towjyt

Perhaps, but Tom says there is no such thing as time.

What grounds my faith is the fact that time and the rate at which it passes has not changed. I think that the effect that near light speed has on atomic clocks proves nothing. The same goes for gravitational fields. To say that time itself is altered, yet these same objects that have been in conditions that alter time, yet are able to return to the same time that the observer in in is ludicrous on it's face. Could there not be forces at light speed that could affect the way an atomic clock measures time without time actually having been affected? The movement of the atoms that the elements are composed of could be affected by either speed or gravity. No one knows what actually happens to elements at that speed or in a high gravity field. So, rather that asking me to prove that it doesn't happen, why don't you prove that it does happen? Not just that it is accepted in the scientific community, explain how the apple that is 2 days behind the observer could be eaten two days before it reached the age that it was when the observer ate it?

I agree that the apple exists in every time frame because there is only time frame. Edit: How many apples are we talking about? Since there is only one reality, there can be only one time frame. To say otherwise is to engage in self contradiction. Are we still fighting the Civil War? In a galaxy far far away?

On the same grounds that many scientists reject the existence of a God. Just because millions (BILLIONS) of people believe in something, does not make it fact. What makes you think that all materials must react the same to illustrate the point? Can you be sure that time dialation has the same effect on the famous twins as it does on an atomic clock?

Bullshit! What is being measured are the effects that time has on devices and organic entities. Time has not changed, merely the effect that time has on things.

No, I am not. I am suggesting that if time dialation is a fact, then the observer travels foreward faster in time that the apple and therefore the apple is 2 days in his past. And an infinite munber of realities?

But it does change the measurment, doesn't it?

I don't think clocks are "conspireing" to do anything. I just think that the evidence has been misread. I think that what happens is that clocks can be made to measure time differently under differing circumstances, just as a steel tape will give a slight different measurement of, say, 100 feet when the temperature is 100 degrees than it will if the temperature is zero degrees.

Oh? I was under the impression that time traveled more slowly for an object that was traveling faster than the observer. Isn't that what this time dialation is all about? Are you saying that it does not? I see that it is nonsense because one object can't be in two time frames at the same --"time?"

So, if an apple traveled in a ship at sufficient velocity to make 5 days difference in time, and then returned to Earth, then someone picked it up and ate it, he would be eating it 5 days before he ate it? For example the apple arrived on July 12th but the apple was still in a July 7th time frame, one would be eating it 5 days before it got to his time frame? You do see that this is pure nonsense, don't you?

"Recorded" being the operative word.

Well--OK.

Face it Swansont, you might be a physics expert, but you don't know squat about the US economy.

Because a large portion of the working class are covered by increased cost of consumer products under a cost of living clause in a union contract. In any event, if the oil companies collect more money because of an increase on crude, then that money is in turn spent on exploration and infrastructure whuch means jobs. If the government collects money in the form of taxes, it results in a growth in the bureaucracy where little is accomplished other that the hireing of worthless brothers-in-law.

If you have heard of the great depression, and apparently you have, then you should be able to see that government has smoothed out the lumps in the economy. The problem during the depression--which, by the way, was a world depression, and not an American invention, was a failed monetary policy. As far as the energy crisis is concerned, greed will certainly save the day. The big time investors who have their money in oil know exactly how much is producable and they have a fair idea of what the long term consumption will be. You can bet your sweet ass that when it really starts to run out, they will begin to invest in whatever technology looks to have the most profit potential, hence we will always have energy production. Actually, from a tree huggers point of view, the sooner we run out of oil, the better. Don't lose any sleep over it son, by the time you are my age, you will have seen enough "crises" come and go that you will understand how this stuff works.

What has been proven is that objects moving at a higher speed than the observer seem to travel through time at a slower rate than the observer because instruments designed to keep time, record the elapsed time differently. However, once the speeding object returns to the site of the observer, they are both in the same time frame. The question is, did they travel through time at a different rate? Or did the instruments designed to measure time simply measure time differently?

A higher gas tax means less driving' date=' which means less need to buy a new car, less tourism, more money put into the gas tank (for those who need to drive to work) instead of buying a new refrigerator, boat, or jet ski, then people who work in the plants that manufacture those products are laid off and the government finds out that they don't have the money to continue their entitlement programs, because of the [b']loss[/b] in revenues due to layoffs, so they spent the gas tax money on that and down the tube we go. Our economy is just nicely into the recovery phase and the last thing we need is to do something silly to imperil that. There is no energy crisis in the first place. As I said above, greed has always taken care of our needs and when an actual energy crisis occures, the big shooters will have already had their money invested in the technologies that will make fossile fuel nothing but a bad memory. The very best thing the government can do is to stay the Hell out of the way and let the free market funtion like it should.

I don't think you pissed anybody off, but the fact that you admit that your reasoning is based on a hatred for Bush does put your opinion into perspective. I think that the market will take care of the energy needs that we will encounter without the government establishing another bureaucracy to bleed off 90% of the moneys that were allocated to solve the problem. Greed has always worked in the past, I have no doubt that it will continue to do so.

What do you suggest?

Such as?

Then you think it is possible to create wormholes, shortcuts that would "fold space" so to speak, and make systems that are hundreds of light years away from us, closer to us that they naturally are? I don't think such a thing is/will be possible.