Earth is 9,000 years old, says Rep. Paul Broun, who sits on House Science Committee (start

[erowe1]

Precisely, the conductor hears the same sound for as long as he remains in his position. Voila! Relativity explained pretty concisely.

No. That has nothing to do with relativity.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, it does. I know it sounds unintuitive to you (perfectly logical for me /shrug), but time doesn't change - it is the object's experience that does. You think time moves faster in the space-time position that the mass inhabits as it moves? No, it ticks at the same pace, for eternity. It is the EXPERIENCE, that changes. It isn't that time slows down or speeds up, it is YOU that does. Your speed effects your experience of time (hence relativity).

Whether it's intuitive or not is not important. Some things can sound intuitive and be false and vice versa.

Apart from the fact that your view seems perfectly logical to you, what do you base it on?

 

[Dr.3D]

Please check out these three articles.


Scientists: Time Itself May Be Slowing Down

Time really is slowing down

Not enough hours in the day? Scientists predict time will stop completely

And again I ask you to read the following webpage.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx

 

[acptulsa]

That's not an illustration of the relativity of time. That's the Doppler effect.

But even with that, I don't see in that illustration anything that would correspond to some universal constant "time" that is out there like what it seemed like AED was saying.

Now tell me what the hell is wrong with using the Doppler effect as an illustration of relativity? I've heard a Nobel freaking laureate use red shift and blue shift, which is also the Doppler effect, to illustrate it. Tell me why it doesn't work and I'll stop using it. Fail to tell me why it doesn't work and I'll stick with the Nobel physicist, thank you very much.

No. That has nothing to do with relativity.

Nothing at all? You're quite sure the Doppler Effect has no bearing, even if only as a legitimate vehicle toward understanding relativity? Seriously?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No. That has nothing to do with relativity.

Actually it has everything to do with it. You the user at either the far front end, or far back end, experiences a different sound. This experience in your argument leads to saying that the sound is different, but, the conductor, knows better. He at the core (think of this as space-time fabric), hears the same uniform sound - he knows, the sound hasn't changed, it is the positions and relativity of the users to the sound that has. Think of the front as moving faster - you are experiencing time slower (e.g. 1000 years to someone moving 50% slower is only ~ few hundred to you (numbers used as reference)) & the guy at the tail end is moving slower - hence, experiencing time faster. However, at no point has time actually changed - it is the users relativity that has.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

All you need to know is that the Head of State of Rome, a Dictatorial Hegemonic Empire, instituted and decided the Council of Nicaea. (Which is I assume what you meant) These 'Bishops' for crying out loud were appointed by Constantine. People who take the Bible as if it emanated from God's 'hands', or whatever, are .... ignorant at best, and brainwashed at worse, by pulpits pushing a certain agenda, and if Christianity has taught us anything since Constantine, is that it enables the State. Early Christianity was glorious - it was radical, voluntary, and had no love or need of the State, or of Government. Tolstoy is probably the closest 'modern' day Christian who resembles what Christianity actually is (e.g. prior to 325AD).

That's a common misconception. There's no evidence that it was discussed at all during the Council of Nicaea. The books that were determined to be canon were decided on later in that century at the Council of Carthage. However, the OT and NT weren't put together as The Holy Bible until the Council of Trent sometime in the 1500s.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Whether it's intuitive or not is not important. Some things can sound intuitive and be false and vice versa.

Apart from the fact that your view seems perfectly logical to you, what do you base it on?

Observation, experience, testing? You keep asking these stupid ass questions. The best thesis' come out of thought experiments - in other words, rigorous logic.

 

[Sola_Fide]

[AustrianEconDisciple;4676300]All you need to know is that the Head of State of Rome, a Dictatorial Hegemonic Empire, instituted and decided the Council of Nicaea. (Which is I assume what you meant) These 'Bishops' for crying out loud were appointed by Constantine. People who take the Bible as if it emanated from God's 'hands', or whatever, are .... ignorant at best, and brainwashed at worse, by pulpits pushing a certain agenda, and if Christianity has taught us anything since Constantine, is that it enables the State. Early Christianity was glorious - it was radical, voluntary, and had no love or need of the State, or of Government. Tolstoy is probably the closest 'modern' day Christian who resembles what Christianity actually is (e.g. prior to 325AD).[/QUOTE]

Actually, Nicea had nothing to do with the canon. That is a popular misconception due to the fiction book called the DaVinci Code. Popular myth, but not accurate.

 

[Dr.3D]

Time is universal. It is constant. What makes it...difficult to understand for some people is that it is relative. In other words, users experience time as a measure of speed. The faster you are moving the slower time is for you. The slower you are moving the faster time is for you. However, at no point does time speed up or put on the brakes. It is you the user that changes - not time.

Please go back and read my posting: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ittee-(start&p=4676331&viewfull=1#post4676331

 

[erowe1]

Now tell me what the hell is wrong with using the Doppler effect as an illustration of relativity? I've heard a Nobel freaking laureate use red shift and blue shift, which is also the Doppler effect, to illustrate it. Tell me why it doesn't work and I'll stop using it. Fail to tell me why it doesn't work and I'll stick with the Nobel physicist, thank you very much.

Red shift and blue shift ARE the Doppler effect. But how do they illustrate the relativity of time? Are you sure that's what the physicist was illustrating? And if it was, is it possible that he was illustrating it in a different way than you just did? They could have been talking about a red shift due to gravity, which would have to involve relativity in its explanation, and not just the Doppler effect. Or they could have been talking about how relativity has to be taken into account when one is measuring the red shift. I'd be interested in seeing/hearing the example you're talking about.

Here's the thing about the illustration as I see it. The wavelength of a sound heard by a hearer depends on the speed of that hearer relative to the movement of the sound waves. But that's all when we're talking about speeds much lower than the speed of light.

When objects move relative to one another at speeds that close to the speed of light, those objects experience different time. It doesn't just feel different. It is different. They could leave each other at one moment and then get back to one another later, and one of them could have gone through 5 years of time while the other went through 6 years of time. Those 5 years and 6 years are 5 years of real time and 6 years of real time, not just some illusion of feeling like 5 or 6 years while actually being something else. There is no absolute passage of time out there that could measure them both.

 

[erowe1]

Observation, experience, testing? You keep asking these stupid ass questions. The best thesis' come out of thought experiments - in other words, rigorous logic.

I'm all for that.

Thought experiments are how Einstein discovered special relativity. But your thought experiments are leading you to different conclusions than his did. Can you explain your thought experiments? It's possible that you're doing them wrong, and maybe someone here will be able to explain that to you.

 

[erowe1]

However, at no point has time actually changed

Right. Because there is no universal time out there that could be said to change. There is the time experienced by the one guy and the time experienced by the other guy. That's all.

 

[Dr.3D]

Right. Because at no point is there some constant time out there that could be said to change. There is the time experienced by the one guy and the time experienced by the other guy. That's all.

And gravity concentration plays a huge role in that. This is why in the young universe, time passes at a higher relative rate to that of an older universe.

 

[acptulsa]

Right. Because at no point is there some constant time out there that could be said to change. There is the time experienced by the one guy and the time experienced by the other guy. That's all.

And at no time is the speed of light constant, because it's always passing through copper wire, or glass, or water, or haze, or atmosphere, or at least some space dust. Even so, c is one of the most famous constants in the universe.

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that perception is reality. If you'll recall, that's exactly how we got into this political mess in the first place.

 

[Dr.3D]

And at no time is the speed of light constant, because it's always passing through copper wire, or glass, or water, or haze, or atmosphere, or at least some space dust. Even so, c is one of the most famous constants in the universe.

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that perception is reality. If you'll recall, that's exactly how we got into this political mess in the first place.

Light isn't time.

Look here for what I'm talking about: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ittee-(start&p=4676331&viewfull=1#post4676331

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

And at no time is the speed of light constant, because it's always passing through copper wire, or glass, or water, or haze, or atmosphere, or at least some space dust. Even so, c is one of the most famous constants in the universe.

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that perception is reality. If you'll recall, that's exactly how we got into this political mess in the first place.

Right. One of the more important discoveries is that light can actually be stopped, but it is more correctly - suspended, however, it is still moving at it's constant speed as you pointed out. The moment the material is dissipated, the light zooms right off at constant. No energy was transferred at any point. Just because something is perceived, doesn't make it completely so. How else would you explain this situation? If there is no energy transfer, it must be that it has a constant. We observe the same with time. If you want to demonstrate this effect - think of space-time fabric. There obviously has to be a universal constant time, otherwise, we would experience time as a matter of position. We see and experience these distortions - namely, as a matter of our speed, and in other cases gravity.

 

[erowe1]

And at no time is the speed of light constant, because it's always passing through copper wire, or glass, or water, or haze, or atmosphere, or at least some space dust. Even so, c is one of the most famous constants in the universe.

You seem to be suffering under the delusion that perception is reality. If you'll recall, that's exactly how we got into this political mess in the first place.

The constant c is a constant. C isn't the speed that light happens to be moving in any given instance through any given medium. It's the speed of light in a vacuum.

The thing that makes that constant significant is that it doesn't change relative to the speed of its observers.

If I'm moving away from you at 50 miles per hour and shoot a rock with a slingshot at you at 60 mph relative to myself, it will approach you at 10 mph relative to you.

But if I'm moving away from you at 0.5 the speed of light and I shine a light at you, that light will move away from me at the speed of light relative to me, and it will also move toward you at the speed of light relative to you. Part of how this is explained is that the time I'm experiencing is not the same as the time you're experiencing. But there is no universal time out there that we're both experiencing.

 

[Dr.3D]

Right. One of the more important discoveries is that light can actually be stopped, but it is more correctly - suspended, however, it is still moving at it's constant speed as you pointed out. The moment the material is dissipated, the light zooms right off at constant. No energy was transferred at any point. Just because something is perceived, doesn't make it completely so. How else would you explain this situation? If there is no energy transfer, it must be that it has a constant. We observe the same with time. If you want to demonstrate this effect - think of space-time fabric. There obviously has to be a universal constant time, otherwise, we would experience time as a matter of position. We see and experience these distortions - namely, as a matter of our speed, and in other cases gravity.

Damnitall, did you read my post?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ittee-(start&p=4676331&viewfull=1#post4676331

If so what do you disagree with?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Damnitall, did you read my post?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ittee-(start&p=4676331&viewfull=1#post4676331

If so what do you disagree with?

I haven't seen it, and I don't think I ever addressed it. I'll take a look at it later. I promise.

 

[Sola_Fide]

One thing that is cool about the times is that there is a very anti-establishment sentiment among educated Christians. By educated, I mean Christians who take doctrine seriously. Most of the time, Christians who are educated doctrinally are also educated about the evils of government. Most of the time, the more Reformed or doctrinally conservative Christians are the more anti-government. (Yes, I'm generalizing). They are more inclined to view the government as too intrusive and they view homeschooling as a way to fight establishment science.

The ideas of liberty are appealing to Christians who see the emergence of this atheistic/secular scientific state.