Unity+ Posted March 11, 2014 Posted March 11, 2014 (edited) You have no evidence against it and the mainstream scientific models are fake and have no evidence give me 1 piece of evidence for spacetime. So, instead of claiming that there is no evidence for what is mainstream, you are declaring the evidence fraudulent? I would expect evidence for this and I think others would as well. Edited March 11, 2014 by Unity+ 1
zidzad1 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 you can only give me links, but none of you can explain anything. Relativity is just perspective. -2
John Cuthber Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 "you can only give me links" Obviously, this is a web page, not a convenience store. We can't send anything but ones and zeroes. If you want a physics book (and I think that would be a good idea) try Amazon. "but none of you can explain anything" We can, but you won't listen. instead you make absurd allegations about the whole of science being fraud. "Relativity is just perspective" No, it is, among other things, the reason why your GPS works.
zidzad1 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Posted March 12, 2014 Relativity relies on time, and time doesn't exist it is just used to describe motion or rotation as said in the theory. -4
Bignose Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 and time doesn't exist Really. You are honestly going to tell me that time doesn't exist? Please explain why your first post and your latest post in this thread didn't appear at the same time then. Because if time "didn't exist", shouldn't all this happen at the same instant? 2
Endercreeper01 Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) Why would time be used to describe things in physics if it didn't exist? Edited March 12, 2014 by Endercreeper01
swansont Posted March 12, 2014 Posted March 12, 2014 Relativity relies on time, and time doesn't exist it is just used to describe motion or rotation as said in the theory. And yet, GPS works. The correctness of any theory lies in whether or not it describes how nature behaves, i.e. you have to compare it with experiments. The "theory" contradicts experiment. It's wrong.
John Cuthber Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Since time doesn't exist, can you give me next weeks lottery numbers please? Thanks
Unity+ Posted March 13, 2014 Posted March 13, 2014 Relativity relies on time, and time doesn't exist it is just used to describe motion or rotation as said in the theory. Then how do you describe the motion of objects. Motion requires a reference frame. If time doesn't exist there isn't a reference frame therefore there is no ability to detect movement. Also, if time doesn't exist how do you interpret the experiment done with two airplanes going around the world in different directions and at the same time while they arrive at completely different times even though every other factor was similar between each other?
zidzad1 Posted March 13, 2014 Author Posted March 13, 2014 It seems that you dont understand what time is. Time is not geometry time is just used to describe rotation or motion. And thats why relativity is wrong. just prooved it -2
Bignose Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 It seems that you dont understand what time is. Time is not geometry time is just used to describe rotation or motion. And thats why relativity is wrong. just prooved it You haven't proved anything other than you are a poor speller. If you want to have a serious discussion, why don't you explain what you think time is, then? And actually help me understand your statement 'time doesn't exist'. Because I disagree that time is 'just' used to describe motion or rotation. Time still passes even when I sit still. How does this jive? 1
I-try Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 I read as much of the originating so called original paper presented to start this thread as I could tolerate, and formed the opinion that it is a badly disguised cherry picking copy and misunderstanding of a paper that was available on The General Science Journal a year or two ago. Both papers refer to basic building blocks and follow much the same type of progress through physics except that the thread starter has completely disregarded what happens when electron makes physical contact with a positron. There is a lot of reference to and claims as to be the correct explanation of physical facts without providing any physically rational explanation of concepts such as how the pull of gravity originates. Judging from the progress of this thread, it appears to me that the starter of this thread is also the author of the paper used to start the thread. Then again that is only my opinion of the almost hostile defence of the content of the so presnted historic breakthrough to a new understanding of physics. 1
Phi for All Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 ! Moderator Note zidzad1, in this section, the rules state that you must defend your idea with at least a minimum of rigor, answering questions and providing as much supporting evidence as you can. This minimum standard has not been met. Look, you can't just wave your hands and declare established science wrong without some very extraordinary support for such assertions. Just making the assertions comes off as arrogant and ignorant, since so many people are willing to show you where you went wrong (short of teaching you Relativity, which isn't their job). I'm closing this thread and ask that you NOT start another on this topic, unless you can come up with extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claims,
Recommended Posts