light"/causality (C for "constant") actually changes beneath the Planck length & for objects larger than the particle horizon.

 

This is why we get wave functions (quantum matter breaking apart beneath our relative Planck length) & why galaxies propagate at superluminal velocities.

 

This is all apart of exponentially special relativity.

What is this nonsense?  Gravity, the speed of light, and causality are not represented by the same variable, and "c" does not stand for constant.  Furthermore, what evidence do you have that the speed of light "actually changes beneath the Planck length & for objects larger than the particle horizon".

 

This has nothing at all to do with wave functions.

 

WTF is exponentially special relativity?

 

Stop making up nonsense!  Support your claims and stop spewing bullshit.

Edited May 25, 2017 by JMJones0424

[exchemist]

Explain where you are confused then. Simply because you can't make sense of it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense.

That is true. But equally, it does not mean that it does make sense and that the fault lies with me, either. 

 

OK, let's go through the post of yours we are talking about. I will list the phrases that seem to me either wrong or nonsensical and explain why:- 

 

- "There's only really superluminal quantum matter": Nothing with mass can reach the speed of light, let alone exceed it, unless you are throwing out all of relativity. If you are doing this, you need to make that clear.

 

- "quantum matter": this is meaningless. All matter is quantised, so either the term "quantum" is redundant, or you intend to give it a new meaning, in which case you need explain what that is. 

 

- "virtual particles" are not superluminal, (nor are they particles, but that's another story).

 

- "matter is a collection of localised time loops, etc": the term "time loop" has no recognised meaning in physics and you do not offer one.  You assert  that these "time loops" aggregate, without saying why or how, and that the aggregates have a vibration frequency, without saying what vibrates or why.

 

- "This is also a fee of Euclidean space allowing all such rifts to connect": a "fee" is something you pay someone, so the image of paying a fee to space is meaningless - at least it is without considerable explanation, which you do not provide. You introduce the term "rift" without explaining what is rifted, why or how.

 

I could go on but it gets tedious. The rest is no better. 

 

The thing is, Amish FP, in science, you can't just make sh1t up and claim to be the next Einstein. Einstein was able to do what he did because he studied physics very hard (at the most prestigious science institute in Zurich, ETH, to which he was admitted very young) and mastered it. Then, having grasped what observations could not be explained by current physics, he allowed his imagination to follow the logic of what those observations might imply.  

 

To make a great contribution, one needs to master the current theories first and then look at what observations are not accounted for by them. Whereas spouting disjointed buzz-phrases from physics and cosmology makes a person look like a jerk and a timewaster, if not actually deranged.

 

Remember Carl Sagan's warning: "They laughed at Galileo.....but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." 

Edited May 25, 2017 by exchemist

[JMJones0424]

Both non-locality & scattering/tired light are correct. But practically, we address nonlocality first if we'd like to adhere to the scientific method. There are rules. Omega worries about conventional QM once it acquires omnipresence within 3 dimensional space.

Bullshit.  Support your claims.  You haven't given any reason to take your posts as anything other than nonsense.  Are you quoting Deepak Chopra?  What is exponentially special relativity?  What is conventional quantum mechanics once it acquires omnipresence? What bullshit are you spewing?  You may not be a jerk, but you are most certainly violating the rules of this forum by failing to support your fantastical claims.

Edited May 25, 2017 by JMJones0424

[exchemist]

Both non-locality & scattering/tired light are correct. But practically, we address nonlocality first if we'd like to adhere to the scientific method. There are rules. Omega worries about conventional QM once it acquires omnipresence within 3 dimensional space.

And here is a perfect example of Sagan's dictum. Galileo? Or Bozo? 

Edited May 25, 2017 by exchemist