When did you find out General Relativity was wrong?

File: 24 KB, 340x433, IMG_3502.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 05:33:45 2018 No.9994241 [Reply] [Original]

When did you find out General Relativity was wrong?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 06:27:53 2018 No.9994274 Bait

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 06:31:21 2018 No.9994276 When I found God.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 06:31:41 2018 No.9994277 After i got into car accident and become retarded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 06:47:48 2018 No.9994290 >>9994241 when I read the lab test results that invalidated it ...oh wait

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 06:54:25 2018 No.9994299 >>9994290 >The lab test results You mean the lab hypothesis from incorrect assumptions? Let me give you a hint kid: You're up against the best here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 06:58:18 2018 No.9994301 >>9994241 Einstein drools, Tesla rules!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 06:58:19 2018 No.9994300 >>9994241 It isnt tho

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 06:58:24 2018 No.9994302 >>9994241 Rife's "Universal Microscope" started it by compromising the supposedly solid QED.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:01:27 2018 No.9994305 >>9994300 Yea it iz

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:03:42 2018 No.9994307 >>9994299 well obviously, that Nobel bling of yours is almost as impressive at your slut tattoo

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:07:01 2018 No.9994309 >>9994305 Prove it!

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:22:22 2018 No.9994330 >>9994241 Literal herecy

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:27:35 2018 No.9994337 >>9994309 The idea that time is physical and malleable cannot be proven. You can never denote a relative measurement, therefore it's all uniform.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:37:49 2018 No.9994354 >>9994241 When I got near you are mom but didn't get attracted to her.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:39:54 2018 No.9994358 >>9994354 When you make that joke, you're meant to at least understand what gravity is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:54:03 2018 No.9994371 >>9994337 well actually it can and has been proven. Ever used a GPS? It's only that correct because it applies GR.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 07:59:36 2018 No.9994379 >>9994371 Hitting Anons with the hard truth. Satellites in orbiting don't exist. GPS is only reliant on phone tower triangulation. Otherwise you would have absolute global coverage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 08:01:09 2018 No.9994381 >>9994371 >>9994337 Damn just got red pilled anon. What are you going to do with your life from now on? Maybe try self-improvement for awhile and lead a happy life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 08:08:17 2018 No.9994394 >>9994371 >Ever used a GPS? It's only that correct because it applies GR. Wrong, it uses SR and graph theory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 08:13:26 2018 No.9994399 >>9994302 >Rife's "Universal Microscope" started it by compromising the supposedly solid QED. An stupid thing that never worked but was revived as a supposed "cancer cure treatment"/money making machine.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 08:14:04 2018 No.9994402 >>9994241 Hey did you guys know that one time a reporter asked Albert Einstein what it was like being the smartest man on earth and he responded by saying "I don't know, ask Tesla" Did you know that?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 08:21:21 2018 No.9994416

>>9994379
>Satellites in orbiting don't exist.
Another idiot.

>>9994402
>Hey did you guys know that one time a reporter asked Albert Einstein what it was like being the smartest man on earth and he responded by saying "I don't know, ask Tesla"
Did you know that?
No, because it's a fake story that appeared for the first time in 2005.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 08:23:21 2018 No.9994423 >>9994416 Serious Anon. The only orbiting paths an object can take is along the edge of the tier in a field. Think of it like one of those fountains in a fountain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 08:38:48 2018 No.9994443 >>9994416 It's still funny seeing it spammed on every single tesla video on YouTube

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 08:51:30 2018 No.9994473 >>9994399 Look, someone who skimmed wikipedia then did 10 minutes of research. Why did so many people attest to its functionality who were in no place to profit? Why the writeup in Science? And later, The Smithsonian?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 09:29:23 2018 No.9994517
File: 781 KB, 1200x783, dr_rife_1931_end_to_all_disease_dinner_photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9994473
Those people included:
Milbank Johnson, M.D., Arthur I. Kendall, Ph.D., E.C. Rosenow, M.D., Coolidge of General Electric, O.C. Gruner, M.D., Henry Seiner, Dr. Copp, M.D., Alvin G. Foord, M.D., Ernest Lynwood Walker, M.D., and Karl Meyer, M.D., of the Hooper Foundation of San Francisco, George Dock, M.D., Waylen Morrison, M.D., Dr. Fischer, M.D., Verne Thompson, Ben Cullen, Ray Lounsberry, M.D., James B. Couche, M.D., Charles F. Tully, D.D.S., Arthur Yale, M.D., R.T. Hammer, M.D., John Crane, David Sawyer, Don Tully, J. Heitger, M.D., Royal Lee, Ph.D.,T.O. Berger, M.D., Alice Kendall

You'll recognize Arthur Kendall from Kendall's Bacteriology.

Rife worked with the Navy during WW2 and was sent out to inspect foreign labs. It's very likely he came across the Russian and Eastern European research that was beginning at that time. He started studying eye surgery, but switched to bacteriology. Then studied at Zeiss with Hans Luckel for 7 years. He didn't develop his microscope out of nowhere.

Two things were going on at the time:
-Various interests were heavily invested into the idea of bacterial monomorphism, such as John Rivers of the Rockefeller Institute. Rife and Kendall were suggesting pleomorphism, which 100 years later is now well accepted.
-Cancer and disease were immensely profitable, and a subset of those treating it banded together to ensure a complete monopoly on the practice and manner of healthcare, using the legal system. This cabal became what we now know as orthodox medicine. Morris Fishbein and the AMA were at the root of it. In an ironic and perverse twist, Novocure's "Tumor treating fields" clinical trials were published in JAMA. Machines which are pretty much just hack versions of what rife did, and though they work, only made it through FDA approval because of immense Israeli financial backing.

It's not known how Rife's microscope worked. The 1939 trial bankrupted him and thensome,Henry Timken and Amelia bridges,

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 09:40:44 2018 No.9994534 >>9994517 maybe you should try /x/

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 09:45:01 2018 No.9994540 >>9994241 years ago.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 09:46:20 2018 No.9994542
File: 241 KB, 400x519, dr_rife_looking_through_microscope.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9994517
had died. His microscope cost ~250,000 to manufacture in the 1920s. None were created after the trial. Rife became an alcoholic and was put in a psych ward, and broke out a year later. Another attempt to create similar devices ended with an FDA raid. Rife left for Mexico, his two associates were sentenced to 10 years in prison. The sentence was eventually reduced to 3 years after many signed testimonials from patients and doctors.

Long history. Here's Rife's deposition for that trial. It was never allowed to be entered.
http://www.rife.org/pdf/Deposition%20of%20Royal%20Rife.pdf

Rife died 1971. Here's an article with a concise summary.
http://www.rife.org/newspaper/Scientific-Genius.jpg

>>9994534
If for no other reason than less need to latch onto the security of the mainstream cultural narrative, which is manufactured.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 09:48:24 2018 No.9994549 >>9994542 >Long history. Here's Rife's deposition for that trial. It was never allowed to be entered. >http://www.rife.org/pdf/Deposition%20of%20Royal%20Rife.pdf "Look for the story in this totally not biased page".

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 09:49:31 2018 No.9994552 >>9994276 Unironically this. However, absolutely NOT The Jesus Route.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 09:57:48 2018 No.9994568

>>9994549
I don't think there's much bias. I haven't seen any direct or indirect actions that would further selling a product. They actually recommended against buying most "Rife" machines, because they aren't properly based on the working idea.

This is what makes it very clear, and I suggest you re-read what I said.
>If for no other reason than less need to latch onto the security of the mainstream cultural narrative, which is manufactured.
You go out of the approved truth bubble that we all act out as the truth as a common interface with one another, and you're on your own. Just look at all of it. Look how profitable disease is. Something clearly went on there, and without the means, all you can do is cross reference and evaluate for yourself.

Whether you trust rife.org or not, you're on your own. Or you can just slink back into the herd and sleepwalk through life doing and saying what the man beside you is, having faith in the collective and ignoring the entire field of crowd psychology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 11:13:54 2018 No.9994698 >>9994241 when i read this thread >>9991161

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 11:21:17 2018 No.9994712 >>9994241 How to get a better orbit for mercury without it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 11:48:02 2018 No.9994758 >>9994394 It also uses GR, since satellites are farther away from Earth's gravitational field, their clocks tick faster than clocks on Earth. On the other hand, the SR effect of the satellites motion means that their clocks tick slower.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 11:57:12 2018 No.9994772 >>9994712 just because GR fails at explaining everything (e.g. the rotation curve of galaxies) doesn’t mean it needs to be gotten rid of. just modified

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 12:10:56 2018 No.9994799 >>9994758 No.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 12:17:48 2018 No.9994813 >>9994799 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 12:45:22 2018 No.9994884 >>>/s4s/7114301

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 12:50:41 2018 No.9994907
File: 21 KB, 318x472, Picture+1[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9994337
>The idea that time is physical and malleable cannot be proven.

You're somewhat right but it most certainly can be proven that time is not real. First of all it's nothing other than a measurement, a concept made by humans to keep track of the frequency of events.
>frequency of events
The "events" in this case cannot be described by "time" nor can time be a modality. How can time be an event or modality that controls events? It's a descriptor of an event, it is a language derived from observation.
>derived from observation, a posterior descriptor of it
Not a "posterior attribute" of it. It doesn't matter how "frequent" an event happens, what matters is the cause of that event. Time does explain the event, it quantifies the qualitative aspects of resistance and motion.
>quantifies the qualitative
A.K.A "time doesn't exist we humans made it up".

>>9994758
This meme is so old and outdated, you can tell because the premise of it still tries to give meaning to "time" and "gravity", both of which don't fucking exist.
>a clock
>having anything to do with the universe

Lint-headed clod

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 12:56:31 2018 No.9994922 >>9994907 "Look at me... Look at my philosophical bullshit... Oh, I'm so smart"

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 12:59:34 2018 No.9994929 >>9994922 If he didnt attach a photo of a greek/roman philosopher you wouldnt have even considered that post remotely philosophical. He only ezercosed rational thought. Shows how much of a brainlet you are

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 13:03:18 2018 No.9994941 >>9994922 >"I can't scrabble up a reply worth a damn so I'll make fun of him and his love of knowledge" This is what you basically are saying. Care to scrabble up any more replies?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 13:06:12 2018 No.9994946 >>9994813 No: https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/top-4-reasons-why-gps-doesnt-need-einstein-s-relativity-895cabc6e619

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 13:10:45 2018 No.9994952

>>9994946
Yes: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1061/why-does-gps-depend-on-relativity

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 13:12:43 2018 No.9994955 >>9994952 No brainlet, clocks tick faster higher up because of less air pressure.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 13:54:24 2018 No.9995028 >>9994907 Empirical facts don't care about your retarded opinions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 14:07:39 2018 No.9995046

>>9994946
This is a bunch of bullshit that contradicts itself. First it says that corrections aren't made, then it annoys corrections are made:

>To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.”

>Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,” Van Flandern said. “They have basically blown off Einstein”.
This is a strawman argument since the clock corrections are made in order to sync clocks to a base station which doesn't move, NOT a GPS user. The base station updates the location of the satellite, and that location information is used to calculate GPS. Without the relativistic corrections to the satellite clocks, the base station would not be able to correctly update the location of the satellites and GPS wouldn't work.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 14:17:47 2018 No.9995066

>>9995046
>Without the relativistic corrections to the satellite clocks, the base station would not be able to correctly update the location of the satellites and GPS wouldn't work.
Did you miss the part about satellite clocks ticking faster due to being at high altitude (low air pressure)? Nothing to do with relativity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 14:24:38 2018 No.9995084 >>9995066 What is the error rate? You should be easily able to show this in a vacuum chamber.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 14:49:20 2018 No.9995128 >>9994241 school when i asked them to prove the earth was a globe

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 15:07:21 2018 No.9995168 >>9995128 And indeed, they were taken aback. Because they could not. The light of this truth shone undeniably, and they fell to their knees.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 15:56:42 2018 No.9995322 >>9995084 Think about it - clocks are built in a high pressure environment - when put in a low pressure environment, they will perform differently. They are physical things and subject to all forces and pressures.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:01:25 2018 No.9995334

When my professor actually showed me proper evidence against it. But its not really wrong, just incomplete which is really nothing news worth in academia. The problem is that you need to explain the relativistic effects that happen.

Pro tip, you can also write newtoniam gravity as curvature of spacetime, and GR as interactions of fields.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:01:35 2018 No.9995335 >>9994955 >No brainlet, clocks tick faster higher up because of less air pressure. "Because, of course, GR experiments are done with mechanical clocks"

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:03:58 2018 No.9995341

>>9995334
>Pro tip, you can also write newtoniam gravity as curvature of spacetime, and GR as interactions of fields.
It's not that you can... It has to be that way. Newtonian Gravity was a very good theory for weak gravitational potentials, thus good theory of gravity has to reproduce it in the small curvature limit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:04:35 2018 No.9995343 >>9995322 So you don't actually know that the error rate is comparable to the relativistic correction. That's what I thought. Try not to lie so much on the science board.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:06:55 2018 No.9995347

>>9995335
I can conceive that air pressure would affect certain atomic clocks that use vapor, but not all satellites use this type of clock. The crank can't even tell me what the error rate is even though this is easy to measure, which indicates that he's spouting bullshit.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:30:15 2018 No.9995388

>>9995335
Atomic clocks don't have anything mechanical in them? They are also affected by temperature.

I find it funny how people think atomic clocks are extremely accurate and are the closest you can get to measuring time perfectly, when there is no such thing.

How can something measure "1 second" better than something else? Where is this "1 second" that's being measured in the first place?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:34:19 2018 No.9995398

>>9995028
>Empirical facts
>Something that describes an observation with a theory is empirical

How about we go back to the beginning. What do you think "time" actually is? Don't link me a wiki article, use your brain and ask yourself if time is observable and something that can be experienced.

>well duh, we all live and die. We "pass" through time. We have numbers, acronyms that signify the position of us relative to the sun. We are moving right now which means there's time passing!

Pass through what now? Time is a medium? Can one "travel through time"? If I wanted to stop the effects of aging, wouldn't I just have to resist acceleration? I would say the "force of gravity", but that's an incredibly wrong statement (acceleration is not a force and gravity is a theoretical hodge podge misunderstanding of light). If I cease movement is that ceasing time? No, it's the negation of movement.
The vibrations of atoms or whatever the fuck you want to call matter would simply vibrate less, become cold and still. Is temperature time? Is movement time? No. If it was then you would you have to set your gas-tank forward in the spring and back in the fall? You put gas and expel gas to move and go faster.

>But this stuff is calculated with time you idiot

The language doesn't mean shit to the universe, means a lot to us humans though when trying to recreate effects with limited observational capabilities.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:35:13 2018 No.9995401 >>9995388 Look up the definition of a second.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:39:30 2018 No.9995412

>>9995401
Let's say I built a clock and claimed it could measure '1 second' more accurately than the most accurate clock that exists today.

How would you go about verifying this as being the case? How can my clock measure "one second" more accurately than another clock?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 16:42:50 2018 No.9995420 >>9995412 More frequency first of all. This is more an engineering question than a philosophical one.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 17:03:51 2018 No.9995455

>>9995398
>What do you think "time" actually is?
Time is a dimension of the manifold in which events lie; it separates events in the same spacial location.

>Pass through what now? Time is a medium? Can one "travel through time"?
You can travel through time, but it's not a medium. You are making categorical errors.

>If I wanted to stop the effects of aging, wouldn't I just have to resist acceleration?
How would that cause you to stop aging?

>I would say the "force of gravity", but that's an incredibly wrong statement (acceleration is not a force and gravity is a theoretical hodge podge misunderstanding of light).
OK, I can see you're a certified crank and there is no point in trying to educate you. Thanks for not wasting my time.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 17:12:00 2018 No.9995470

>>9995412
The accuracy of a clock is ultimately determined by seeing if it corresponds to ephemeris time, i.e. whether it consistently counts the interval between periodic astronomical events. Current atomic clocks can reach an accuracy in which they will deviate less than a second from ephemeris time in 15 billion years.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 17:16:01 2018 No.9995476

>>9995420
>More frequency first of all.
How are you measuring this "more frequency"? What makes a frequency a frequency in the first place?

>This is more an engineering question than a philosophical one.
This is fundamentally a philosphical one, and one that needs to be asked.

So many philosophical questions are out there that need to be asked.

The engineers have a knowing of "time" as it is represented physically, by the consistent motion of a dial or digital display of numbers.

But philosophically they must realise that what they're attempting to create doesn't really exist in physical reality, and is purely an arbitrary concept that has no fixed meaning or value. A "more accurate" second is nothing more than some cunt's autistic fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 17:21:35 2018 No.9995486 >>9995476 If time does not exist, then there can't be change. But change is observed. Therefore time exists.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 17:25:25 2018 No.9995498

>>9995470
That is a joke, right?

"Periodic astronomical events" are a good ruler to measure against the accuracy of "atomic" clocks? These events have a perfect, objective beginning and end time that can be measured against to prove the accuracy of a clock?

These events are also perfectly constant and static? Will always happen perfectly?

Whoever came up with that idea might need a re-think.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 17:46:06 2018 No.9995528

>>9995498
>"Periodic astronomical events" are a good ruler to measure against the accuracy of "atomic" clocks?
Ephemeris time was the standard by which clocks were measured against when atomic clocks were invented. After atomic clocks were invented, the second was redefined with respect to a caesium clock in order to match ephemeris time. What exactly is your point?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 17:53:31 2018 No.9995538

>>9995455
> Time is a dimension of the manifold in which events lie; it separates events in the same spacial location.
Time is not motion, nor resistance,nor capacitance nor a medium, all of which separate things quite well and have nothing to do with time. Again I reiterate that it is nothing other than a measurement. You're saying that events lie within a measurement. No, an event is measured.

>You can travel through time, but it's not a medium
How do you "travel in time" then? I fail to see what "thing" of substance is being traveled through. What is the difference between a boat traveling through water as opposed to jello? One "takes more time" to travel through, but that isn't because of time itself. It's because the medium by which the boat travels is

>You're just making categorical errors.
Actually I'm desperately trying to point out that you are the one making categorical errors by claiming something has a property that it could not possibly have (a measurement of an event). It has no properties. If you would like to list a property that any measurement we've ever conjured has then please be my guest. Or you can continue this roller coaster of circular reasoning.
>How would that cause you to stop aging?
If you don't accelerate and cease movement, you don't change. If you don't change you...well you don't change now do you? Obviously this means negating the other forces around you causing you to change as well.

>OK, I can see you're a certified crank and there is no point in trying to educate you. Thanks for not wasting my time.
Why do you even browse /sci/? To reread your own thoughts apparently?

>>9995486
>If time does not exist, then there can't be change
>If ft-lbs does not exist, then there can't be bolts to tighten

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:00:32 2018 No.9995547

>>9995486
>If time does not exist, then there can't be change.
You are using "time" to define what you mean by "change". You see "change" as a direction, with present turning to past, and future turning to present, and that this exists physically and can be traversed with the right technology.

I'm saying this is an arbitrary interpretation of observation and not a fact of reality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:09:27 2018 No.9995554 >>9995528 >What exactly is your point? That it's 100% complete and utter nonsense. Can you tell me how you define the beginning of an astronomical event? Does it have an objective starting place? Same with the end of such an event. Give me an example.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:14:19 2018 No.9995559

>>9995538
>Time is not motion, nor resistance,nor capacitance nor a medium, all of which separate things quite well and have nothing to do with time.
LOL, they are defined with respect to time.

>Again I reiterate that it is nothing other than a measurement.
A measurement of what?

>You're saying that events lie within a measurement.
No, I am saying they lie within time. You are confusing the map for the territory.

Please stop posting on the science board. I'm sure there are plenty of places on the internet where your drivel will be appreciated.

>How do you "travel in time" then?
What do you mean? You don't have a choice in the matter.

>I fail to see what "thing" of substance is being traveled through.
Time is not a substance. Your failure is due to incorrect assumptions you continue to bring into the discussion.

>What is the difference between a boat traveling through water as opposed to jello? One "takes more time" to travel through, but that isn't because of time itself.
And?

>Actually I'm desperately trying to point out that you are the one making categorical errors by claiming something has a property that it could not possibly have (a measurement of an event).
What are you referring to? Time is not a measurement, it is what is being measured.

>If you don't accelerate and cease movement, you don't change.
You mean atomic movement? How exactly do you plan on ceasing all atomic movement?

>Why do you even browse /sci/? To reread your own thoughts apparently?
To discuss science. Not pseudoscience gibberish.

>If ft-lbs does not exist, then there can't be bolts to tighten
Time is not a unit of measurement.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:23:15 2018 No.9995571 >>9995547 >I'm saying this is an arbitrary interpretation of observation and not a fact of reality. It's a fundamental fact of reality that time passes, you are just confusing yourself with semantics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:28:32 2018 No.9995579 >>9995559 >Time is not a measurement, it is what is being measured. Are you therefore claiming that time is separate to the physical, the physical being what is used to measure it?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:28:44 2018 No.9995580

>>9995554
>Can you tell me how you define the beginning of an astronomical event?
By defining certain sensory inputs as the beginning and end. For example, a sidereal year is defined as the interval in which the Sun returns to the same location in the ecliptic with respect to the positions of the stars.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:29:48 2018 No.9995585 >>9995579 What do you mean by separate? They are not the same thing, but they are not independent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:31:40 2018 No.9995587 >>9995571 Passes what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:37:01 2018 No.9995592 >>9995587 >you are just confusing yourself with semantics.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:41:51 2018 No.9995595

>>9995580
>By defining certain sensory inputs as the beginning and end. For example, a sidereal year is defined as the interval in which the Sun returns to the same location in the ecliptic with respect to the positions of the stars.

So the movement of the sun and stars and everything else is so perfect that the sun returns to the exact same location every year, at the same time. How perfect are these coordinates and how are they being monitored?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:46:38 2018 No.9995598 >>9995585 >They are not the same thing Describe their differences.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 18:55:37 2018 No.9995614

>>9995559
>LOL, they are defined with respect to time.
I agree, they have been defined with respect to time in order to reproduce the effects. This is in no way indicative that they operate on said measurement. A measurement has no properties.

>A measurement of what?
A frequency of an action, not the actual action.

>No, I am saying they lie within time.
And time is a measurement...you still have not proven otherwise. Shit doesn't define itself.

>What do you mean? You don't have a choice in the matter.
You don't have the choice of driving faster in a car to get to a destination faster?

>Time is not a substance. Your failure is due to incorrect assumptions you continue to bring into the discussion.
So what the fuck are you arguing then? If "events lie within the dimension of time" and the "dimension" has nothing in it, of no substance or reifiable attributes what could possibly lie in it? If it isn't a thing why are you arguing that it is?
>And?
And apparently an analogy is too much for a complete dunderhead to handle.

>What are you referring to? Time is not a measurement, it is what is being measured.
LOL, prove it. While you expel "time" out of your mouth I'll go empty the "time" out of my buttocks. Then we can both make observations of both things we expel and conclude that time was indeed not what came out.

>You mean atomic movement? How exactly do you plan on ceasing all atomic movement?
By removing it? Negating it as much as possible? Again it was a hypothetical situation, you can't actually remove all the motion.

>To discuss science. Not pseudoscience gibberish.
Yeah well it seems to me you're just repeating the beliefs you were taught, sort of like a religion. You keep thinking that time can define itself when it was a concept that we refined through qualitative means. Yes fucking qualitative. Instead of a rough stone sun dial and stars we now use electronic perturbations and EM because we refined the quality of fucking rocks and metals to do so.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 19:10:28 2018 No.9995643

>>9995595
>So the movement of the sun and stars and everything else is so perfect that the sun returns to the exact same location every year, at the same time.
Pretty much yeah. This is getting tedious, what is your point?

>>9995598
One is a dimension of a manifold, the other is in the manifold.

>>9995614
>I agree, they have been defined with respect to time in order to reproduce the effects.
No, they are concepts that fundamentally rely on time. Do you still not understand that units of measurement are not the same as what is being measured? If you don't understand this then there is no point continuing this discussion. I'm going to ignore any other posts that make this mistake.

>This is in no way indicative that they operate on said measurement.
Again, time is not a measurement.

>And time is a measurement...you still have not proven otherwise.
It's proven by the definition of time.

>You don't have the choice of driving faster in a car to get to a destination faster?
That changes how much time it takes you to go from where you are to your destination. It doesn't change you passing through time. You still go from 1:00PM to 2:00PM in one hour regardless of whether you are driving during that time or you are out of your car and at your destination. None of this has any relevance to what we're discussing.

>So what the fuck are you arguing then? If "events lie within the dimension of time" and the "dimension" has nothing in it
Where did I say it has nothing in it?

>And apparently an analogy is too much for a complete dunderhead to handle.
Apparently you can't explain the relevance of the analogy even though you made it.

>Again it was a hypothetical situation, you can't actually remove all the motion.
I don't see the point of the hypothetical.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 19:12:27 2018 No.9995647

>>9995614
>Yeah well it seems to me you're just repeating the beliefs you were taught, sort of like a religion.
I don't see how me pointing out that you are spouting gibberish is a religion. It's still gibberish regardless of whether you were taught it or not.

>You keep thinking that time can define itself
No, I don't.

>Yes fucking qualitative. Instead of a rough stone sun dial and stars we now use electronic perturbations and EM because we refined the quality of fucking rocks and metals to do so.
That's measurement, not definition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 20:14:38 2018 No.9995731 >>9994758 For the Anons in this thread: Clocks are not independent of motion. It's the only mechanism they can work on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 20:20:12 2018 No.9995743 >>9995571 Time does not "pass". Things just move, and "time" is the metric of that motion against the rate of another motion (i.e.1 Earth spin for every Venus spin). There's nothing physical about time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 20:25:24 2018 No.9995753 where can i read/learn more about tesla?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 20:29:36 2018 No.9995767

>>9995753
First of all don't look on the internet. It's all cook articles. Just go read his work and who preceded him.

If you want a general overlook, you can read Gerry Vasilatos' 'Cold War Secrets'.
If you want a deeper look, you have to read his own publications and presentations (Experiments with High Alternating Current, Colorado Springs).

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 20:34:45 2018 No.9995781

>>9995743
>Time does not "pass". Things just move
This is a contradiction, movement is a change in location over time. So time has to pass from one point in time to another for movement to exist.

>There's nothing physical about time.
It's a fundamental quantity of physics.

Either learn physics or stop posting here, it's your choice.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 20:40:01 2018 No.9995793

>>9995781
No. Movement is just a change in location. If you just watch the Elephant walk, it's just walking. You say it took four steps left or north or whatever.

Well now you want the rate of it walking. So what do you do? You measure it against the movement of something else. You say this Elephant takes four steps the same time it takes this pebble to travel down this little stream.

That's all that time is. Simply a metric. You can measure the Elephant against anything.
Time is our measurement for motion against motion, and movement is movement.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 20:44:34 2018 No.9995802

>>9995643
>No, they are concepts that fundamentally rely on time
Concept:
an abstract idea; a general notion.
Motion, resistance, capacitance and a medium are all observable and can be experienced without the need to even think about the concept of time or the need to measure their qualitative aspects. You can do that sure, but it doesn't change the fact that those things don't need to rely on your interpretation of them.
Ex.: Rotation, an empty/full tank of air pressure, water (as a medium).

>Do you still not understand that units of measurement are not the same as what is being measured?
The irony is astounding

>Again, time is not a measurement.
Again, reify time.

>It's proven by the definition of time.
Definitions are not proof. I already told you shit does not define itself.
>That changes how much time it takes you to go from where you are to your destination.
>the time "changed"
>after the event occurred
>because obviously we have to measure the event after it takes place. If the event differs then the arbitrary thing we measure it by will change as well
What are you not getting about this?

>You still go from 1:00PM to 2:00PM in one hour regardless of whether you are driving during that time or you are out of your car and at your destination. None of this has any relevance to what we're discussing.
NO SHIT. IT'S A FUCKING MEASUREMENT. AM/PM= arbitrary 12 "hour" (a fucking unit of measurement) cycle of the earth spinning. If the earth spins faster guess what happens? WE have to adjust OUR concept of "time" because the earth understand only one thing: the thing that made it spin faster in the fist place. Protip, "time" doesn't make the earth spin faster.

>Apparently you can't explain the relevance of the analogy even though you made it.
I literally can't dumb it down anymore for you because of your assumptions that something that has no properties can be measured and reified.

>>9995647
That's measurement, not definition
What is?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 20:56:29 2018 No.9995817

>>9995793
>No. Movement is just a change in location.
What is a change?

>If you just watch the Elephant walk, it's just walking.
If you watch an elephant walk, then at one point in time you see it at one location, and at another point in time you see it at another location. Tell me what separates the elephant being in one location from it being in another location.

>Time is our measurement for motion against motion, and movement is movement.
What is motion?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:04:00 2018 No.9995825

>>9995817
The space seperates the movement, the time doesn't exist physically. The position in space does. You could say, 'well if you remove time from that picture, the Elephant is at two points at once, or all points at once between A and B'.

So the point is to dumb it down to the point of experience. Elephant was here, now there.

So motion just is. Things just move all at once. Nothing is relative except when you measure it. Change is just a term, and time is the measurement of change but it i not independent of change itself.

This is the problem with Relativity; it takes time as a literal thing that is imbued into existence when that's not the case.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:12:15 2018 No.9995837

>>9995802
>Motion, resistance, capacitance and a medium are all observable and can be experienced without the need to even think about the concept of time or the need to measure their qualitative aspects.
Whether you need to think about time is irrelevant, time needs to pass for you to observe these things in the first place.

>The irony is astounding
How so?

>Again, reify time.
Stop ignoring time.

>Definitions are not proof.
If you say that A is X and A is defined as something which is not X, then the definition is a proof that your claim is wrong.

>I already told you shit does not define itself.
What are you referring to?

>>That changes how much time it takes you to go from where you are to your destination.
>>the time "changed"
>>after the event occurred
>>because obviously we have to measure the event after it takes place. If the event differs then the arbitrary thing we measure it by will change as well
The trip in the car doesn't change how we measure time though... so you have no point.

>NO SHIT. IT'S A FUCKING MEASUREMENT. AM/PM= arbitrary 12 "hour" (a fucking unit of measurement) cycle of the earth spinning. If the earth spins faster guess what happens? WE have to adjust OUR concept of "time" because the earth understand only one thing: the thing that made it spin faster in the fist place. Protip, "time" doesn't make the earth spin faster.
Why would we have to adjust our concept of time? We would have to adjust our understanding of the rotation of the Earth. I don't even know what "time making X happen" means or what relevance it has. Can you explain this or are you just spouting the words that pop into your head and sound like they form a sentence?

>I literally can't dumb it down anymore for you because of your assumptions that something that has no properties can be measured and reified.
So you just say things that have no meaning.

>What is?
>Instead of a rough stone sun dial and stars we now use electronic perturbations and EM

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:17:33 2018 No.9995845

>>9995837
Listen, you're too wrapped up with time here. Really strip it back here.

You're right, the trip in the car is the same, right? It's just moving.
But the measurements for it, are all arbitrary. You can change what a kilometer means, you can change the basis for time (Change it to Mars' orbit instead for example), it's all arbitrary.

So you say
>I don't even know what "time making X happen" means or what relevance it has
And that's exactly right. Things move, independent of time, because, time is derived from those motions.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:19:46 2018 No.9995848

>>9995825
>The space seperates the movement, the time doesn't exist physically. The position in space does. The position in space does. You could say, 'well if you remove time from that picture, the Elephant is at two points at once, or all points at once between A and B'.
But the elephant isn't in two places at once. It's only in one place at once, because time exists. Just think of time as a dimension like space, except instead of separating things at different locations, it separates events in the same location.

>Elephant was here, now there.
So you admit time exists.

>So motion just is.
You haven't defined motion without respect to time. You fail.

>Things just move all at once. Nothing is relative except when you measure it. Change is just a term, and time is the measurement of change but it i not independent of change itself.
This is very nice poetry, but this is not a cafe.

>This is the problem with Relativity; it takes time as a literal thing that is imbued into existence when that's not the case.
This is the problem with cranks like yourself, you attempt to criticize empirically proven science yet you can't even define your own claims coherently, let alone prove them.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:25:18 2018 No.9995859

>>9995845
>But the measurements for it, are all arbitrary. You can change what a kilometer means, you can change the basis for time (Change it to Mars' orbit instead for example), it's all arbitrary.
The *units* of measurement are arbitrary, the measurements are not. They are representative of physical reality. Do you understand the difference between units of measurement, measurements, and what is being measured? It's not that hard to understand.

>Things move, independent of time, because, time is derived from those motions.
Motion is how time is measured since reality is both spatial and temporal, time is not derived from motion. And you haven't told me what motion means. You're just writing words.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:36:00 2018 No.9995892

>>9995848
It's in one place at once, because existence exists. This is why you can't move back in time or any of that, because the motion is all uniform. It has to be to even work.

We'll go over it again: Motion is just something moving. That's just an experiential phenomena.
Time separates things, but not at a physical level. It separates things as a construct. It denotes that change.

And this is why you can't prove Relativity because everything you measure motion with, has to be against another motion. So if you take time as a literal, physical entity, you can never reach far enough back to where everything actually is uniform from a measurement perspective, even though that's the case.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:41:22 2018 No.9995901

>>9995859
No the measurement IS arbitrary if the units are arbitrary. Because they can be anything, literally anything.
Like that previous example of the Earth's orbit/spin slowing down, that's not representative of time slowing, that's the Earth's motion. And then time would derive from that.

So it's not motion explaining time, but time explaining motion.

So again. Motion is just motion. That's all it can be. Time is only born when an onlooker says, "Well what's the RATE at what it moves?".

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:42:18 2018 No.9995904 this thread is a retarded mix of tesla fanboy redditors and /pol/tards who think it's (((GR))) mods

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:43:07 2018 No.9995906

>>9995892
>It's in one place at once, because existence exists.
I don't see what one has to do with the other.

>This is why you can't move back in time or any of that, because the motion is all uniform. It has to be to even work.
"Existence exists" doesn't explain anything, let alone the arrow of time.

>Motion is just something moving.
This is circular and doesn't explain anything. Funny how you falsely criticized my definition as circular yet you have no problem doing it yourself. It's almost like you have no basis for any of this and are just pulling shit out of your ass with no consistency.

>Time separates things, but not at a physical level. It separates things as a construct. It denotes that change.
That would be fine if your substitute model made any sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

>And this is why you can't prove Relativity because everything you measure motion with, has to be against another motion. So if you take time as a literal, physical entity, you can never reach far enough back to where everything actually is uniform from a measurement perspective, even though that's the case.
This is gibberish. Relativity is proven because it best explains what we observe and makes predictions that come true. It's as simple as that. No matter how much poetry you write, it won't change this fact.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:49:35 2018 No.9995919

>>9995901
>No the measurement IS arbitrary if the units are arbitrary.
Why? All measurement units are arbitrary. The units don't matter.

>Because they can be anything, literally anything.
Yes, so what?

>Like that previous example of the Earth's orbit/spin slowing down, that's not representative of time slowing, that's the Earth's motion. And then time would derive from that.
Time is not derived from the unit you measure it with. If you see that the rotation of Earth is changing with respect to some other periodic movement, then you know that that's not a good unit to use, or you have to apply a correction. That is actually one thing which motivated the switch to ephemeris time, the observation that the rotation of the Earth is not consistent.

>So again. Motion is just motion.
This is meaningless since you haven't defined motion, try again.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:52:35 2018 No.9995928

>>9995906
Well we can prove it's wrong ourselves, we don't need mountains of experiments that other have done.
Everyone loves the satellite example, so we'll take that one and assume that Relativity and Space-time and all that is 100% real and true.

So you make up for the satellites experience of time against the Earth, right? Now what happens if the Earth slows down its orbit BUT the satellite and the Earth's rotations remain the same? What do you do there? Right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:55:09 2018 No.9995932 >>9995928 >Now what happens if the Earth slows down its orbit BUT the satellite and the Earth's rotations remain the same? Then that's what happens. What is the question?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 21:57:59 2018 No.9995940

>>9995919
Exactly, the units don't matter. They can be anything.

So we say, we measure our 24 hour time in respect to the orbit of the Earth and its rotation.
But how can you ever know if the Earth's motions are constant? Well you base it on the Sun then. But how do you know if the sun's is constant? Well you base it on the Solar system. But what about the solar system? Then on the galaxy. And then hypothetically, say the galaxy is the end of existence. Where do you derive time from then?

Time is exactly derived from the unit you measure it with.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 22:01:10 2018 No.9995947 >>9995932 We'll make the example easier. The Earth's rotation slows down, but the satellites remains the same. Now what is the outcome? The outcome is a new offset based on...

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 22:03:51 2018 No.9995953

>>9995940
>Where do you derive time from then?
These aren't how time is derived, it's how time is measured. Since there are many different ways to measure time, we can see how consistent one is compared to another. We are constantly looking for more consistent measurement techniques. Right now we are on atomic clocks that are so consistent that it would take billions of years for them to be off by a second. So there is nothing that is perfectly consistent, but they are consistent enough.

>>9995947
>Now what is the outcome?
Outcome of what? Are you asking how this would affect GPS? I don't understand what you're asking.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 22:11:52 2018 No.9995968

>>9995953
The atomic, electric and magnetic all move as well, they're all as dynamic as the planets.
It's back to the same observation that time is simply motion against motion.

You can't define motion (in a literal sense, not a textbook sense) outside of a very simple sensual basis. It's instinctive.

The universe is just moving. It's not moving because of the measurement of rate of motion, it's just in motion.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 22:15:07 2018 No.9995978

>>9995837
>Stop ignoring time.
There's nothing there for me to ignore.

>If you say that A is X and A is defined as something which is not X, then the definition is a proof that your claim is wrong.

I claim that unicorns exist. I will define a unicorn as a horse like creature with a very long pointed spiral horn in the center of its forehead and wings like a heron that allow this creature to fly. This definition of the creature is therefore proof of its existence.

>The trip in the car doesn't change how we measure time though... so you have no point.
What if I travel instantaneously? How do you measure the time then? No matter how much meaning you put into a measurement it doesn't turn the meaning into something that is real.

Your choices, both of which are wrong for the reification of time:

>We measured X using units of time
>therefore time exists
>For some reason or another

>We are measuring time
>Time is the "thing" being measured
>Wait what are we measuring exactly? Lets define "time"
>Time is....the passage of time- no that doesn't work
>Time is the dimension of a manifold
>So it is a feature of this manifold
>The features will be described with arbitrary measurement which we'll call "time"
>????

>Why would we have to adjust our concept of time?
Because we keep finding smaller frequencies of things, and we always will.
>this thing went faster than 1ft/s
>welp guess we have to move onto using milliseconds instead of seconds
>Ad infinitum

>I don't even know what "time making X happen" means or what relevance it has.

Wonderful, you don't even know what you're arguing and yet you argue it. Time being measured vs. the measurement that is time. No it's not a distinction without a difference.

>Instead of a rough stone sun dial and stars we now use electronic perturbations and EM
These aren't measurements, they are things USED TO MEASURE. They are things that are actually observable and tangibly manipulable without the use of ANY measurement.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 22:21:03 2018 No.9995993

>>9995968
>The atomic, electric and magnetic all move as well, they're all as dynamic as the planets.
The electron transition frequency is more consistent than planetary movement.

>You can't define motion (in a literal sense, not a textbook sense) outside of a very simple sensual basis. It's instinctive.
That's not how physics works. If you want to use the concept of motion you need to define it. The only reason you won't define it is because you know that you can't define it independently from time. Your argument is ideological, not scientific.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 22:33:47 2018 No.9996030

>>9995978
>There's nothing there for me to ignore.
That's because you're ignoring it.

>I claim that unicorns exist. I will define a unicorn as a horse like creature with a very long pointed spiral horn in the center of its forehead and wings like a heron that allow this creature to fly. This definition of the creature is therefore proof of its existence.
Your definition doesn't include that it exists. If it did it would be false since no such creature exists. But if I claimed that unicorns don't have horns, this would be disproven by the definition of unicorns.

>Your choices, both of which are wrong for the reification of time:
Time is proven by the fact that we observe things changing. You have not shown that things don't change, therefore time exists. You even exhibited this in your own example: when you observe an elephant walking, you don't see the elephant in two places at once, you only observe it any one time. You've already admitted time exists, so I don't see what we're arguing about.

>Because we keep finding smaller frequencies of things, and we always will.
This doesn't answer my question. Being able to use smaller units of time doesn't change our conception of time. That's like saying that being able to make rulers with smaller marks changed our conception of space.

>Wonderful, you don't even know what you're arguing and yet you argue it. Time being measured vs. the measurement that is time. No it's not a distinction without a difference.
So once again you refuse to explain your esoteric phrases. You're just hiding behind gibberish instead of trying to argue.

>These aren't measurements, they are things USED TO MEASURE.
I didn't say they are measurements, I said that's measurement of time, not the definition of time.

>They are things that are actually observable and tangibly manipulable without the use of ANY measurement.
So? More fundamental facets of reality are harder to directly observe, not easier.

No Time Tue Sep 11 23:10:15 2018 No.9996154

>>9996030
Not the walking elephant guy just for reference
>That's because you're ignoring it.
How does one go about ignoring nothing?

>But if I claimed that unicorns don't have horns, this would be disproven by the definition of unicorns.
No it would be disproved by MY definition of a unicorn. You can use whatever description you want of something if it doesn't exist because you're literally making it up as you go along. Until it actually exists, your definition of it is a pointless endeavor. Ex:
>be Leonardo Da Vinci
>Define a flying machine
>produce absolutely no flying machines from description
>Welp I guess my definition of a flying machine is how it will always work, even though it never did
>400 years later an actual flying machine is made with a completely different set of descriptors that actually describe real characteristics that this real tangible flying machine has
>Welp I guess those old descriptions of a flying machine are now completely fucking useless

>Time is proven by the fact that we observe things changing
Water, steam and ice are all just water with a different quality. This quality is controlled by pressure mediation. Time can describe the pressure mediation, but it can't explain what causes it

> Being able to use smaller units of time doesn't change our conception of time. That's like saying that being able to make rulers with smaller marks changed our conception of space.

This is the biggest "swing and a miss" moment you've had yet.

>esoteric phrases.

What is so complicated about "Time being measured vs. the measurement that is time". Do you actually think that it's a distinction without a difference? Do I have to spoonfeed you every step of the way?

>I didn't say they are measurements
>>9995802
>That's measurement, not definition

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 23:11:47 2018 No.9996162

>>9995993
The other Anon is right, the definition is arbitrary too.
How can you describe movement without a concept of rate/time in a scientific sense? You can't (You can at an electrical level but that's beside the point). All you can do is give a simple explanation.

>>	No Time Tue Sep 11 23:12:31 2018 No.9996165 >>9996154 meant to quote >>9995647

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 23:18:07 2018 No.9996186 >>9996154 >>9996154 Hurry up and finish that fourth edition.

>>	No Time Tue Sep 11 23:22:13 2018 No.9996201 >>9996186 lol, not him. It was the water analogy wasn't it? I too want that fourth edition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Sep 11 23:34:46 2018 No.9996237 >>9994552 The big difference between God and Jesus is that God is going to kill all of his enemies and their children, and destroy their cities.

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 23:36:51 2018 No.9996243

>>9996154
>How does one go about ignoring nothing?
You're ignoring time, not nothing.

>No it would be disproved by MY definition of a unicorn.
We're talking about a particular concept, not a word with multiple definitions. If you're talking about some other definition of time then there is no point continuing the discussion. But I'm glad you admitted that a definition can prove things.

>Water, steam and ice are all just water with a different quality. This quality is controlled by pressure mediation. Time can describe the pressure mediation, but it can't explain what causes it
What is pressure mediation? And what relevance does it have? When you say "time doesn't cause X" or "time doesn't explain X" this is meaningless unless you explain why it should.

>This is the biggest "swing and a miss" moment you've had yet.
This is not an argument.

>What is so complicated about "Time being measured vs. the measurement that is time". Do you actually think that it's a distinction without a difference? Do I have to spoonfeed you every step of the way?
This doesn't explain what "time making something happen" means. It shouldn't be hard to explain what you mean if you want to have a discussion. It just makes me think you know what you're saying means.

>>I didn't say they are measurements
>>9995802 #
>That's measurement, not definition
Why did you cut off the end of the quote where I said "I didn't say they are measurements, I said that's measurement of time" and then quote me saying "That's measurement?" as if I didn't already show the difference?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 23:38:37 2018 No.9996246

>>9996162
>The other Anon is right, the definition is arbitrary too.
How is it arbitrary?

>How can you describe movement without a concept of rate/time in a scientific sense?
You can't, that's my point. Time is more fundamental than movement. Are you responding to the wrong person?

Anonymous Tue Sep 11 23:59:28 2018 No.9996287

>>9996246
Time has nothing to do with movement. This is what we're getting at.
The movement, is just movement. Because we're cavemen and the plant moves and the elephant moves and whatever. And you and I, being cavemen, we have no idea of time.

It's only later when I say, as a caveman, "When rock get to bottom hill?" and I measure that rolling rock against the sun's movement. And that's all that time is. As simple as that, nothing more.

There is no simple or complex example anyone can give where time comes first.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 00:19:51 2018 No.9996342

>>9996287
>Time has nothing to do with movement. This is what we're getting at.
It has everything to do with movement since movement is defined with respect to time. You refuse to define your concept of movement, so we aren't talking about it.

>It's only later when I say, as a caveman, "When rock get to bottom hill?" and I measure that rolling rock against the sun's movement. And that's all that time is. As simple as that, nothing more.
That doesn't explain what time or movement is. This is going nowhere. I'm not going to waste any more of my time by responding to posts talking about movement until you define what that word means.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 00:31:03 2018 No.9996354

Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah yeah
And I will advertise it
Some call it tamjee
Some call it the weed
Some call it marijuana
Some of them call it ganja
Never mind, got to legalize it
And don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah yeah
And I will advertise it
Singers smoke it,
And players of instrument, too
Legalize it, yeah yeah
That's the best thing you can do
Doctors smoke it
Nurses smoke it
Judges smoke it
Even lawyer, too
So you've got to legalize it
And it don't criticize it
Legalize it, yeah yeah
And I will advertise it
It's good for the flu
Good for asthma
Good for tuberculosis
Even numara thrombosis
Go to legalize it
Don't criticize…

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 00:32:27 2018 No.9996355 When I found out """""""""global warming"""""""""" was liberal haux. (I am being sarcastic)

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 00:36:27 2018 No.9996360 >>9996355 >Thinks global warming is real Oh boy, where do we start with this one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 00:43:44 2018 No.9996368 >>9996360 How about you start by explaining how all climatologists are wrong and your understanding of the climate is better.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 00:49:48 2018 No.9996379

>>9996368
>I'm just going to believe all these climatologists

How about you go and do your own research for two days and find out yourself.
I've been trying to spoonfeed this one retard here that time is based on movement and not the other way around, what fucking hope are you going to have?

You don't care about what the story behind climate change is, you care about establishing your intellect, that's why you cite the studies blindly, as if those climatologists are on par with your thinking.

If something is in the majority, it has to be right anyway, why even bother looking into it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 00:56:15 2018 No.9996386 >>9996379 I don't see you giving me a single reason to not believe climatologists. What makes their research flawed? What evidence are you basing your opinion on?

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 00:56:25 2018 No.9996388

>>9996243
You're ignoring time, not nothing.
Okay, "I'm ignoring time because it is ultimately not a thing that can be actualized past the realm of concepts".

>If you're talking about some other definition of time then there is no point continuing the discussion.
That's the point of it, you can define it however you want! It doesn't make it real!

But I'm glad you admitted that a definition can prove things.
>No it would be disproved by MY definition of a unicorn.
My definition vs. yours. Both could be completely contradictory. This is why you can't actualize them, but you disprove things inadvertently by trying to define them, it is always a rational debate. You can never narrow down the precise definition of a particular thing which in the end means that absolutely nothing in "reality" is concrete.

>What is pressure mediation? And what relevance does it have?

The mediation of pressure... The relevance is that everything has a "pressure" being exerted upon it. This obviously includes space.

>This is not an argument.
You're right, it's the highlighting of a statement that can pass off as a rhetorical question.

>This doesn't explain what "time making something happen" means.
If time is not a modality or force or controller or prime mover then what is there that is passing? You refer to it several times as if it were a phenomena of sorts. This is what I'm arguing against.

>Why did you cut off the end of the quote where I said "I didn't say they are measurements, I said that's measurement of time" and then quote me saying "That's measurement?" as if I didn't already show the difference?

the point got lost, I'm dropping this argument.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:07:47 2018 No.9996411

>>9996386
What do you need articles for? What, you can't figure it our by yourself so you need the input of some PhD students hungry for papers with a piss poor sample size in a few areas to prove a point?

Figure it out yourself. Where are the temperature recordings for every continent for the past 10,000 years? Why was it warmer in America in the 1940's? Why is it colder now?
What role does atmospheric temperature play with the oceans? How do those underwater currents play out? How does the atmosphere change?
How does it replace itself? What role do lightning and rain have? What role does the solar cycle have? What role does pollution have? Does soil play a role? Mountains?
What about polar phenomena? What about warm waters from the poles?
What about the Earth's field? What about in relation to the sun's and other planets?
What about pollution and usage and burning and chemical reactions and forest fires and smogs and volcanic stuff?
What about the temperatures and listings of eras gone by? What about the link to monsoons?
What about past climate eras? Ice ages, temporary heat waves, aggregate temperatures?

Now that's a fucking study you could undertake. Not fucking, "Durr the ice was here in 1929 and now it not hurr".

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:12:26 2018 No.9996424

>>9996388
>Okay, "I'm ignoring time because it is ultimately not a thing that can be actualized past the realm of concepts".
So you admit you're ignoring time, thanks.

>That's the point of it, you can define it however you want! It doesn't make it real!
You claimed time is a measurement. I said that according to the definition it isn't. This is separate from it being real. I already proved that time is real by the fact that change is observed. You have no counterargument.

>My definition vs. yours.
You did not give a definition.

>The mediation of pressure...
Whay is the meditation of pressure?

>The relevance is that everything has a "pressure" being exerted upon it. This obviously includes space.
What is "pressure?"

>If time is not a modality or force or controller or prime mover then what is there that is passing?
When you pass through space, what are you passing? You are demanding that dimensions operate in some way other than dimensions for no reason.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:15:24 2018 No.9996432 >>9996424 You're just passing through space. There is no time as a physical dimension. It's a metrical dimension.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:24:36 2018 No.9996452 >>9996360 you were finished before you started

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:25:56 2018 No.9996455
File: 658 KB, 2560x1440, Screenshot_2018-09-12-01-22-32.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9996411
>What do you need articles for? What, you can't figure it our by yourself so you need the input of some PhD students hungry for papers with a piss poor sample size in a few areas to prove a point?
Why exactly are you on the science board if you aren't going to accept scientific research? Why do you think climatologists research has poor sample sizes?

>Where are the temperature recordings for every continent for the past 10,000 years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

>Why was it warmer in America in the 1940's?
It wasn't. Pic related.

The rest of your questions are too broad to answer, but there is research on all of them.

Now please answer the questions in the post you were responding to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:26:30 2018 No.9996457 >>9996379 >TRUST NO1!!!!!1 Okay. I think I will follow your advice and not trust anything you say.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:29:55 2018 No.9996467 >>9996432 So since you aren't able to respond to any of my arguments, I guess you admit defeat.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:31:13 2018 No.9996470 earth is flat prove me wrong you cant

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:32:50 2018 No.9996476
File: 293 KB, 940x506, moncton-rss.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9996455
For example here's a graph. How do you break that down in comparison to that one?
The point is not to laugh off the graphs, right, the point is to understand the complexity of a idea of "Global Warming".
That is so complex, that even if you had all that information above, you're still in unknown waters.

The point is don't look at the graph, look through the graph.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:35:54 2018 No.9996479 >>9996470 Earth is hollow.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:38:35 2018 No.9996485

>>9996424
>So you admit you're ignoring time, thanks.
You're welcome guess

>I said that according to the definition it isn't.
And where did your definition from? An irrational authority? Father time? L

>This is separate from it being real.
Semantics of an unreal concept.

>I already proved that time is real by the fact that change is observed
non sequitur

>What is "pressure?"
I'm not playing the DesTiny "define everything" game with you especially when I already proved that definitions are irrelevant when explaining a cause to something.

>When you pass through space, what are you passing? You are demanding that dimensions operate in some way other than dimensions for no reason.
You are passing though a different mediation of pressure. It isn't "nothing", it is just a different pressure. You are passing through incoherent matter more or less.

>You are demanding that dimensions operate in some way other than dimensions for no reason.

The universe does not use math or these things you call "dimensions". You are demanding (again) that a description explains how things work.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:39:31 2018 No.9996489

>>9996467
It's not about winning, this isn't a horse race.
If time exists as a physical and literal dimension and NOT solely as a metric to measure the rate motion against another motion's rate, then there should be an example where time precedes movement itself.

If you can find an example of that, you 'win'. But there's no such thing because time is a man-made thing. It's not imbued into anything, regardless of how you want to look at process or past states.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:42:26 2018 No.9996500
File: 6 KB, 640x480, trend (3).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9996476
>How do you break that down in comparison to that one?
Let's see...

1. My graph shows US temperature (since you claimed America was warmer in the 1940s) while yours is allegedly global temperature

2. My graph shows the entire record while yours cherrypicks the record by starting at an EL Nino in order to make the trendline flat

3. My graph is based on up to date data while your graph is based on satellite data from 2013, four years before a major source of error was found in the RSS satellite record and was corrected: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

Here's what the RSS data actually shows.

The point is, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:49:39 2018 No.9996514

>>9996485
>And where did your definition from?
Physics.

>non sequitur
How so?

>I'm not playing the DesTiny "define everything" game with you especially when I already proved that definitions are irrelevant when explaining a cause to something.
If you won't define your terms then you're not saying anything meaningful and I'm not going to respond to the gibberish. If you are here to make poetry and not discuss physics I suggest you try /lit/ or /x/. Where did you prove definitions are irrelevant?

>The universe does not use math or these things you call "dimensions".
Humans do. Are you a human?

>You are demanding (again) that a description explains how things work.
I'm demanding a coherent definition that would allow us to do basic physics.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 01:53:39 2018 No.9996521

>>9996489
>It's not about winning, this isn't a horse race.
This was a debate. Your inability to explain what you are trying to say makes it not a debate.

>If time exists as a physical and literal dimension and NOT solely as a metric to measure the rate motion against another motion's rate, then there should be an example where time precedes movement itself.
It precedes movement by definition. Again, what do you think movement is?

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:16:32 2018 No.9996552

>>9996500
There's like 8 different things that you have to take apart to make either graph viable for anything. You can't just post graphs, that was the point, not that my graph was right or wrong.

Look at your statements already, just from one graph.
>Satellite errors
>US vs Global
>Trendlines
>What varying degrees actually means in the long run
>Disparity between all three graphs

You, me, or anyone else can't just post a graph. Look how many things there are in just posting a graph. Now you take the complexity of Tempreture and the Earth and times that complexity fortyfold.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:21:04 2018 No.9996556

>>9996521
It's not a debate. It's about actuality.
Time cannot precede movement, it's not a causality of anything.

When we say movement, we mean it in the most primitive way possible, sans time, dimensions, space, geography, all of that.

Movement is movement. And time is the measurement of that. It's not, "Motion is due to time", this is the fallacy of all this.
That time is a literal thing, a malleable, physical entity that is responsible for all states of motion in existence is incorrect.

It's not hard to understand once you strip everything back.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:23:02 2018 No.9996558

>>9996514
>Physics
Who is "Physics"?

>>9996514
"change occurring" has nothing to do with time, change happens and time is posterior human concept

>If you won't define your terms then you're not saying anything meaningful and I'm not going to respond to the gibberish.

Ugh, fine. "compression and rarefaction of a medium"

>Humans do. Are you a human?
>Some humans

>I'm demanding a coherent definition that would allow us to do basic physics.
There is nothing "physical", that's as basic as it gets.

>"I already proved that time is real by the fact that change is observed"

Change being observed by flawed perceptions means absolutely nothing. Change is induced by deriving from something else, obviously there must be something else otherwise there would be no change. You can observe change but that's not the actual change, that is your observation and perspective of it. It is yours alone. One description let alone billions fails to explain what is actually occurring, so why would a singular description explain what is occurring?

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:26:28 2018 No.9996565

>>9994379
>Otherwise you would have absolute global coverage.
Um, I hate to break it to you.

>b-but the gps in my cellphone doesnt work where i don't have data connection!
Because it uses A-GPS mode most of the time, which is assisted by data connection to get the almanac. Some phones can get GPS location standalone but it takes several minutes to get the first location because the device needs to receive the entire almanac from the satellites, which takes time.
You can buy standalone GPS decives for a few tens of dollars that you can drvie into the wilderness with, or take on planes with no data connection to prove me wrong, until then "but my phone!" arguments are just claims from a lack of knowledge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:28:58 2018 No.9996570 >>9995066 >Did you miss the part about satellite clocks ticking faster due to being at high altitude (low air pressure)? Doesn't affect atomic clocks.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:31:11 2018 No.9996571 >>9995554 Pulsars.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:38:27 2018 No.9996583

>>9996565
It doesn't matter what you think you understand about GPS almanac packets, the hard truth is that there are no satellites.

Like what do you think is happening when you cross a countries border in regards to signal? Do you think the global satellites just get knocked out?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:40:26 2018 No.9996585 >>9996558 unbreakable lwad

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 02:44:22 2018 No.9996592 >>9996583 GPS still works. What are you talking about? Even over open ocean I could pick up GPS signals on a dinky Garman device.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 05:01:48 2018 No.9996793 File: 552 KB, 1600x1060, DSC_4676.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 09:01:23 2018 No.9997138

>>9996552
>You can't just post graphs, that was the point, not that my graph was right or wrong.
It was about as wrong as a graph can be without purposefully falsifying data. You are free to point out how my graph doesn't support my claims, but we already know you're incapable of making substantive arguments about scientific topics. Don't project that incompetence onto others.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 09:09:45 2018 No.9997149

>>9996556
>It's not a debate. It's about actuality.
Non sequitur.

>Time cannot precede movement, it's not a causality of anything.
Causality is dependent on time existing.

>When we say movement, we mean it in the most primitive way possible, sans time, dimensions, space, geography, all of that.
This is funny. Primitive people understood nothing about the world. You are basically trying to take a complete lack of understanding and convince people that it is an understanding that exceeds science. It's snake oil in its purest form.

Simply repeating your dogma without any justification, logic, evidence, etc. while failing to criticize our current understanding is a big waste of time.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 09:11:37 2018 No.9997152

>>9997138
Look at the graph. Okay, it's a graph.
All it's showing is, I'm going to guess, the average temperature across the nation measured in the span of forty years.

That was the point of both graphs, that they're almost abritrary, they don't even matter.
Even with my graph, it doesn't mean much.

There are too many factors with a topic like global warming, there are way too many to even make a conclusive argument.

That's the argument. That it's not just average temperature across a nation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 09:12:51 2018 No.9997156 >>9997149 Okay. Well how do you define time then on its own given that motion is the descriptor of time?

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 09:38:19 2018 No.9997197 >>9996154 >>9996558 Still with the pseudo-philosophical bullshit? It was bullshit in your first reply >>9994907, it's still bullshit in this reply.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 09:41:22 2018 No.9997202 >>9997197 It's nice not philosophical. It's super simple stuff.

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 11:38:25 2018 No.9997360

>>9997152
>All it's showing is, I'm going to guess, the average temperature across the nation measured in the span of forty years.
No, it's global temperature, it's the RSS data set. The first graph I posted is the US temperature.

>That was the point of both graphs, that they're almost abritrary, they don't even matter.
How does my graph not matter when it directly refutes your claim?

>There are too many factors with a topic like global warming, there are way too many to even make a conclusive argument.
Some factors matter a lot more than others. You're equivocating. Climatologists' data, analysis, and conclusions are right there for anyone to read. Saying that the issue is complex is not an argument against those conclusions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 11:39:28 2018 No.9997363 >>9997156 I already defined time without using motion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Sep 12 11:54:57 2018 No.9997385 >>9996476 oh god, another rss-idiot

Anonymous Wed Sep 12 18:10:11 2018 No.9998001
File: 7 KB, 460x287, shuttle_1838383c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9996583
Are you retarded? You can see satellites & the ISS with an amateur telescope in your own backyard. Or for that matter, how does satellite TV work without satellites to point the dish at?

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 03:34:14 2018 No.9998971 >>9998001 Go find one then. You'll never be able to.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 03:35:46 2018 No.9998973 >>9997363 Do it again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 03:38:15 2018 No.9998982 File: 48 KB, 320x240, Fox satelite.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9998971 Oh, you are idiot that believe all satellites are like the one in pic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 03:44:06 2018 No.9998988 >>9998982 I just understand why orbits work, and satellites cannot work like that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 03:55:31 2018 No.9998999 >>9998988 >I just understand why orbits work Tell us how orbits works and why satellites are impossible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 04:00:54 2018 No.9999005 File: 32 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9998999 Have a look at Saturn and figure it out for me.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 04:05:04 2018 No.9999007 File: 297 KB, 408x695, Saturn's rings.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9999005 >Have a look at Saturn and figure it out for me. No, please.... Explain.... Explain....

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 04:16:33 2018 No.9999020 >>9999007 Don't worry about the makeup of the rings. Look at it from a simpler perspective. Look at its shape. Look at where it is in relation to the planet. Try to connect it to other galactic phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 05:47:04 2018 No.9999120 >>9999020 >Look at its shape. Look at where it is in relation to the planet. Try to connect it to other galactic phenomena. No, please.... Explain.... Explain....

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 05:47:51 2018 No.9999121 >>9999121

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 08:04:28 2018 No.9999352 >>9998973 Read >>9995455

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 08:07:09 2018 No.9999353 >>9999007 Saturn

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 08:10:04 2018 No.9999357 >>9999020 I looked at Saturn. It's orbiting the Sun. I looked at the Moon. It's orbiting the Earth. Things seem to be able to orbit other things. Why are satellites impossible? >and figure it out for me. I'm not here to figure out your claims for you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Sep 13 08:14:16 2018 No.9999364 >>9999353 >Saturn That's not an explanation. Please.... Elaborate.... Elaborate.... >>9999357 >I'm not here to figure out your claims for you. Agree.

Anonymous Thu Sep 13 11:03:32 2018 No.9999715
File: 391 KB, 2543x1526, Starlink-test-satellites-SpaceX.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9999005
Saturn's rings are a bunch of small rocks/ice bits moving in a circle/ellipse around Saturn. Satellites going around the Earth are doing the same thing, only they are man-made. I have personally seen the ISS moving across the sky with a telescope; it isn't that hard.

And of course, there are all the radio signals coming from the sky, like satellite TV; how does that work without satellites?

Anonymous Thu Sep 13 11:28:22 2018 No.9999758
File: 4 KB, 366x65, Einstein Field Equations.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I hate how these kinds of discussions always involve bullshit statements of words like 'time is malleable' or whatever.
Why not more arguing with the fact that these bad boys are extraordinarily accurate at describing objects moving through space near massive objects? Newtonian gravity isn't as good as this, nothing else we have is as good as this, what more is there to be said?

Anonymous Thu Sep 13 11:46:05 2018 No.9999805

>>9999758
I can think of a few:
"It's different, so I don't like it."
"I don't want to be wrong, so the new stuff is wrong."
"Learning new things at 60 is annoying."
and so on.

Just give it a minute. If nothing else, eventually, ever-improving measuring equipment will prove whoever is right. Hopefully. Maybe.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math