I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,

Well, you are welcome to provide your peer reviewed published paper which proves Einstein and all of modern physics wrong. I know that the scientific community will probably want something more from you than "nuh uh".

It's ****ing hilarious reading some of the batshit crazy claims you make.

 

It's ok. We all know, including you, that you don't actually believe you have disproven Einstein. You just like making silly claims to get reactions out of people.

 

According to eine space around gravitational fields deviates from Euclidean space.

stop trying to duck out of your obligation to PROVE IT, prove its a physical reality

until you prove its a fact its nothing more than your metaphysical 'belief'.

Burden rests on the believers and the pusher of the theory!

Unless of course you atheists dont believe in the 'scientific method'?

 

RE: I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,
⁜→ Kokomojojo, et al,

BLUF: There is a difference between the "perception of time" and the "reality" of time.

(COMMENT)

Infinity in a linear time continuum is the difference between two events (an interval). In order to establish two events (one separate from another) you need a framework. You must establish two coordinates. One coordinate for point "A" and one coordinate for point "B." Then you need an observer (yourself at a minimum), with the ability to observe the two events "A" and "B." The outside observer can be any point along the continuum with a vantage point that can observer points "A" and "B;" or an outside observer (another coordinate) that can observe the two events.

◈ You cannot establish an "interval of time" without the two coordinates.
◈ And the establishment of two intervals requires space.
◈ To establish an outside observer requires space, → a vantage point (another coordinate) capable of observing the two events.
◈ There is no such thing as an infinite interval. IF you observe both points "A" and "B" THEN there in no infinity. It is finite interval. (1/time) = frequency & (1/f) = t​

IF there is a condition of "NO SPACE" (a void is something we do not yet understand) THEN you cannot have a coordinate. And without a coordinate system, you:

◈ Cannot establish an interval.
◈ Cannot establish an observer (yourself) to determine anything in the condition of "NO SPACE."​

I hope this was useful.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

First point is at '1', second point is at '2', no space required. A planet resides in space 'physically', not an abstraction of a simple mental exercise.

Gravity cannot effect space if space is not composed of matter.

You just used time to justify the existence of time, eine is describing space as a 'physical' entity. Space as exists around a planet or gravitational field cannot be warped as once again it has no matter, no substance or composition. Gravity can only act against matter, mass.

You could argue that:

spacetime is any mathematical model which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold.

But then you are arguing a purely mental exersize, and abstraction.

Therefore you need to prove space is composed of mass, or has some property gravity can act upon.

 

lol, look at you thinking you've disproven Einstein again. How many nobel prizes have you been nominated for now? You'd think that having disproved all of modern physics, you'd have at least a few invitations.

 

even idiots know only matter (mass) is acted upon by gravity.
No one 'qualified' to discuss this will challenge that claim.

 

RE: I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,
⁜→ Kokomojojo, et al,

BLUF: Matter curves (or warps) space and time is being distorted (slows). Gravitational time dilation.

(COMMENT)

Gravity does not seem to be a force even though it seems to be a force pulling on objects. But what really happens is that an object follows the curvature of space.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

nonresponsive answer. please address my point and prove gravity can physically warp space.
there is no evidence gravity acts against time.
there is plenty of evidence time is affected by faulty time keeping pieces.
If an object follows the curvature of space nothing could ever hit the surface of any planet.

I am waiting for your set of proofs that gravity physically acts upon and bends space. ie instead of a field attracting a passing object, hence pulling it out of its original path

instead of 'see I have circular reasoning proof' because thats the way einee said it is, is a nonresponsive answer. If you think time winds up being less than or greater than 1 second, prove its a 'fact'.

 

RE: I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,
⁜→ Kokomojojo, et al,

BLUF: To be honest, I'm not someone that can explain to you the proofs you want.

(REFERENCE)

Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO)

◈ Hanford Washington
◈ Livingston, Louisiana​

​

The gravitational-waves are propagating through the fabric of space.

(COMMENT)

I cannot give you an answer. The thread for the fabric of space is unknown to me. The Michelson-Morley experiment used a type of (first generation) interferometer as well; which did not detect anything.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

Non sequitur.

I will counter that when it comes to creating and assembling, Time, Chance and Matter have their own intelligence.

If you anthropomorphize intelligence I can see how you could come to that conclusion.

 

There is no evidence that the construct we call 'space' is a fabric. Might be a nice label however for something we assume may be out there, conceptually similar to being fish and objects in an unending ocean, but dont know what it is. That does not change space, only defines what 'in it'.

 

Agreed,
Robert Time writes interesting posts.
So does Henry Chance.
And John Matter writes magnificent music.

JAG

 

non sequitur -- a conclusion or statement that does not logically
follow from the previous argument or statement.

___________

Just for the record:
There is no such thing as The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, A Non Sequitur.

So?

So one man's non sequitur is another man's solid legitimate logical conclusion.

You are adrift in a sea , , the Sea Of Opinion.

Best.

JAG

``

 

Thought For Today:
Dead stuff cannot become alive apart from an Intelligent Creator.

JAG

PS
This is an old thread. I started it September 1, 2020
Are you hungry?

``

 

The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, A Non Sequitur is Logic itself, and your argument fits the definition that you cited:

Here's another thing you may not have considered - it is possible for one to believe that non-intelligent Time plus non-intelligent Chance plus non-intelligent Matter could have assembled the "highly complex human eye" and the "highly complex human brain" AND believe in God.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with anthropomorphizing intelligence, but your thread was active yesterday when I posted.....and here you are today.

Am I hungry?

Not quite yet. I had a big lunch.

 

RE: I'm Not Giving Up The Watchmaker Argument , , , ,
⁜→ Kokomojojo, et al,

BLUF: There are many things in our everyday science that are still a mystery. We use magnets every single day in so many different ways. Every elementary school child remembers the non-corrosive experiment with the placement of a magnet under a piece of construction paper with iron filings sprinkled over the top of the paper → exposing the magnetic field lines (the H-Field of flux lines). Of course, we have known since the days of Michael Faraday that the H-Field existed perpendicular to the E-Field and that movement of a conductor through flux lines will induce electron flow.

(COMMENT)

One example of an Everyday mystery: What is a flux line made? (RHETORICAL) The prevailing is that the flux lines are made of photons (I don't actually believe it). But not having a better explanation, I bow to the higher authorities. Remembering though → that photon streams below the infrared range and those above the ultraviolet range can easily penetrate the paper.

One more curious point. Space-Time to be viable, the fabric of space itself must be elastic. E-Fields and H-Fields are elastic.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

False.

JAG

``

 

Flux lines can be viewed using ferrofluid



I dont bow to anyone as an authority generally and only specifically if they can work through a problem logically.

They dont know the answer and my lab is nowhere near extensive enough to do any testing on that level.

Photons afaik are nonmagnetic, therefore it goes without saying that a magnetic field line does not consist of photons.