A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Retcooooooon

Retcon, my foot. Your words are meaningless because you don't even know the first thing about his claim. Can you explain it Chuck? Where is the inconsistency other than it's inconsistent with the present theory of sight? Based on the opinions of others (you're just a copycat; you're not thinking for yourself), you immediately assume he was wrong which makes me a target for ridicule. The worst thing a person can do in a serious debate is give their opinion on something they know nothing about or have any understanding of. You don't even know what his observations were, so how in god's name are you in a position to determine its correctness?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The more sensible argument is – Time as such runs the same everywhere but it is the Clocks that get affected by gravity and motion. So the clocks tick differently in different gravitational fields despite the Time running same everywhere; and hence is the above observed difference.

I can’t even … I don’t … what??

*gasps trying to catch breath from laughter*

Hey peacegirl, I thought you told us that time doesn’t exist, remember? Now you’ve googled up a wackadoodle who thinks not only that time exists, but that time as such exists. Whoa!

Peacegirl, could you please email your latest shit-for-brains and ask him which clock keeps track of time as such? That way we can all synchronize our watches.

I can understand why you think time doesn’t exist, though. I suppose when you’re in an alcoholic haze 24/7, all moments are pretty much alike.

In any event, I am glad we are back to relativity debunking. That was great fun last time. Could you please again quote the guy who thinks the value of pi is 4? kthnks.

[Stephen Maturin]

The NIST-F1 cesium fountain "time as such" clock is located right here in Colorado.

The pi=4 guy was pretty good, but I'm really looking forward to the return of the evolution denier who spent years and years trying to build a Christian AI from coded instructions in the Book of Revelation.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

a serious debate

peacegirl, is that what you think this is? A serious debate over, you know, do we see with eyes?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I can’t even … I don’t … what??

*gasps trying to catch breath from laughter*

Hey peacegirl, I thought you told us that time doesn’t exist, remember? Now you’ve googled up a wackadoodle who thinks not only that time exists, but that time as such exists. Whoa!

Peacegirl, could you please email your latest shit-for-brains and ask him which clock keeps track of time as such? That way we can all synchronize our watches.

I can understand why you think time doesn’t exist, though. I suppose when you’re in an alcoholic haze 24/7, all moments are pretty much alike.

In any event, I am glad we are back to relativity debunking. That was great fun last time. Could you please again quote the guy who thinks the value of pi is 4? kthnks.

I said that time is not a dimension David. There is no past or future, just the present. There is no dilation of time. There are no block universes and no black holes that could take you back in time if we were to travel faster than the speed of light. That means that the possibility of building a time machine is pure gobbledygook. Now who has shit for brains?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, is that what you think this is? A serious debate over, you know, do we see with eyes?

Please stop while you have a chance. Your ignorance is becoming very obvious. You can't answer any of my questions. Not one. You are like thedoc who blathers and blathers and blathers, yet has nothing to say. It's all hot air!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The worst thing a person can do in a serious debate is give their opinion on something they know nothing about or have any understanding of.

You don't even know what his observations were, so how in god's name are you in a position to determine its correctness?

If I were a real masochist I would go through this thread and count how many times you have expressed an opinion on something you knew nothing about and understood even less, starting with your fathers book, and then we have science.

No-one knows what your fathers observations were because neither you nor your father have ever bothered to specify what those observations were, when they were done, or what was observed. The subject is totally devoid of information. So in that sense you are correct, but his conclusions were completely wrong and they can be checked and verified. .

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that time is not a dimension David. There is no past or future, just the present. There is no dilation of time.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so. You and your father have said a lot of things that are outside of reality, just saying them does not make them reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are like thedoc

Hay I'm famous! can I put that on my resume?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that time is not a dimension David.

Yes, you did say that. You say all sorts of stupid things. That is why you are considered the village idiot here at

There is no dilation of time.

Oh no? What do you think the latest shit-for-brains you googled unwittingly described?

If there is no time dilation, then google your latest shit-for-brains, and ask him what clock tells us "time as such" so that we can all synchronize our watches. I'd love to hear his answer!



Christ, you are fucking stupid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, you did say that. You say all sorts of stupid things. That is why you are considered the village idiot here at

Oh no? What do you think the latest shit-for-brains you googled unwittingly described?

If there is no time dilation, then google your latest shit-for-brains, and ask him what clock tells us "time as such" so that we can all synchronize our watches. I'd love to hear his answer!



Christ, you are fucking stupid.

Why Time Dilation
must be Impossible

A central tenet of Special Relativity (SR) is the idea that the experience of time is a local phenomenon. Each object at a point in space can have its own version of time which may run faster or slower than at other objects elsewhere. Relative changes in the experience of time are said to happen when one object moves toward or away from another object. This is called ‘time dilation’ and can cause clocks to run at different speeds in different locations.

Here’s how it happens: Suppose we have two clocks: A and B, which are known to be very accurate. Clock A is standing still while clock B zooms toward it, narrowly missing. As B passes A, we observe that they are perfectly synchronized. Clock B then continues to move away from A as pictured below. SR tells us that because B is moving away from A, its time will be running slower than A, and will gradually fall behind time-wise.

cont. at: Why Time Dilation Must Be Impossible

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why Time Dilation
must be Impossible

A central tenet of Special Relativity (SR) is the idea that the experience of time is a local phenomenon. Each object at a point in space can have its own version of time which may run faster or slower than at other objects elsewhere. Relative changes in the experience of time are said to happen when one object moves toward or away from another object. This is called ‘time dilation’ and can cause clocks to run at different speeds in different locations.

Here’s how it happens: Suppose we have two clocks: A and B, which are known to be very accurate. Clock A is standing still while clock B zooms toward it, narrowly missing. As B passes A, we observe that they are perfectly synchronized. Clock B then continues to move away from A as pictured below. SR tells us that because B is moving away from A, its time will be running slower than A, and will gradually fall behind time-wise.

cont. at: Why Time Dilation Must Be Impossible

It took me five seconds of reading your brand-new shit-for-brains that he/she/it fails to comprehend the difference between inertial frames and accelerated frames. Understanding the difference would clear up his/her/its massive confusion.

Amazing how stupid are the people you quote. Just like you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't answer any of my questions. Not one.

Holy fuck. Did you really just say that? Is there no limit to your hypocrisy?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your words are meaningless because you don't even know the first thing about his claim. Can you explain it Chuck? Where is the inconsistency other than it's inconsistent with the present theory of sight?

We see the inconsistencies every time you attempt to explain it. You immediately begin contradicting yourself and retracting your own answers, denying that you even gave them.

[Spacemonkey]

Some of your now retracted claims:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The second the light changed, the green wavelengths would be at the retina...

You have now retracted this claim, saying instead that there will be a small time delay before green photons are at the retina. This means we do not see in real time, and you still have no idea where these green photons come from or how they get to the retina before they have had time to travel there from the traffic light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the object turned green. You will not accept my answer...

Ironically, I did accept your answer, but you have since disowned it, denying that you ever even said this. You still have no idea where or when the green photons, now only near-instantly at the retina, began to exist.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You did so! Why do you keep lying about your own words, when we can SHOW YOU where you said them? Look:

Were those your words? Do you remember typing them?

I don't know. It's your bizarre theory, not mine. If the green photons at the retina existed before the light turned green, where did they come from and when did they begin to exist?

We were not talking about the Sun or a candle. We were talking about a very distant traffic light. Do the green photons come from the traffic light, and travel from there to the retina in a nanosecond? If so, you have them traveling faster than light; if not, then where and when did they begin to exist?

Of course it matters. You can't tell me the green photons will be travelling in a direction determined by the angle at which they struck the object when they haven't struck any object.

You are now rejecting your previous claim that there will be green photons instantly at the retina, claiming instead that there will be some minuscule time delay. Fine, but that still doesn't answer my question of where and when these green photons began to exist. If they came from the traffic light, then you have them travelling faster than the speed of light—and you also have them getting to the retina, contrary to your previous denials.

Fine, then when do they begin to exist? Before or after the traffic light turns green? And where are they when they first begin to exist?

Do you understand what you're saying? Where are these green photons travelling from, where are they travelling to, and have they covered this distance faster than the speed of light? Photons cannot travel huge distances in a nanosecond. Light cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

I mean just that. It's a perfectly simple question expressed in clear English. What part of the question confuses you? I can re-express the question taking into account your nanosecond time-delay if you like:

You have said that there will be green photons near-instantly at the retina, in less time than it would take them to travel from the newly-turned-green traffic light to the retina, so...

Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?

(Please note that this question has nothing to do with whether or not there is any information in the travelling light.)

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop the lies and evasion.

Five words and you're done. Is that so hard?

Bump.

[thedoc]

There seems to be a complete disconnect between what Peacegirl has edited in Lessans book, what she types in a post to this thread, and what she remembers from either. She is constantly contradicting herself and Lessans, and sometimes posting an argument against her own post. It's like she can't remember which lie she has told when and is constantly inventing new lies to cover the old ones.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Some of your now retracted claims:

You have now retracted this claim, saying instead that there will be a small time delay before green photons are at the retina. This means we do not see in real time, and you still have no idea where these green photons come from or how they get to the retina before they have had time to travel there from the traffic light.

Ironically, I did accept your answer, but you have since disowned it, denying that you ever even said this. You still have no idea where or when the green photons, now only near-instantly at the retina, began to exist.

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

If there is a nanosecond delay then we DON'T see instantly. And you still can't tell me anything about these photons you claim are near-instantly at the retina. You don't know where they came from, how they got there, or where or when they began to exist. It's almost as if you're making the whole thing up as you go along. And none of this explains why you keep lying about what you've answered and what you've said, and evading every single question I ask you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

So we can assume that the nanosecond is the time it takes for the candle or the Sun to start producing photons, but the instant they do those photons are instantly at the eye. The question is, and has been, how do the photons instantly get from the Sun or the candle to the eye, without traveling the distance to the eye. Just saying that distance is not a factor is not good enough, you need to provide a better explanation than that, if you cannot, then the whole idea fails for lack of support.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes sense to those who are looking for something to make an issue over like you Angakuk. When a person is a stickler for grammatical perfection, it's because they have nothing left to argue. It's a complete dodge.

My response to your post had nothing to do with grammar. Another word you use apparently without knowing what it means.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Do you google specifically for these fruitloops, or do you just happen up on them naturally?

Birds of a feather...?

[Vivisectus]

Can we calculate the speed of sight based on her statements? How BIG is the room that takes sight a nanosecond to cross?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So we can assume that the nanosecond is the time it takes for the candle or the Sun to start producing photons, but the instant they do those photons are instantly at the eye. The question is, and has been, how do the photons instantly get from the Sun or the candle to the eye, without traveling the distance to the eye. Just saying that distance is not a factor is not good enough, you need to provide a better explanation than that, if you cannot, then the whole idea fails for lack of support.

When I say instantly I mean in terms of the efferent account. This is not teleportation, which you keep alluding to. The fact that you believe there is no support for his claim (which I disagree with) does not invalidate his claim. Sorry Spacemonkey, but you will not make me go away!