PsiPog.net
View topic - Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions
PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions
| Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions | |||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions on Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:40 am | |||||||||||||||||||
CD27
Joined: 16 Feb 2006 |
This thread is the continued discussion at the thread titled "The Time Barrier". This is just basic conversation that really has no subject, so that we can freely speak and express our opinions on the subjects that were within the previous thread.
I'd be darned if i didn't think that was a threat.
The only basis you have that my math is flawed is from your mouth. You haven't shown me any way at all how my math is flawed, so shut up.
How can you call yourself a scientist and know absolutely nothing about the way science works? You of all people should know that if one thing is better than another or an experiment changes the situation, then the other is cast away, no longer valid. Just because Einstein is Einstein it doesn't mean that he's always right, as you suggested above: "I'm sorry but Einstein was right and no amount of mathematical fallacies can ever change that. Yes, math can change that, based on the fact that the majority of Relativity is based on reference frames and not actual experimentation.
Really? Then why when i went to look at the courses i would require if i took Quantum Physics in college it specified that the math that would be required for the course would be:
That entire basis of math requires studies in statistical probabilities. Quantum Physics is based on the Uncertainty Principal, a principal stating and proving clearly that nothing can be known to exactness; there is no definate answer. Science works the same way, except we say in classical physics that our equipment just isn't sufficient enough to get the exact answer. no, it's because of the Uncertainty Principal.
Einstein never observed Time Dilation, neither did he ever observe most of the theories he introduced, yet you take them as fact. is that science too?
If i had lost then i would not still be commenting here. This is not a race, and it is not a battle. This is a discussion, where both parties are equal, whether or not you want to agree.
Space SHIPS or Space SHUTTLES?
It costs a lot of money to send a space shuttle into space, and I’m quite sure we won’t be using aliens to help test relativity. From the looks of it, your ‘experiment’ here is absolutely flawed. To send one shuttle into space is magnificent, but two would be historic. We hear about one, but if there are two, that’s something huge, and I’ve never before heard of two space shuttles going into space at the exact same time simply to test a scientific theory. Sounds like bull to me, but I won’t say that it’s not possible. I won’t put it in my book of notes to remember, but I won’t just close my eyes to it, the experiment should work, according to Einstein’s theory, however, speeds much greater than that are needed to get a really good result. [quote="Niushirra”]In particle accelerators they measure more mass in tiny tiny particles as they speed through the ring at speeds near light. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Huh, seems like it actually works.[/quote] Seems like you’re right, there is experimental evidence for Special Relativity, at least based on that article, which look professional to me. I retract my earlier statement about Special Relativity not having any evidence for it. It’s also correct that Particle Accelerators have the ability to measure mass as it speeds up. I’ll give you that, but let’s keep in mind that particle accelerators are usually used to bust open particles to reveal its ‘insides’ based on bubble charts, not really to measure things like mass. However, to experiment relativity, it is an ideal experiment and I accept it. One of my points on Special Relativity is that it does not contain gravity in its equations. Now, for some experiments, for some theory based works, Special Relativity holds its own, but when it comes down to mass, to gravity, to speed, to time dilation, Special Relativity comes to a dead end and you end up getting very wrong results in your math. Without gravity in the equation, the math is flawed when the experiment is near a large mass, or is requiring to gather up extreme speeds. [quote="Niushirra”] I got nothing against jellotivity because I don't know enough about it but at a glance it looks like nothing. Go ahead and use it, I'll trust for now that it's good. Your theories are based on no evidence that is not horribly flawed.[/quote] My theories don’t hold their own evidence; rather, I extract evidence from other theories (which is not a completed task). I don’t have the money or ability to test my own experiments. I do however have an experiment thought out and designed and almost on its last steps to getting ready for testing. All it requires is the exacts. I only gave a bare description of what I needed, because I don’t have the skill and education to make it any more professional than that. If you’re talking about my theory about the Time Barrier, no, I don’t have ANY evidence for that. All I have is some math, which I’m willing to spell out for you if you want me to prove to you that it’s not flawed math, which show some interesting effects and a well spelled-out theory called Jellotivity. I’ve had trouble contacting Kama for a while, but I’m sure that you can get the specifics from him by email: kamavasayita@yahoo.com [quote="Niushirra”] Science is a process of building on old information and sometimes jumping ahead and then making connections back to the old knowledge. Quantum mechanics is still jumped ahead. The whole of research on quantums is to connect their wacky laws with our normal laws.[/quote] Laws are laws, there is none wacky, and there is none ‘normal’ to any sense. A law is called a law because it has been proven scientifically through valid experimentation over and over again. They then become laws when they are found to be absolute. If quantum mechanics has laws, then there is no ‘connecting’ between classical physics and quantum physics, the connection is already made through the laws that pertain. Yea, classical science is based on what we can observe, but as Erik stated, you can’t put the two together with the same mind set. I don’t look at things the classical way. To me, basing science on observations is absolutely stupid, because we didn’t observe the universe’s creation, we didn’t observe the evolution of the universe, we didn’t observer the destruction of the dinosaurs, we didn’t observe these things happening, and much more, so, by your own definition: “Science is a process of building on old information and sometimes jumping ahead and then making connections back to the old knowledge”, I guess none of that is truly scientific, right? But it’s in my text book, it’s called science, and apparently a lot of other scientists agree with it, so who’s right here, you, or the other hundreds of scientists…I pick them. [quote="Niushirra”] Derrick, it's good that your playing devil's advocate and taking a minority's side but even you have to realize they're wrong.[/quote] So now you’re saying that, absolutely, without a doubt, I MUST be wrong…and with what evidence do you show that my theories are wrong? What evidence do you hold in your hands and have shown me that you make this conclusion? Yea, I’ve already told you that this particular one of my theories is not exactly based on pure evidence, but I’ve got more here than you do and if it stood in court, you’d be hanged. If you’ve got something to show, show it, otherwise let’s stick with the arrogant, “I THINK you’re wrong, no matter what”, okay? [quote="Niushirra”] Also, your 10X energy machine is wrong.[/quote] Whoa! Derrick, this guy can read you’re mind! That’s a test I’d love to see in action. Niushirra, how do you know that this is wrong? You don’t have anything you can back it up with. Through your own words I see nothing but arrogant speculation: [quote="Niushirra”] There are so many ways that could be faked, mistaken, or just cheated at. He could have a machine that draws any stray energy around it and then takes a small amount of energy to operate. Then he would gain a little tiny bit of energy from the enviroment and say OMG I CAN CREATE ENERGY. Some scientists said they found a cold fusion method a while ago and it was found that they had actually mistaken the data for cold fusion. Sometimes the analysis is wrong so I'm not saying he just lied about it.[/quote] Apparently, I can see nothing but the words ‘could’, ‘could’, ‘Some scientists’ (not all of them, just the ones in your head), and ‘Sometimes’ (of course, not all the time, just the time you look at it). The point is that you get all down my throat about how I don’t have evidence, how I’m wrong, how I don’t know what I’m talking about and that I’m just wrong and need to accept it when the only thing YOU have proven so far with that big mouth of yours is that Special Relativity has experimental basis for it and that particle accelerators can help measure mass, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I’m right or wrong or how my theory is basic crap. From what I can see, you just need to stop talking completely because you’re just running your mouth and have basically nothing to back it up with…lot’s of bark, no bite. [quote=“Tankdown”]Okay…I see so many things wrong with this post of yours CD27,……and no it’s not what you think it is. Most of what you say is wrong due to manipulating from this world and even yourself.[/quote] I’m glad you can see this, do you think you can show it to me? If it’s not what I think it is, what is it that YOU think it is, because apparently we’re not on the same page here. If most of what I say is wrong due to manipulation of the world and myself, do you think you can show me how or what in the heck you’re talking about? I’ll just say the same thing to you that I said to Niushirra, “lot’s of bark, no bite”. [quote=“Tankdown”]I am having some deeply close friends of mine to review your words to say everything that is wrong with it.[/quote] That’s great and I appreciate the fact that it’s not just your opinion that I should expect. The fact that you would include other people shows me that you wanted to look deeper into the matter and that you didn’t know what to say and instead of spouting out your mouth like Niushirra, you wanted to get the right answer first, Bravo! How about, also, instead of figuring out what is wrong with my theories, figuring out what is actually right about it? [quote=“Tankdown”]Like to said to all of us, I will say to you. Even strong prejudice exists within you. Your word of god seems wrong as well. However I can’t speak about that out loud. Say that I am wrong you may, honestly I encourage such behavior. CD27…I feel like you are repeating something I have seen before….nothing good can come from it.[/quote] My prejudice exists solely for those who are closed minded and arrogant towards science (and pretty much everything else as well). If there’s one thing I can’t and I simply do not put up with it’s someone being closed minded and being so arrogant that they won’t listen to what I have to say. If you’ll notice, I’ve listened to every word you guys have said, and I have responded to every single word. There’s a lot I do not agree with, but for the most part, most of what has been going on here is simply bashing ME, not my work. It took a great deal of thought and courage to post that, it took a lot of work, and the only thing you want to talk about is how I am wrong, not my theory. I am not closed minded, and if you feel that I have been, please, let me know, but I am not arrogant either. I don’t put myself on a pedestal, and I don’t think of myself as better than any of you. When I get jumped on, expect me to jump back in full force. My religion has nothing to do with this site and I’d rather it not even be mentioned here, if at all possible. I do not wish to debate my religious status at all, and I do not wish to start an argument here that could potentially lead to my expulsion from this site due to religious discussions. If you wish to further that topic, please PM me and we can speak privately. I’m not saying you’re wrong, what am saying is that you, like Niushirra, have nothing to back up your claims that I am wrong, at least currently, and you are only willing to bash. I’m glad you encourage the behavior, and I appreciate the conversations we’ve had here so far, though I was not exactly on the top site most of the time, but do not expect me to just subside and take it ‘like a man’, I’m going to fight back ‘like a man’. If you think I’m repeating the way I used to think when I first appeared on this site, keep in mind that I’m the same person. I am open minded, as I was not when I first joined, and I am willing to listen, but when I listen, expect me to not sit back in the corner, expect me to be in the forefront, even if I get hit. Expect me give a well written and well thought-out argument that will challenge your own, and expect me to not only hold your thoughts up, but debate them as well. I am not prejudice to science, only the arrogant and closed minded scientist. That, I have absolutely no tolerance for. I bite back. EriDurwoodII, been a long time. I’ve been looking for you for quite some time now for just this reason, to quote from you, [quote=“ EriDurwoodII”]That’s great, but can I test it?[/quote] I do have a test for my overall theory (not the one currently in discussion, but my broader and more elaborate one) and I have been searching people to help me test it. Well said up there, and it’s exactly what I wanted to say but could not put into words quite like yours. I was wrong at an instance, and I realize (before the fact) that my theory did not have experimental basis and that it was just, at current, a good idea. I expect that your post was not only for me, but for others on this thread. Derrick, you go man. But do not subside to someone else’s attacks. Don’t let them bit you down like that. Niushirra was wrong in saying what he had said to you and the point is that he didn’t have ANYTHING to base his opinions on other that his own mind, which none of us here can read so don’t retract your claim over a petty attack. [quote=“ErikDurwoodII”]You don’t “break” the laws of physics. You simply operate in an environment where said laws do not apply fully or at all.[/quote] I admit that I used wrong wording when stating the above in my earlier post. I have written on this before, that I don’t exactly intend to break the laws of physics, but the basis of my theory is to loop around them like a proxy does against a computer firewall. In theory, this should work, and I do have an experiment lined up to test it. Quantum physics does agree with, read some of David Bohm’s work and others about the Quantum ‘Sub-level’ (I just wrote sub-level because I can’t remember exactly what Bohm called it). My belief is that that sub-level exits out of the laws of physics, where all things come together, all points, and all times, where spacial travel and time travel are no longer linear, but rather direct (digital if you may). Great! Tom Bearden’s MEG! I read about this from good ole’ Paranoid Jester back at www.ppsociety.com. This experiment is great and I’ve been looking at it pretty close myself. Some of the properties it holds are close to my theory (The Amalgamated Psinetic Dynamics Theory). [quote=“JOHNNYBEGOOD”]CD27, I recommend you try contacting someone like Steven Hawkings and see what he says about it. I would’ve get up your hopes, though.[/quote] I’ve tried that already, I’ve contacted several scientists that are well known. Steven Hawkings was one of them, and I didn’t so much as get a response. I contacted some others, like Stanton T. Friedman and his response was, [quote=“Stanton T. Friendman”]Eric: I read through your posting. I am very suspicious of theory without practice. I ma not a theorist and have no interest in becoming one at my age. Time is precious. So I must say I can’t help. Claims without evidence are just not my bag. Sorry.[/quote] I have to say, I agree, well, not about the theorizing part, but about theory without practice. If you’ll read over my original post, all I asked for was conversation, help if possible, whatnot. I was not looking to get attacked in any way, but I don’t back down from a fight. I don’t have evidence for this; that I’ve already. Scientifically, I agree with how Stanton went at this, and I agree with his suspicion. I however do not agree with Sciensism, which I explained earlier…in which Stanton, like many other scientists, portray. So my mode of action is to keep getting good ideas through discussions like this, doing more research, and entering the Navy (going to boot camp on August 1st 2007) and taking the job of IT (Information Technician) or Nuke (I haven’t decided yet if I want to take Nuke classes or not, but at the moment, I am set for IT) and will get my college for free, which I will use to get my degree in Quantum Engineering. This’ll give me what I need to conduct my experiment, so that I won’t be in the position I was when Stanton responded to my email. [quote=“Tankdown”]Yup…it’s clear that even my resources don’t agree with you. Sadly to say, and I mean no offense, but it’s really pointless to argue with you.[/quote] No offense taken and hopefully none given, but what resources? All you said was that I was wrong and that I was repeating something that wasn’t good, but you’ve offered no resources to this discussion. If you feel this is pointless, fine, but before you say you have any resources, please reveal them first. No offense is taken here from me, and I hope none is taken from anyone else. A lot of you were really very nice, but there were a few of you who were blatantly rude and arrogant. To those, and you know who you are, I returned the favor…how’s it feel when the fish bites back, maybe you ought not attack, rather debate and discuss like civilized scientists here. I’m willing, are you? [quote=“DemonHunter”]I don’t think the time barrier actually exists. Because time itself exists only in your imagination. You can slow it down and speed it down and speed it at will. Or you can just take it as it comes and see what happens.[/quote] I have said this before and I’ll say it again, “Time is simply the distance between events”. Time in itself does not exist, but the distance between framed events does. When time dilation occurs, the rate at which these ‘frames’ oscillate are slowed, or, in my theory’s case, sped up. In a sense, all we have found, theoretically, to be possible but not exactly reachable is Time Dilation from Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, in which time is slowed. Time Dilation refuses the possibility to equal or exceed this speed. Obviously that statement is horribly flawed, because light can reach the speed of light, thus it is possible. And I’m sure that light ISN’T the fastest speed in the universe. Assuming that it is, however, my theory provides through Einstein’s Time Dilation formula and the theory of Jellotivity the equations for which faster than light speeds are achieved and that the speed of light is the barrier. When it came to the sound barrier, the speed of sound was the barrier. Since time and speed are connected, and the focus here is the effect this speed will have on time, instead of calling it the ‘Light Barrier’, I called it the ‘Time Barrier’, so, in that sense, the Time Barrier does exist and not only does it exist, it can be broken and surpassed. I see where you are coming from DemonHunter, but time is no a figment of your imagination because if it was then it wouldn’t exist at all, because imaginary things do not exist. Time is the distance between events in space. When moving through space we move through time, and space simply shifts to give the impression that we’re moving (events). So, time exists, as a physical entity in the least, and is not an impression of our imaginations, for if that was so then we would see every event occurring simultaneously or nothing at all, because all events would cease to exist. I don’t know how easy it was to understand what I just said and some of you will probably look at that and say it’s total bull and has no evidence, but I want to point out that that was not a theory, it’s a fact, it’s not something that I need to test, because it’s observable, it’s already proven of how time works, I was simply restating the words. So, sorry burst your bubble and all. Anyways guys, I gave you my all here, I spent about two hours typing all this, and my hands are tired now. So, have fun, enjoy, and I look forward to another debate soon. CD **EDIT** Sorry guys, but the quotes didn't follow all the way through, you can see who i quoted from though. cd |
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:03 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
Niushirra
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 |
Alright, from what I understand your hypothesis is about what will happen when we exceed the speed of light. You cannot exceed the speed of light. That is a physical law that cannot be broken. Read Einstein, it's proven. You can use math and imaginary numbers all you want after you realize this can never be tested. So, you're right, but you're wrong. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2007 6:35 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
neveza
Joined: 12 Jan 2006 |
If you think you're on to something, then stop posting this shit on psipog.net. Go and post it or send it to some higher ups and allow them to test it or critise it with more intellegence.
CD, you're not going to convince anybody without positive tests results. |
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2007 8:18 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
Tankdown
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 |
One of the things that annoy me is that he's keep calling it a theory....he said it himself that he don't have any direct evidence to it. To answer back to you about where my resources are from..
One is from advice from someone who just so happens to have Pentagon clearing. A another is someone who just so happens to know how a nuclear engine works. Seeing had worked on it. Infact from what I have gotten from them is that your related to this guy...sadly... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180 I like your reply before saying anymore.\ Eidt: O...and I think programmble matter is the next wave not the time barrior personaly.. |
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:16 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
derricktheone
Joined: 29 Jul 2006 |
Have you even read anything CD wrote? All the points in this post have already been addressed. Good job at repeating yourself though. That's usually done when there's nothing left to say... Cigarettes used to be proven to be beneficial for your health. Homosexuality used to be proven to be a mental disability. There've been MANY aspects and facts in science that were once proven, yet later needed revisions or were changed completely, because they weren't exactly right. CD stop debating. Niushirra is the all-knowing brick wall. And by the way, Tankdown, it is a theory. If he had proof/evidence it was correct, it would be fact.
What statement did I retract? The machine=more energy possibility? I did not retract that. I do not have the knowledge to make a sure decision on it, so I simply left it open for the possibility of it being false. It was not proven, so I do not assume. Trust me, I know the extent of the ignorance of some people. |
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:22 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
thegrogen
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 |
Ah, another misinterpretation of the definition of a scientific theory.
There is no such thing as scientific "fact". |
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:03 am | |||||||||||||||||||
derricktheone
Joined: 29 Jul 2006 |
"In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them." Sorry, I guess I was using it in common usage.  ...
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:16 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
JOHNNYBEGOOD
Joined: 17 Jul 2006 |
"F*** common usage!" -George Carlin |
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:22 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
Niushirra
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 |
Derrick by certain standards those things can be proven one way or the other. Also, they were trying to find something out at the time that no one knew. Climbing over a hill. CD is trying to climb a wall that dosen't end because the physical laws have been laid out say that it is impossible. These physical laws can be broken but probably will not be, and he has not made any attempt to undo them yet. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:42 am | |||||||||||||||||||
CD27
Joined: 16 Feb 2006 |
hmmm...no scientific fact huh? isn't this exactly what i've been saying the entire time, that science is not perfect and that just because we can't do it now doesn't mean it can't be done? Yea, that's what i've been saying, why can't you get it through your thick head? Niushirra, can you tell me where Einstein was able to PROVE his theories with PHYSICAL evidence at his current time? HE COULDN'T! Technology had not yet gotten to where he was, so he relied heavily on mathematics, which worked for scientists then, and he used thins called Reference Frames (let me give you the definition here since you've studied so very much on relativity but seem to jump right over this each time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference ) So, in essence, this heavily held up theory (well, after his collegues and professors got of their high horses), had nothing more than mathematics to back it up. He mixed math with a few already tested subjects and branched theories off of them. I am doing the exact same thing, except i don't have the math yet. i'm working on it, and will be for years. though i can't understand the math of other theories, i can understand the basic explanation of the theory, which helps alot because i can understand what agrees and what does not agree with my theory, and, looking at the laws of physics, nothing prevents me from doing what i'm attempting. So keep it up, you're not really proving any other point than that you're closed minded as crap. cd |
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:09 am | |||||||||||||||||||
McLoud
Joined: 14 Apr 2006 |
I don't mind how it is called. There is a bunch of ideas, if we want a theory, these can be discussed then tested on a theoretical basis until we get something that has good reasoning and can stand a basic round of logic. Done that, one can try to extract a testable point, where trying it we know if it matches the theory prediction or not. If it does, we keep going on, if it doesn't, then there is a need to a better theory. The first step I think is simplifying, we need more concise and precise points of what is and what isn't. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:35 am | |||||||||||||||||||
Peebrain
Site Admin |
Actually, they have broken the speed of light barrier. Some links: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796 http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/ Do a search on google - there are reputable articles on breaking the speed of light barrier. Also, I would like to remind people that it's ok to disagree, just do it respectfully. That goes for everyone who is participating in this thread. ~Sean |
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:02 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
derricktheone
Joined: 29 Jul 2006 |
Wow. Does this mean Niushirra is actually going to admit to being WRONG for once? C'mon Niushirra, let's see the next post on how this was conducted wrong, or gathered information wrong, or was misconstrued in some way.....You have an excuse/technicallity to make your points valid everytime. Not this time.
your're WRONG. Admit it!! lol 
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:00 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
Jake
Joined: 31 May 2006 |
While I am going to remain neutral in this debate, I must point out that neither of those experiments involved accelerating matter faster than the speed of light. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
| Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:00 pm | |||||||||||||||||||
derricktheone
Joined: 29 Jul 2006 |
True, but this is the main point.
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Back to top | |||||||||||||||||||
PsiPog.net Forum Index » General Discussion » Continuation of "Time Barrier" Discussions
All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2000-2006 PsiPog.net and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.
You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster. XHTML?