Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Posts

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. Why can't you post your ideas (*) on the forum? Why do you have to post pdfs of illegible scribble and meanignless diagrams? (Although, to be fair, it doesn't detract in the least from the quality of the ideas which appear to be quite meaningless and contradicted by reality.)
  2. Strange

    Time.

    Defining time out of existence by asserting that only "now" exists and therefore the universe has no temporal extent is circular reasoning; specifically, begging the question. How do you know that only "now" exists? Because the universe is not temporally extended. How do you know the universe is not termporally extended? Because only "now" exists! I'm not sure what "the lack of such" refers to. Are you trying to say that time doesn't exist because you can't measure it with a ruler? Of course there is the exact equivalent of events being separated spatially (ie. not being in the same place): it is called not-happening-at the-same-time.
  3. Strange

    Time.

    I think you need to explain first, in what way you think a clock doesn't measure time. What is it measuring? And when we measure the effects of graviational time dilation, what exactly are we measuring? I get the impression you are using the word "time" to refer to something other than the normal sense (in both normal life and phsyics). But I have no idea what that thing is. Perhaps because it doesn't exist.
  4. Strange

    Time.

    That is dissapointing. Do you think it is too late for me to ask for my money back on this expensive watch? On the other hand, maybe we can measure time. And we can measure the effects of velocity and gravitation on time, exactly as predicted by theory.
  5. I knew that was going to happen.
  6. Strange

    Time.

    It is odd how all mechanisms are affected by exactly the same amount though ...
  7. Wikipedia has an outline of the process for naming a new species, which might be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_naming#Naming_of_a_new_species You may need to work with an expert in the field to properly identify whether it is a new species (and perhaps get the DNA sequenced). And you need to get you paper proofread before submitting it (e.g "capture" not "captivate" )
  8. You still haven't explained the fact that actual, measured frequencies do not have the relationship you claim. As someone said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. In this case, the facts prove you wrong.
  9. Here is a series of lectures by Feynman explaining the mechanism. He was one of the main people who developed the theory (QED). http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8 (No intelligence required by the photon.)
  10. That just isn't true. You can have light of any single frequency within the range. Passing it through a spectrometer will not split that into two components. And how does the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum relate to your ideas? Why should it just be the tiny visible range that is split into seven?
  11. I don't understand that. If I see star X at its zenith "now", does that mean you can tell me both where I am and the (local) time? Or is this related to the point about making observations over a period of time? I can (sort of) see how that might work. (I don't claim to understand much of this stuff.) But that doesn't seem to relate to the OP, which was about a single picture (wasn't it).
  12. I assume you don't know what "harmonic series" means either. How does that work? Actually, don't answer that. As you are both ignorant of the nature of light and refuse to acknowledge corrections, there is little point. This is just getting even more ridiculous. It doesn't work (whatever that means). Read that Wikipedia page: the frequencies of the colours do not have the relationship you claim. You are wrong. What do you have to say about that?
  13. It is still wrong however many times you repeat it. <shrug> No reason for me to care.
  14. Unfortunately, the facts contradict you. If you don't care about that, why should anyone else care about your mistaken beliefs? From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum Sounds pretty mystical to me. From the same source: So obviously not seven octaves apart.
  15. I'm afraid I don't know what the equation of time is (I'll look it up in a moment). I was just thinking of the fact that the sky in London should look the same as the sky in New York in 5 hours time. So can you tell the difference between London now, or New York 5 hours later? Isn't this why accurate clocks were so important for navigation; in order to determine longitude?
  16. Why didn't you post that text here where it could be quoted? Anyway, pretty much every statement is wrong. I'll just pick a couple at random: Light made of seven "pure tones" - nonsense. There is a continuum of frequencies in the visible part of the spectrum. Newton split the extreme blue end into blue, indigo and violet because he wanted there to be seven colours for mystical reasons. So don't go there. You don't seem to know the meanings of the words "cycle" and "octave"; the phrase "one cycle or octave is the fundamental wave" is totally meaningless. Violet light has 7 times the frequency of red? Nope. Red is centred on about 440 THz while violet is centred at about 730 THz. Not even one octave, never mind 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum I gave up at that point as it is all obviously ignorant twaddle.
  17. Those processes don't increase to total mass-energy of the universe. There currently doesn't appear to be enough mass to stop expansion. In fact, expansion appears to the be accelerating. So, unless/until we discover something new, it will continue expanding indefinitely.
  18. I assume you can determine location given the time, or time given the location. But not both.
  19. Yes, you are probably right. It may not be obvious to everyone. However, it is trivially easy to debunk (e.g. the orange juicer reverses direction each time you use it). And maybe that was the point. But then why not end it with a reveal; a final section showing what they really did? A bit like Orson Welles' F for Fake That was the only line I thought was quite funny.
  20. I didn't really think so. Every scene, from the oscilloscope to the orange squeezer was obviously fake. On another forum, the OP posted that (in screaming bold red) as well. Of course the comment is ludicrous as science doesn't depend on trusting a man in a white coat (apart from the fact the setup in the video is a joke). It depends on review and replication. I'm really baffled what the point of this video is. It isn't funny. It isn't a vaguely convincing lie. It is just stupid.
  21. <shrug> no reason why we should. But it make it more interesting this way! Nature is a bitch. She doesn't care about what you (or I) can understand.
  22. What doesn't make sense to you? How about this: Powers of Ten
  23. Here: The International System of Units (SI) After the definition of the second (page 24) it says: "This definition refers to a cesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K."
  24. I guess the point is that the galaxy isn't behaving as a single entity. There are so many stars that they appear to act in a consistent way: there is a distribution of stars of different ages and types, therefore the number that go nova in a year is just a statistical calculation. It might vary from none in one year to many in another.
  25. Firstly, you seem to be confusing our perception or measurement of time with time itself. Secondly, I don't understand what you can hope to learn from a totally non-physical set up. You might as well ask, "What if time were blue?" You cannot "freeze" everything. For good physical reasons, absolute zero cannot be achieved. However, note that the definition of the second refers to measurements being made under idealised conditions of zero temperature and no movement. (The real-world measurements are adjusted for the non-ideal conditions.) But the point is that the measurement of time is continues even under you not-even-hypothetical conditions. In which case, how did the universe evolve to its present state during the 13.7 billion years before we were here to invent time? Yes, but this is a science forum so that is hardly relevant.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.