zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 The document doesn't even load for me anymore. Give me one reason why time is relativistic rather than a tool that humans create to describe motion. You clearly aren't a good physicist.
pwagen Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 And whats the experiment? http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html Extract: This topic is fairly broad, so let me try to narrow it a little. "Relativity" is a rather general term that encompasses both special and general relativity. The former encompasses effects such as the changes in physical properties of objects with speeds approaching that of light, whereas the latter includes effects having to do with the bending of "spacetime" by massive bodies. There is no one experiment which "proves" relativity, and yet so many experiments have provided consistency with the "theories", that most scientists accept them as being extremely accurate in their descriptions of reality. Now, we eagerly await the experimental confirmations of UDT. 2
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 How does relativity make cell phones and radios work? it has something to do with time, now if you have read what the UDT says about time and gravity then einsteins argument is false. You have to understand perspectives and understand that relativity is pure imagination and mathematics and should not be applied in physics. It is certainly true that the paper and relativity can't both be true. But that's as far as you can go with the truth of the paper, because nothing in it, as far as I can tell, has experimental evidence to back it up, i.e. evidence that show is, rather than mainstream theory (like relativity) is correct. The problem for the paper is that mainstream theory has loads and loads of evidence to back it up. One thing you simply have to accept is that the mere existence of a paper does not guarantee that it is correct. That is, you can't point to the paper as if it means anything regarding its validity. The paper claims many things. None of them have been experimentally shown to be correct. Until that happens, you can't assume that any of it is correct. Give me one reason why time is relativistic rather than a tool that humans create to describe motion. I already mentioned GPS. Does it work by accident? You clearly aren't a good physicist. How would a high-schooler and an admitted novice on the topics under discussion be able to make that determination? 1
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) Give me one reason why time is relativistic rather than a tool that humans create to describe motion. You clearly aren't a good physicist. I find it amusing you say that. I am merely an intelligent 9th grader. And Swansont, I don't think the person knows how GPS works. Edit: Said he, but could of been she Edited March 9, 2014 by Lightmeow
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html Extract: Now, we eagerly await the experimental confirmations of UDT. Let me just say that the extract you provided has the words space-time and UDT states that time is a tool created by man to describe motion and clearly it is. and if you read the PAPER you will find how time dosen't exist. The pdf is here : http://www.scribd.com/doc/210594145/UDT-By-abdulsalam-Al-mayahi-ToE what evidence do u need?
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 I need the pdf to be uploaded to the forum. I can only read to page 287, then the rest is blank, and the download button doesn't work.
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 I need the pdf to be uploaded to the forum. I can only read to page 287, then the rest is blank, and the download button doesn't work. I can send it to you by email , because it works for other people. Try this link : http://www.docdroid.net/9x0v/ejsr-118-3-02-union-dipole-theoryudt-by-abdulsalam-al-mayahi.pdf.html This is the experiment that someone was asking for earlier : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) I can send it to you by email , because it works for other people. Try this link : http://www.docdroid.net/9x0v/ejsr-118-3-02-union-dipole-theoryudt-by-abdulsalam-al-mayahi.pdf.html This is the experiment that someone was asking for earlier : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment This proves Relativity!!! And that link works, thanks Edited March 9, 2014 by Lightmeow
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) This proves Relativity!!! Which link the pdf or the experiment? I'm assuming you mean the experiment, the time dilation effect was caused because by the objects velocity when reaches high speed it reaches low frequency (high wavelength) which the atomic clock runs on , the clock appears to have taken more time. But time doesn't even exist if you read the paper. Edited March 9, 2014 by zidzad1 -1
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 The experiment shows the effects of time dilatation.
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 The experiment shows the effects of time dilatation. If you haven't read, the time dilation effect was caused because by the objects velocity when reaches high speed it reaches low frequency (high wavelength) which the atomic clock runs on , the clock appears to have taken more time. But time doesn't even exist if you read the paper.
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 So the Summery of the Theory as I understand it The UPD, is a neutral particle made up of opposite charges, and the opposite charges revolve around each other. Also, even though it is infinitesimal, it still has charges, and mass. The Permeable Medium, is what is in between the space of the particles, and therefor is what makes up the universe. The motion of the particles disturbs the Permeable Medium, creating a electro-magnetic field. The Permeable Medium can also carry waves. It is saying that a black hole loops back on itself, creating and destroying the universe. Then the person says that positive and negative charges are the same. Then it is saying that time is a way for humans to describe the nature of the rotations of the spheres. Says time is a measure of relative distance. So time is distance. Then it talks about how elementary particles are made.
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) So the Summery of the Theory as I understand it The UPD, is a neutral particle made up of opposite charges, and the opposite charges revolve around each other. Also, even though it is infinitesimal, it still has charges, and mass. The Permeable Medium, is what is in between the space of the particles, and therefor is what makes up the universe. The motion of the particles disturbs the Permeable Medium, creating a electro-magnetic field. The Permeable Medium can also carry waves. It is saying that a black hole loops back on itself, creating and destroying the universe. Then the person says that positive and negative charges are the same. Then it is saying that time is a way for humans to describe the nature of the rotations of the spheres. Says time is a measure of relative distance. So time is distance. Then it talks about how elementary particles are made. spot on, but the only thing that u got slightly wrong that time is not used to describe the spheres it is used to describe any motion (or rotation). now do u find this simpler and more reasonable than the other models. And this can answer fundamental questions like the origin of the universe, dark energy,dark matter,electricity,etc. Edited March 9, 2014 by zidzad1
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Not really. Scientists know that there are multiple black holes in our universe. And, for black holes to exist, you have to accept the existence of space time. How does light "fall" into a black hole if there is no space time. And the theory also suggests that the speed of light is about 50% more than it is now. That can't be true, because scientists have calculated the speed of light. The speed of light is calculated using Maxwell's equations. Also, light doesn't have any mass. Therefor, it has no acceleration, because the a=F/m. This theory states that the UPD has a finite mass. Light also is electromagnetic, being energy, but is a particle at the same time, i.e., it is a particle and a wave. And because of this theory, there technically is no such thing as a vacuum, due to the whole universe being the Permeable Medium. But the theory states that the Permeable Medium is in between the spinning charges that make up the universe. The theory doesn't say what even is. Because it threw away the old definition of motion, it is saying that motion is electromagnetic. But it isn't there is other forms of motion... I just can't imagine it. Well, it was a nice trip, but I'm out. 2
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 Not really. Scientists know that there are multiple black holes in our universe. And, for black holes to exist, you have to accept the existence of space time. How does light "fall" into a black hole if there is no space time. And the theory also suggests that the speed of light is about 50% more than it is now. That can't be true, because scientists have calculated the speed of light. The speed of light is calculated using Maxwell's equations. Also, light doesn't have any mass. Therefor, it has no acceleration, because the a=F/m. This theory states that the UPD has a finite mass. Light also is electromagnetic, being energy, but is a particle at the same time, i.e., it is a particle and a wave. And because of this theory, there technically is no such thing as a vacuum, due to the whole universe being the Permeable Medium. But the theory states that the Permeable Medium is in between the spinning charges that make up the universe. The theory doesn't say what even is. Because it threw away the old definition of motion, it is saying that motion is electromagnetic. But it isn't there is other forms of motion... I just can't imagine it. Well, it was a nice trip, but I'm out. Of course light can fall into a black hole without space time, because you have no evidence for space time and I challenge any person to do so. Because time is simply used to describe motion, Now if you actually read the theory the only measurements are distance and motion so your argument is false, and yes if you have read the theory a vacuum is an area where there is no gravitational (which we now know is electromagnetic) influence. -2
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 But time doesn't even exist if you read the paper. Time doesn't exist if the paper is right. But there's no evidence that it is right. You need to stop referencing the paper as if it's a foregone conclusion that it is the truth. That's pretty much the opposite of science. 1
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 Time doesn't exist if the paper is right. But there's no evidence that it is right. You need to stop referencing the paper as if it's a foregone conclusion that it is the truth. That's pretty much the opposite of science. What is your evidence for time? the evidence lies in the paper. -1
swansont Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 What is your evidence for time? the evidence lies in the paper. I think perhaps you need to learn what is meant by "evidence" when discussing science. 1
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 I think perhaps you need to learn what is meant by "evidence" when discussing science. I think perhaps you need to respect all theories rather than disregarding them just because they are different. -2
John Cuthber Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 (edited) I think perhaps you need to respect all theories rather than disregarding them just because they are different. This one isn't being disregarded because it's different. It is being disregarded because it is wrong. It makes predictions that do not agree with the experimental observations. You really need to learn more about evidence. Edited March 9, 2014 by John Cuthber
zidzad1 Posted March 9, 2014 Author Posted March 9, 2014 This one isn't being disregarded because it's different. It is being disregarded because it is wrong. It makes predictions that do not agree with the experimental observations. You really need to learn more about evidence. Tell me one aspect that is wrong this theory is amazing and just because it contradicts what you've been told you're whole life dosent mean its wrong -2
Lightmeow Posted March 9, 2014 Posted March 9, 2014 Tell me one aspect that is wrong this theory is amazing and just because it contradicts what you've been told you're whole life dosent mean its wrong What is your evidence for time? the evidence lies in the paper. Get a religion. I'm sure the priests would love you. If all of the evidence lies in the paper... A priest just will tell you, "have faith", and you will believe. This is seriously my last post on this thread, but I will still keep looking here to see the just stupid things you have been writing. You seriously made my day with this joke of a thread, and I realize how lucky I am that I am not naive... 1
Recommended Posts