Time Explained

[Royston]

The problem is farfromright, is that I'm nowhere near (by any stretch of the imagination) a physics 'expert', I'm a newbie, and even I can tell you've stated nothing but hokey drivel. Note that all the people that actually do know what they're talking about, have pointed out the errors in your analogies, and conjectures (which is all they are) and you've twisted advice into slander and attacks...which unfortunately does provoke people to lose their patience.

 

This IMO typifies crackpottery, you have utterly convinced yourself, you are the only one that truly understands energy, time and mass, yet you've demonstrated zero. Do yourself a favour, listen to people who really 'do' know what they're talking about, take their advice, and perhaps start a fresh. A true scientist is not bothered if their hypothesis comes crashing down about their feet, that's what falsification is all about, they're only interested in true progress...which in many cases means an entire lifes work has to be scrapped, but that's science, like it or not.

 

I can't see you getting anywhere with your ideas, unless you start taking advice, and change your hypothesis (I use the term loosely) to fit the data that you've been presented with.

[Farsight]

What data is that exactly? What advice? Like your post above? Geddoutofit. And what errors? Nobody has pointed out any errors. Edtharan's had a try, in his straw-man drown-out axiomatic fashion, but you certainly haven't, and neither has Swansont. Swanson won't even read it, because its "worthless psuedoscience". No, the real problem is that people who know a bit of physics convince themselves that they know it all, despite the fact that they can't give any answers. And when offered some answers, what do they give? Constructive comment? Earnest dialogue? No. Just juvenile insults.

[Farsight]

"So what" is appropriate when you use logical fallacies. Did you not read beyond that? When you proceed from a false premise, or use invalid logic, any conclusion at all may be reached, so the conclusion is worthless. Hence the "so what." There is no scientific value in it.

 

What logical fallacies? What false premise? What invalid logic?

 

I've explained the science in some detail.

 

No you haven't. You gave a couple of sentences on binding energy.

 

What, specifically, don't you understand? The energy comes from the mass of the composite system.

 

What I don't specifically understand is how a mass is reduced when it falls to earth, or how energy need not be conserved, or come to think of it, perpetual motion machines.

[swansont]

Swanson won't even read it, because its "worthless psuedoscience".

 

Please link to the post where I called your material "worthless pseudoscience"

 

I've asked you before not to misrepresent what I've said. If you are going to use a quotation, don't fabricate it. It's dishonest.

[swansont]

What logical fallacies? What false premise? What invalid logic?

 

Argument from authority or equivocation. As explained in my earlier post.

 

If you claim it true just because Einstein said it, it's the former. If you claim it true because of Einstein's definition, but everyone else now uses a different definition, it's the latter. And as I pointed out, the paper you presented as support agrees that in only a few cases can you say that gravity isn't curvature, using Einstein's definition. "There is no curvature" is flat-out wrong, as explained by your source.

[Farsight]

What, did I misquote you? Utmost apologies. Now let me see, where's your "little merit" post? Here's your first comment on my first-cut TIME EXPLAINED, semantics:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=309275&postcount=25

 

Here's your first comment on this thread, metaphysics:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=319037&postcount=33

 

Here's a spectacularly wrong:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=319827&postcount=55

 

Here's a psuedoscientific:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=323919&postcount=85

 

Perhaps you might care to reread your posts. Catch the drift. Even of your two posts above. They are yet more digs instead of open honest discussion. And let's remember I only said start here as regards the pmb link to gravity and curved spacetime. I didn't say it was some conclusive proof in support of my position, after all, it's merely an essay.

[YT2095]

if by;

open honest discussion.

you mean that he should Agree with your worthless pseudoscience, then I think he deserves a little more than that pathetic attempt at an appology such as your feeble effort.

you should be Thankfull that he even graced your assinine benalities with a comment at all!

 

now Grow UP and don`t make have to come back in this thread again.

[Edtharan]

Please make smaller posts, raising points individually so that I can demonstrably deal with them.

I'm not getting into that argument again.

 

Edtharan's had a try, in his straw-man drown-out axiomatic fashion,

So you keep saying, but when I ask you to actually quote them, you don't. Why is that?

 

No, the real problem is that people who know a bit of physics convince themselves that they know it all,

Has it ever crossed you mind that you might be doing that yourself?

 

Anyhow, please can you clarify where, in your view, the kinetic energy of a falling body actually comes from?

It is really simple. The kinetic energy from a falling body came from the energy it took to raise it up there in the first place. You do the calculations, and do the measurements and the energy to put into raising an object up is exactly the same as the energy it releases when it falls. This is Primary school (grade school or elementary school in some countries) physics. It is extremely elementary stuff.

 

There is no energy lost (except as heat from friction with the air - but if you take that into account too then there is none lost), there is no energy gained.

 

In your examples you assume that the object in question is created at the hight it is dropped from. But this is clearly not physically possible, so it has to have been put there, and to do that energy must have been given to it to move it there.

 

That is where you're "missing energy" comes from.

[Farsight]

I'm not getting into that argument again... So you keep saying, but when I ask you to actually quote them, you don't. Why is that? ...Has it ever crossed you mind that you might be doing that yourself?

 

Please do. I do. Yes I have, and I'm satisfied that I don't.

 

It is really simple. The kinetic energy from a falling body came from the energy it took to raise it up there in the first place. You do the calculations, and do the measurements and the energy to put into raising an object up is exactly the same as the energy it releases when it falls. This is Primary school (grade school or elementary school in some countries) physics. It is extremely elementary stuff.

 

And if the object was sitting there in space as the earth came trundling up? You're ducking the issue and defending it with this primary school slur. When an object falls, the reduction in c is what accounts for the kinetic energy. It also accounts for an increase in mass.

 

There is no energy lost (except as heat from friction with the air - but if you take that into account too then there is none lost), there is no energy gained.

 

You should be aware that I'm a firm adherent to the energy book must always balance. This is why I've been asking where the kinetic energy comes from. I hope you're aware that this means gravity is not a force. When a photon falls it is blue-shifted. It appears to gain energy, but in truth it doesn't. The reason is that reduced c.

 

In your examples you assume that the object in question is created at the height it is dropped from. But this is clearly not physically possible, so it has to have been put there, and to do that energy must have been given to it to move it there. That is where you're "missing energy" comes from.

 

I didn't assume that the object is created at the height it was dropped from. See above, where I talk about the object sitting there in space as the earth comes trundling up. Also look up the Shapiro effect and the Pound-Rebka experiment:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_effect

 

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka.html

 

Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, and I don't know what this circlon theory is, please do your own independent browsing.

[Royston]

And if the object was sitting there in space as the earth came trundling up?

 

The object had to of come from somewhere e.g ejected from another body (which funnily enough, requires energy), and how can it possibly stay static until the earth hits it ?

 

When an object falls, the reduction in c is what accounts for the kinetic energy. It also accounts for an increase in mass.

 

<groan> Again, there is no need for a change in C. See previous responses.

 

Wikipedia is not 100% reliable.

 

Over 100 posts, and that's the only decent comment you've made.

 

This is a genuine question, are you just doing this to wind people up...or is this a joke ?

[Farsight]

Genuine question? Let's see now, clearly you haven't read up on Pound-Rebka and Shapiro. If you had, you might appreciate why the object had to come from somewhere is a copout to avoid explaining where the kinetic energy comes from. And given that copout, your no need for a change in c is a refusal to take a rational look at the options. Bah, what was it you said above, you've stated nothing but hokey drivel. LOL, it's embarrassingly obvious that you haven't got a genuine bone in your body, and you're the wind-up merchant here. Don't waste my time snail. If you've got some physics to contribute fine, otherwise take your insults somewhere else.

[Royston]

it's embarrassingly obvious that you haven't got a genuine bone in your body, and you're the wind-up merchant here.

 

It 'was' a genuine question, and I'd rather you didn't refer to me as not having a genuine bone in my body, I'm working frigging hard towards my degree (which I have to do part time.) So stfu.

 

Don't waste my time snail. If you've got some physics to contribute fine, otherwise take your insults somewhere else.

 

Waste your time !?!? The amount of input for this BS you've posted, is more than you deserve, I've already responded to why objects gain potential energy et.c, like Edtharan said, this is basic elementary physics. I've pointed out curvature, which you came back with 'there is no curvature' because you can't understand an article.

 

You seem to be making it up as you go along, and FYI, I very rarely insult anyone on here...but you will refuse to listen to reason, and hard science. Unfortunately there's nothing else but to insult you, in the hope you'll go away...which, I really wish you would, but that's clearly not my decision. You won't get anywhere with this nonsense, so atleast I can rest easy with that fact. You sir, are a bafoon !

[YT2095]

I think that ends it all quite nicely, and so before it gets Bitter...

 

Thread Closed!