Physics questions!

[Relative]

And I have started at the beginning , with darkness, darkness was the beginning.

 

 

From the beginning I expand in time.

 

If I can not get the beginning of current thought to work, then you for sure science have it wrong, and I am not been arrogant, I know I am smart, and if something does not logical fit, then my second sense tells me there is an error.

 

30 seconds:

https://www.coursera.org/courses?orderby=upcoming&search=science&lngs=en&cats=physics,chemistry

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/physics-and-astronomy

 

Of course, you need time and a certain amount of hard work to get the best from these courses. With no one pushing you do assignments or telling you what to do next, you need to be very self-disciplined and motivated.

Is there an exam at the end where I can see how well I am doing?

[Strange]

And I have started at the beginning , with darkness, darkness was the beginning.

 

Only in Genesis.

 

 

I know I am smart, and if something does not logical fit, then my second sense tells me there is an error.

 

And that is part of your problem. A more mature and scientific attitude would be for your "second sense" to tell you that you have not (yet) understood. This is why you are arrogant.

[swansont]

 

Time can not be looked at has a dimension, when time is decay.

 

How does a crystal form and grow, if time is decay?

[Relative]

 

How does a crystal form and grow, if time is decay?

Are crystals alive?, doe's time matter for that what has no purposefully meaning towards existence?

 

Time only matters for that what lives.

 

All things that live has far has I am aware dies eventually?.

[Strange]

Are crystals alive?

 

No.

 

 

Time only matters for that what lives.

 

In the sense that only living things (and possibly only humans) care about time. But time obviously exists for all things. And, equally obviously, not all things decay.

[Relative]

 

Only in Genesis.

 

 

And that is part of your problem. A more mature and scientific attitude would be for your "second sense" to tell you that you have not (yet) understood. This is why you are arrogant.

 

 

No.

 

 

In the sense that only living things (and possibly only humans) care about time. But time obviously exists for all things. And, equally obviously, not all things decay.

Yes time exists for all things, from our view perspective.

 

A rock has no thought, so doe's time matter to that rock?

 

No, but we can record that time, of how long the rock lasts under certain conditions, e.g. erosion by water.

 

Yes time is only important to humans, although birds know the time to migrate,,, in different ways to our own procedures.

 

How can time even be considered a dimension, when it truly only is apart of recording our existence?

 

It means nothing.

 

 

[Strange]

So now you have decided to explore philosophy, with your usual level of insight and understanding. Great.

[Relative]

So now you have decided to explore philosophy, with your usual level of insight and understanding. Great.

I don't know about Philosophy, more of obvious than Philosophy.

 

Can you give me a single argument in any way that suggests time to be a dimension?

And please do not say time dilation, has the parameters in the flight test were not equal conditions to the ground making that inconclusive.

Caesium clock on the ground - Static, velocity 0, 0 altitude, gravity level stronger,pressure different to altitude.

 

Caesium clock in the air - velocity, none static, less gravity, different pressure,

 

and that is deemed an equal fare test?

I change parameters in any test and the results would have to be deemed inconclusive.

Especially when considering comparison tests.

 

 

Understand this please, light follows the inverse square law, look at the link and pause it. Understand on the link , this shows light in the past and in the future. And notice the single Photon following Newtons simple cannon ball theory.

 

Einstein changed parameters from 4d to 1d making a great illusion with relative thinking about light and changing parameters to a laser.

 

Reality relativity.

Hey! ?

 

All boxes in this diagram are inside each other and all travelling at 100 mph inside each other along with the outer box .

 

And the ball also travels at 100 mph inside each box.

 

The observer see's?

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2014 by Relative

[Ophiolite]

I don't know about Philosophy, more of obvious than Philosophy.

Obvious to you because you have not thought carefully enough about the issue.

 

 

Can you give me a single argument in any way that suggests time to be a dimension?

It allows us to measure the separation of events in time.

The separation of objects is measured in space.

The separation of events is measure in time.

 

Your challenge to this seems to be more a result of poor understanding on your part, rather than a significant insight.

 

 

All boxes in this diagram are inside each other and all travelling at 100 mph inside each other along with the outer box .

 

And the ball also travels at 100 mph inside each box.

 

The observer see's?

 

hm.jpg

 

 

No!

[Strange]

 

And please do not say time dilation, has the parameters in the flight test were not equal conditions to the ground making that inconclusive.

 

That is the whole point. You compare the effects of different velocities and gravity against the predictions of the model for those different conditions. That is how science (and engineering) works. And the important point is that it works. It comes up with useful results.

 

I give up. You have sunk to new levels of stupidity. In the past I hoped you might be capable of learning something. But you are obviously too arrogant for that.

[swansont]

I don't know about Philosophy, more of obvious than Philosophy.

 

Can you give me a single argument in any way that suggests time to be a dimension?

 

 

You can't describe trajectories without it.

Are crystals alive?, doe's time matter for that what has no purposefully meaning towards existence?

 

Time only matters for that what lives.

 

All things that live has far has I am aware dies eventually?.

 

But this is a physics discussion, so that's a moot point.

[Relative]

 

You can't describe trajectories without it.

 

But this is a physics discussion, so that's a moot point.

You can't describe trajectories without it, my whole point is, it is no more than a trajectory chart, when you say you can predict where the planets are going to be at any given time, you are not predicted anything, but rather just calculated velocity and distance of orbital paths, no more than an interception path?.

 

''I give up. You have sunk to new levels of stupidity.''

 

You want see it from where I am standing!.

 

''It allows us to measure the separation of events in time.

The separation of objects is measured in space.

The separation of events is measure in time.''

Space and time is not space time. Space is space and time is time.

You answered no to the diagram, I know the MPH was not exact it was an example, but you would see different velocities has an observer.

[Strange]

You can't describe trajectories without it, my whole point is, it is no more than a trajectory chart, when you say you can predict where the planets are going to be at any given time, you are not predicted anything, but rather just calculated velocity and distance of orbital paths, no more than an interception path?

 

How is that NOT calculating where they will be at a given time?

 

 

Space and time is not space time.

 

And yet, the theory of space-time works. Your deluded ramblings don't. So I'll stick with the science.

[Relative]

 

How is that NOT calculating where they will be at a given time?

 

 

And yet, the theory of space-time works. Your deluded ramblings don't. So I'll stick with the science.

At a given period of time!.

 

Timing, not time. A period of a cycle.

 

1 orbit around the Sun, a set amount of time, a block of time,

 

The Physics is simple, not even complex .

 

So I need Einstein maths to work out trajectories?

 

Please tell me where i am incorrect in this diagram?

 

[Strange]

Timing, not time.

 

What is the difference?

 

1 orbit around the Sun, a set amount of time, a block of time,

 

Maybe you think that after a year, the Earth will be back exactly where it was? Unfortunately, planetary orbits are not that simple.

 

So I need Einstein maths to work out trajectories?

 

If you want to do it accurately, then maybe. One of the reasons that Einstein developed GR was because it was known that Newton's laws of gravitation gave the wrong results for some planets.

 

Please tell me where i am incorrect in this diagram?

 

I have no idea what it means.

[Relative]

should of been 90 degrees lol

 

 

What is the difference?

 

 

Maybe you think that after a year, the Earth will be back exactly where it was? Unfortunately, planetary orbits are not that simple.

 

 

If you want to do it accurately, then maybe. One of the reasons that Einstein developed GR was because it was known that Newton's laws of gravitation gave the wrong results for some planets.

 

 

I have no idea what it means.

My diagram shows a Physical spherical body , point A travels at 1000 mph, Point B also travels at 1000 mph, Point B is in an outer atmosphere ,

Point A has less circumference to travel than the circumference of point B has to travel.

 

It should of said 90 degrees not 45 degrees.

 

The circumference changed into linear format shows the distance difference.

 

Point B would have to travel 6 times the velocity of A to reach 90 degrees at the same time has Point A?

''Maybe you think that after a year, the Earth will be back exactly where it was? Unfortunately, planetary orbits are not that simple''

 

I bet that after several years they are back in the exact same place, I know the orbit is not circular.

Timing, not time.

''What is the difference?''

Whilst you time something, time continues even if you stop the clock.

When considering time, timing devices must not be considered, a timing device can only record a set amount of time,

Time was here before ''time''.

History based most science on 360 degrees starting with the clock?

2014 years are equal to X amount of rotation around the Sun?

Edited August 24, 2014 by Relative

[Strange]

Point B would have to travel 6 times the velocity of A to reach 90 degrees at the same time has Point A?

 

I suppose it depends how much further out B is than A. If B is 6 times as far from the center as A is, then yes. As you have drawn the diagram, then no. In other words, who knows?

 

 

I bet that after several years they are back in the exact same place

 

Sorry, you lose.

 

 

Whilst you time something, time continues even if you stop the clock.

When considering time, timing devices must not be considered, a timing device can only record a set amount of time,

 

But we weren't talking about timing something, we were talking about calculating trajectories. So (amazingly) you are right: timing devices are irrelevant.

 

Wouldn't it be better to spend a bit of time learning something rather than embarrassing yourself by repeatedly posting the nonsense that you make up?

[Relative]

silly me lol,

 

 

I suppose it depends how much further out B is than A. If B is 6 times as far from the center as A is, then yes. As you have drawn the diagram, then no. In other words, who knows?

 

 

Sorry, you lose.

 

 

But we weren't talking about timing something, we were talking about calculating trajectories. So (amazingly) you are right: timing devices are irrelevant.

 

Wouldn't it be better to spend a bit of time learning something rather than embarrassing yourself by repeatedly posting the nonsense that you make up?

I am learning something, I have started from the beginning, is it not better now to rule out my many thoughts, to advance to the next chapter of learning?

 

And of yet , I have heard no actual logic that rules out my thoughts!. And yes I should of added distance, but you confirmed I was correct in my assumption.

 

So my simple diagram would allow me to ''predict'' where B was at any given time?

What affects does altitude have on a Caesium clock compared to a Caesium clock at sea level?

A house brick loses mass with altitude explained by yourselves,

 

So the Caesium clock loses mass at altitude also?

Would the mass loss compare to the ''time'' lost?

I have watched several good videos on time dilation, and I just do not buy into it . In all example they seem to change the perspective view of light into a laser.

 

 

Light travels linear, it only reflects if there is an obstruction in the way.

There would be naturally no V shape.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Relative

[Strange]

So my simple diagram would allow me to ''predict'' where B was at any given time?

 

Yes. You have a model. You can use the model to make predictions. That is the glory of math. The next step is that you test your prediction against observations. And there you are doing science.

 

What affects does altitude have on a Caesium clock compared to a Caesium clock at sea level?

 

Surely, we have been here before. It will run faster.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c3

 

A house brick loses mass with altitude explained by yourselves,

 

I have no idea where you get that from.

 

So the Caesium clock loses mass at altitude also?

Would the mass loss compare to the ''time'' lost?

 

No and No.

 

I have watched several good videos on time dilation, and I just do not buy into it .

 

Tough. It works. You can measure the effect. Technology such as GPS has to take it into account. No one really cares whether you think it happens or not.

[swansont]

You can't describe trajectories without it, my whole point is, it is no more than a trajectory chart, when you say you can predict where the planets are going to be at any given time, you are not predicted anything, but rather just calculated velocity and distance of orbital paths, no more than an interception path?.

 

 

Knowing where something is so that it can be intercepted sounds an awful lot like a prediction.

I have watched several good videos on time dilation, and I just do not buy into it .

 

 

Let us know when you want to discuss science. Religion discussion is elsewhere.

[Relative]

@Strange -

What affects does altitude have on a Caesium clock compared to a Caesium clock at sea level?

''Surely, we have been here before. It will run faster.''

So you are admitting that it is altitude that makes the Caesium clock faster?

@Swanson

''Knowing where something is so that it can be intercepted sounds an awful lot like a prediction.''

Incorrect sir, a prediction is impossible, or else we would all be able to win at roulette.

You do not predict anything, you know by time and velocity and trajectory , that is not prediction. It is a set path.

The path was plotted first, then the maths was added to fit according to history?

If you can predict some random events, then I will be truly impressed.

 

If you can give me a 100% Caesium comparison test I will be impressed.

 

The flight test had to many random variables to be a comparison test.

The test was badly thought out, Using the Caesium to record 1 second badly thought out.

 

You can not use a Caesium to record a second because it is not a constant. Different variables affecting the output.

Has anyone took a Caesium clock deep underground to see what it does?

At altitude there is more microwave energy?

[Strange]

 

So you are admitting that it is altitude that makes the Caesium clock faster?

 

It is actually the change in gravitational potential, due to the altitude.

 

 

Incorrect sir, a prediction is impossible, or else we would all be able to win at roulette.

 

Some things can be predicted with certainty, others only with a probability.

 

If you can predict some random events, then I will be truly impressed.

 

Random events can only be predicted with probability. Non-random events can be predicted exactly.

 

 

The flight test had to many random variables to be a comparison test.

 

And yet, it matched predictions very well.

 

 

You can not use a Caesium to record a second because it is not a constant. Different variables affecting the output.

 

It is constant under constant conditions. A lot of effort is made to keep conditions constant or to adjust for those that cannot be. You are lucky, because swansont is an expert in this area. You could learn a lot from him, if you can keep your immature arrogance under control.

 

 

At altitude there is more microwave energy?

 

It probably depends where you are. There is a lot of microwave energy at ground level, in some places, from cell phone towers, etc. How this varies with altitude is probably very complex.

[swansont]

''Knowing where something is so that it can be intercepted sounds an awful lot like a prediction.''

Incorrect sir, a prediction is impossible, or else we would all be able to win at roulette.

 

You do not predict anything, you know by time and velocity and trajectory , that is not prediction. It is a set path.

Perhaps you are using a definition of prediction of which I am not aware? It's not a possibility that I can rule out. We make things hit other things all the time, because we can predict what the path will be. Yes it's a set path. That's the point — we can use math to describe what's going on, precisely because the path is set by the laws of physics.

 

Not winning at roulette has a lot to do with the gambling establishments frowning upon using the sort of equipment that would be necessary. It is not, in principle, particularly difficult if you could run it as an experiment. It's doing it by eye that's tough.

 

 

The path was plotted first, then the maths was added to fit according to history?

 

If you can predict some random events, then I will be truly impressed.

We weren't talking about random events, we were talking about trajectories. We landed on the frikkin' moon using prediction from physics. That wasn't a random event.

 

Even so, there are random events that can be described. I can't tell you when an individual particle will decay, but I can tell you that the number will decrease exponentially and measure a half-life, which is repeatable.

 

If you can give me a 100% Caesium comparison test I will be impressed.

 

The flight test had to many random variables to be a comparison test.

 

The test was badly thought out, Using the Caesium to record 1 second badly thought out.

 

You can not use a Caesium to record a second because it is not a constant. Different variables affecting the output.

 

Has anyone took a Caesium clock deep underground to see what it does?

 

At altitude there is more microwave energy?

The entire timing community disagrees with you, and probably doesn't care what you think. Opinions don't matter here, and a personal measure of what level of acceptance is irrelevant. At the end of the day, GPS works, as do a number of other technologies that require precise time and the proper application of relativity.

 

Microwave energy at ambient levels is irrelevant. Clocks are shielded from normal outside interference to a level that makes any errors too small to measure.

[Relative]

So you are admitting that it is altitude that makes the Caesium clock faster?

''It is actually the change in gravitational potential, due to the altitude.''

Change in gravitational potential. Exactly, not a change in time, a change in your timing device by less gravity allowing the Caesium clock to output at a quicker rate. The Caesium clock belongs in the department of science useless inventions.

''The entire timing community disagrees with you, and probably doesn't care what you think. Opinions don't matter here''

It is not an opinion, it is 100% factual logic that in a comparison test, the test has to have the same process applied.

100% factual that the flight test had random variables that deem the test inconclusive .

I honestly am scratching my head, I can not believe science can not see this.

The Caesium clock is not a constant, it is has simple has that, time does not change or dilate.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Relative

[Ophiolite]

I have been following this thread throughout, with an occasional contribution. It is now my recommendation that it be locked.

 

Relative, your last post is filled with a combination of unjustified arrogance and profound ignorance that make it unlikely, in my opinion, despite the patient efforts of several other members, that you will ever be ready to learn anything meaningful. You seem almost to belong to that set of people of whom it is said, they had delusions of adequacy.