insane_alien Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 Getting lost sounds like a personal problem. Lack of information is no excuse to make stuff up. That's no different than bible thumpers saying "God must have done it because what else could it be?" the fact is that if things worked the way you think they do then they would have noway to get unlost. but since reality doesn't work like that there are many ways for them to find out where they are to quite a degree of accuracy using theories that actualy describe reality.
Mr Skeptic Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 There's another way to put this. Traveler, how can you tell how fast something is moving? If you can't tell how fast something is moving, how can you say how fast it isn't moving?
traveler Posted November 2, 2008 Author Posted November 2, 2008 What problems? There's another way to put this. Traveler, how can you tell how fast something is moving? If you can't tell how fast something is moving, how can you say how fast it isn't moving? I already explained that in my previous post with reverse acceleration.
traveler Posted November 8, 2008 Author Posted November 8, 2008 The universe is motion or transfer of energy. The universe is mass, distance, and time (motion). Mass is concentrations of distance. Distance is inevitable. Time is a standard of duration that allows a means of comparison for all motion to be measured against.
mooeypoo Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 The universe is mass, distance, and time (motion). Mass is concentrations of distance. Distance is inevitable. Time is a standard of duration that allows a means of comparison for all motion to be measured against. Time is not motion. An object can stand still and time is still goin'. We know there are more effects than just the simplistic 'mass/distance/time'. We have proof for them, observations, mathematical equations, and extremely accurate predictions. "Distance is inevitable" is a meaningless statement. "Mass is inevitable" too. "Black holes are inevitable" (specifically in our universe). If you are considering taking this super simplistic "time/distance/mass" explanation for our universe, I would recommend reading a bit about Mercury and the "Vulcan story" (the "missing planet"). Other than being really interesting, and shows how proper predictions/failure-of-prediction/solution-to-failure-of-prediction/new-theory process is done in proper use of the scientific method, it also shows how impossible it is to explain the universe using Newtonian physics alone. Mercury's orbit was observed; we managed to explain the orbits of the other planets using mathematical computations and we tried doing the same with Mercury - but it failed. There was a "missing" time factor (I believe 43 seconds). Scientists postulated there might be another planet, closer to the sun, called "Vulcan", that can explain this discrepency. Such planet was proven to not exist. Then came Einstein. His theory not only explains Mercury's orbit perfectly, the mathematical computations result in PRECISELY the missing time that resulted by Newtonian physics alone. Yay for Einstein, and yay for us. The universe is proven to have much much more than just 'matter'/distance/time. I suggest we don't listen to random people and, instead, listen to the evidence. ~moo
traveler Posted November 8, 2008 Author Posted November 8, 2008 Time is not motion. An object can stand still and time is still goin'. Can you give me an example of an object that "stands still?"
mooeypoo Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Can you give me an example of an object that "stands still?"Not without feeding the troll, which I will not do. To anyone else who cares, go read traveler's other bazillion posts. My only interest in answering to begin with was to try and make sure that this already-complicated subject is not used to convey nonphysical theories to people who are interested, and might be convinced by charismatic wordsalads.
traveler Posted November 8, 2008 Author Posted November 8, 2008 Not without feeding the troll, which I will not do. I'll take that to mean that you can't give me an example of an object that "stands still." That's what I thought.
iNow Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 I'll take that to mean that you can't give me an example of an object that "stands still." That's what I thought. That would not be an accurate perception. Your question is ill formed, anyway. Can you give me an example of an object that "stands still?" Relative to what or whom? Answer with your first try, or you are in fact a troll.
swansont Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Several posts have been moved from another thread, which is why posts appear after Sayo closed it. Hijacking is against the rules. Hijacking to circumvent a closed thread is doubly so. And this was hijacking that was also trolling, on a closed topic. A triple whammy, and if anyone wanted an example of how not to behave, here it is.
Recommended Posts