PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions

PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions

Goto page Previous  1, 2

Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions
Author Message
Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:14 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

Jake's right. This topic deals with matter being accelerated to a speed higher than light. The two links peebs showed described waves and light traveling faster than light at certain conditions. My statement still stands. YOU (as in, all particle matter) cannot travel faster than light. To the best of my knowledge time dilation only affects matter and this hypothesis hinges on time dilation. CD admitted he didn't have math or physical proof to back up his hypothesis either. Basically, that leaves him with an idea. I will not say anything about any idea until someone attempts a proof of it. I thought CD had attempted a pitiful proof but I think he's now retracting that. Do your math and if you want, come find me again and I shall attempt to shoot it down again. Furthermore, derrick and grogen were arguing semantics. A scientific theory is a proven idea and is the same as a "fact." It just isn't called a fact. The theories can be broken but usually they are built upon with more advanced theories or special cases are added.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:21 pm

derricktheone

Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 356

Niushirra wrote:
Jake's right. This topic deals with matter being accelerated to a speed higher than light. The two links peebs showed described waves and light traveling faster than light at certain conditions. My statement still stands. YOU (as in, all particle matter) cannot travel faster than light. To the best of my knowledge time dilation only affects matter and this hypothesis hinges on time dilation..........


HAHA I knew you could never admit it. Ohhhhh that's right....we were talking about matter......yeaaa that's right. Rolling Eyes Niushirra, always with the wordplay. There's the "technicallity" attempt to cover your mistake.

I seem to recall NUMEROUS posts of you stating NOTHING can move faster than light. NOTHING. It was proven, remember? Do I really need to quote them. You were wrong. It was obvious. You don't need to admit it. Guess you regret not knowing about those articles "pre-comment".
Back to top
Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:45 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

What a shame..I never got my reply, Rolling Eyes

All I got was CD blabbing on how everyine is so "close minded" Laughing

Close minded yak yak yak, I still say its full of himself. And even close minded himself. Such as that link I gave everyone.

Have any of you consider the idea that maybe he can be right? Laughing

But of cource that don't really fix his attitude on things.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:20 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

derricktheone wrote:
Niushirra wrote:
Jake's right. This topic deals with matter being accelerated to a speed higher than light. The two links peebs showed described waves and light traveling faster than light at certain conditions. My statement still stands. YOU (as in, all particle matter) cannot travel faster than light. To the best of my knowledge time dilation only affects matter and this hypothesis hinges on time dilation..........


HAHA I knew you could never admit it. Ohhhhh that's right....we were talking about matter......yeaaa that's right. Rolling Eyes Niushirra, always with the wordplay. There's the "technicallity" attempt to cover your mistake.

I seem to recall NUMEROUS posts of you stating NOTHING can move faster than light. NOTHING. It was proven, remember? Do I really need to quote them. You were wrong. It was obvious. You don't need to admit it. Guess you regret not knowing about those articles "pre-comment".
That's not word play. I knew about things moving faster than light. Including the one about lead and microwaves. The time dilation does not apply to waves and since this topic deals with that formula, waves should not even come into play. You wanna quote where I said nothing? Go ahead; I don't wanna look. In that case it was on a minor unimportant note that I made a mistake in word choice. I forgot about how you love to break off track so easily to point out my one mistake. Stay on topic and try to help out CD.
Back to top
Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:00 pm

Peebrain

Site Admin
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 716

Again: disagreeing is fine. But be respectful in the process. If this is just turning into a childish debate, the thread will be locked.

~Sean
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:46 am

CD27

Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 125

Niushirra wrote:
Jake's right. This topic deals with matter being accelerated to a speed higher than light. The two links peebs showed described waves and light traveling faster than light at certain conditions. My statement still stands. YOU (as in, all particle matter) cannot travel faster than light. To the best of my knowledge time dilation only affects matter and this hypothesis hinges on time dilation. CD admitted he didn't have math or physical proof to back up his hypothesis either. Basically, that leaves him with an idea. I will not say anything about any idea until someone attempts a proof of it. I thought CD had attempted a pitiful proof but I think he's now retracting that. Do your math and if you want, come find me again and I shall attempt to shoot it down again. Furthermore, derrick and grogen were arguing semantics. A scientific theory is a proven idea and is the same as a "fact." It just isn't called a fact. The theories can be broken but usually they are built upon with more advanced theories or special cases are added.


Seems you did not read my posts very clearly. I did have math in my theory...i was talking about my OVERALL theories when i stated that i had neither math nor physical experimental evidence. Everything, however, that i write is soely based on deductive reasoning. Tankdown, how am i being closed minded? i've accepted multiple times how i do not have the evidence needed for an experiment, nor do have anything that would currently work on your basic scientific method. i am conducting extensive research and have found some promising results (but am not willing to release them as of yet because i want to make sure it works or not). i am inches away from an actual test of my overall theory, not really the single one about time dilation, but my Amalgamated Psinetic Dynamics Theory.

Considering this Time Dilation discussion however, i have sufficient mathematics for you to read and look at on the other thread, if you care to read it. closed minded is not the thing, can anyone other than me honestly admit that they were wrong? i've admitted it, and i'm admit it again, he was right when he said special relativity had experimental evidence and was correct in stating something about the partical accellerators, but other than that, he refuses to accept that pro-luminous speeds are possible. if it is possible with an electron, particle, whatever, then we must realize that particles are indeed matter. matter is, and i state this from not only my sources, but from several dozen sources, a compressed form of energy. ALL particles express particle/wave properties. This has been tested and prove (i'll find you an article later). our body is made of several billion particals, all taking quantum states of waves and particle forms...this means, by quantum theory, super-luminous speeds are not only accessible, but they are very readily available.

Closed minded? i wouldn't have accepted the fact that i was wrong and STUCK by it if i was closed minded, would i?

Thank you Peebrain for the reminder. i hope it works out great, though things seem to sometimes get out of hand, i enjoy the debate.

**EDIT**

Back on topic now...i was just doing a search for a list of all of the laws of physics, just to see what they were, and found a very interesting statement made by one of the largest scientists in modern history: Steven Hawking. i would like to quote form him:

Steven Hawking wrote:
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Professor Hawking Lecture

Seems to me as if even one of the largest scientists in the world whom jonnybegood actually referred me to, even agrees that the laws of physics are not permanent nor are they absolute in any way. if they can be broken once, they can be broken again and again.

CD
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:20 pm

Niushirra

Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 299

Alright, this debate is over then I guess. Your hypothesis was basically still born, for now. When you get evidence, please publish it. I would like to see how someone does trying to break down Einstein. You make sure to have evidence when you try to say something and I'll make sure to never use absolutes.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Jan 23, 2007 8:11 pm

Tankdown

Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 688

I really must have communication problems seeing that you don't even understand of what I'm even saying CD. Confused

And the reason why I said it is because you been saying it to us. Which is weird because I don't recalling even subjecting that you could be wrong. But only that "may" be wrong.

I do see something wrogn with you CD, and whats sad is that you don't even seem to care about it.

But whatever the cost its a okay theory. But the math is a little on the low standerds..surpise you even brought this up to everyone.

Aristotle wrote:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Back to top
As for the actual debate going on here, I'm staying away. on Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:58 pm

Eldibs

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 909

CD27, if you have to post a long link, please at least cover it with text so it doesn't stretch out the forum's tables. Do it like this. Just because I have a widescreen and can see it all still doesn't mean everyone can.

If you don't know how to make a link like that, I'll explain it here. Your BBCode should look like this:

{URL=http://www.yoururl.com}Descriptive text{/URL}

Except replace the { and } with [ and ].
Back to top
Posted on Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:20 am

CD27

Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 125

Thanks, i edited the post. I'm sorry if it sounds like i'm being really closed minded and all, but it seemed to me as if i was being consistently attacked. i do not feel that i have attacked anyone here, rather defended myself and my stance. i do care about it, otherwise i would not be still posting here.

If you guys feel that you do not wish to keep this debate up, or try to find something at which we can agree on, then i guess it should be okay to stop the debate entirely. just know that through this, when i'm attacked, i'll defend myself and my friends.

CD
Back to top
Thanks for fixing the link. on Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:21 pm

Eldibs

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 909

I'm gonna say this for the sake of everyone. Having ideas and beliefs is not bad. Without ideas, we would get nowhere (nothing to pursue), and without beliefs, we would get nowhere (wouldn't be able to pick a path to pursue the ideas, as you wouldn't believe in any of them). It's when they get presented as facts without proper evidence that it causes problems. Now, I haven't read the entire topic, so I'm not exactly sure how everything went, but just remember, if you present an idea/belief, prepare to have it challenged in some form or another. Constructive criticism is what you want to receive, and for those who are on the other end of the idea/belief, constructive criticism is what you want to send across. Ideas get challenged, that's how they get refined.

Now, if someone is doing something obviously wrong and/or stupid, don't hesitate to point it out. And if it's blatantly stupid, well, that's when I throw constructive criticism out the window, as at that point, it's usually not helpful. From glancing at your opening post, it looks like you actually put effort into it, CD27, so I'd say constructive criticism would have been the way to go.
Back to top
Re: Thanks for fixing the link. on Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:27 pm

CD27

Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 125

Eldibs wrote:
From glancing at your opening post, it looks like you actually put effort into it, CD27, so I'd say constructive criticism would have been the way to go.


Thanks Eldibs for that great post. I appreciate your cooperation here. Question: is what you said above saying that i was giving off constructive criticism, not giving it off, taking it, or not taking it? i'm confused by the last sentence...lol.

cd
Back to top
Constructive == good; on Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:51 pm

Eldibs

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 909

I was saying that although I don't know exactly how the debate has gone, but that constructive criticism would have been the most useful thing to have in this case.
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2

PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions