syntax252 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 I don't think anyone has suggested you do this. Saying you don't yet understand the theory and supporting evidence is different, however, than saying that time isn't malleable. I am not saying that time is not mallable. I am only saying that I do not think that it is mallable. Different realities for different folke, doncha know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 I am suggesting that if I take on a position of "oh, why yes, of course time is mallable, because Einstien said so" that I would be little more than a parrot,The purpose of school is to teach the wisdom of others. Without repeating their research, how can we but parrot what they say? We should not take what we learn at school as fact, but we should still try to use it without full acceptance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 The purpose of school is to teach the wisdom of others. Without repeating their research, how can we but parrot what they say? We should not take what we learn at school as fact, but we should still try to use it without full acceptance. Oh, I agree to that. But one either believes that something is true, or one does not. I think that most people who are willing to say that time is mallable, really don't believe that it is, they just don't know how to disagree. Kinda like a lot of Christians not believing that Jesus was who he said he was, they are just too afraid of censure to argue about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 They split up a beam and sent it in perpendicular directions and the recombined the beams. If the speed had changed, there would be a particular interference pattern that depends on the speed change. Standard interferometry. And this was supposed to prove........what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 And this was supposed to prove........what? That we were not moving through the ether. See post 93. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 Wikipedia is great. (It really helps to have a diagram). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntax252 Posted March 27, 2005 Share Posted March 27, 2005 That we were not moving through the ether. See post 93. Well you know, that is the way I understood it too. Or that the ether did not act as a carrier for light waves as does the air for sound waves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now