Post by: guest39538 on 28/10/2017 13:41:18
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics. To plant a thought is to grow a seed.
Post by: atbsphotography on 30/10/2017 12:45:23
In this observational evidence there is no UFO'scaveman.jpg (79.78 kB . 480x370 - viewed 18496 times)
The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics. To plant a thought is to grow a seed.
I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 12:48:47
That is an ancient picture and a IFO. Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof . They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail.In this observational evidence there is no UFO's
The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics. To plant a thought is to grow a seed.
I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.
Post by: atbsphotography on 30/10/2017 12:58:09
They could well be angry of our ability to hunt to eat, I should think if they are an intelligent race then they must, in theory, have found ways to source nutrition without hunting animals, or animals may not exist in their alternate reality.That is an ancient picture and a IFO. Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof . They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail.In this observational evidence there is no UFO's
The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics. To plant a thought is to grow a seed.
I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.
If P=1 and then Q+P=1 then Q must be fact if P=1 is existence. So this picture may point to Q+P=1 and being a factual existence of aliens.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 13:14:04
Well the logic involved is simple. At that time the P=0 of somebody having a creative thought to draw a flying saucer. The thoughts on flying at the most could of been about birds... This is a shared memory rather than a subjective thought.They could well be angry of our ability to hunt to eat, I should think if they are an intelligent race then they must, in theory, have found ways to source nutrition without hunting animals, or animals may not exist in their alternate reality.That is an ancient picture and a IFO. Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof . They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail.In this observational evidence there is no UFO's
The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics. To plant a thought is to grow a seed.
I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.
If P=1 and then Q+P=1 then Q must be fact if P=1 is existence. So this picture may point to Q+P=1 and being a factual existence of aliens.
And sorry what is Q representing?
Post by: atbsphotography on 30/10/2017 14:38:40
Well the logic involved is simple. At that time the P=0 of somebody having a creative thought to draw a flying saucer. The thoughts on flying at the most could of been about birds... This is a shared memory rather than a subjective thought.They could well be angry of our ability to hunt to eat, I should think if they are an intelligent race then they must, in theory, have found ways to source nutrition without hunting animals, or animals may not exist in their alternate reality.That is an ancient picture and a IFO. Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof . They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail.In this observational evidence there is no UFO's
The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics. To plant a thought is to grow a seed.
I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.
If P=1 and then Q+P=1 then Q must be fact if P=1 is existence. So this picture may point to Q+P=1 and being a factual existence of aliens.
And sorry what is Q representing?
Sorry I had it the wrong way round it should have been P+Q=1 which means P is thought and Q is fact, both together would mean 1 is evidential rather than just thought or fact on their own.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 14:51:20
Yes I suppose so but I was using P in the sense of a probability answer based on the evidence of the factual picture of an observation.Well the logic involved is simple. At that time the P=0 of somebody having a creative thought to draw a flying saucer. The thoughts on flying at the most could of been about birds... This is a shared memory rather than a subjective thought.They could well be angry of our ability to hunt to eat, I should think if they are an intelligent race then they must, in theory, have found ways to source nutrition without hunting animals, or animals may not exist in their alternate reality.That is an ancient picture and a IFO. Logic says P=1 of alien existence , this single picture is enough proof . They did not draw just a UFO, they drew what they sore in some great detail.In this observational evidence there is no UFO's
The rudiment of thinking about technology, the start of science and Physics. To plant a thought is to grow a seed.
I seem to remember seeing a similar picture that people thought proved the existence of UFO's, though in reality it could be classed as an IFO, seen as it is identified. Though in this case, it was in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I'll see if I can find it now.
In this picture it looks like the aliens are showing the hunters how to hunt , helping them with food. Or on the other hand they could be pissed off because the hunters have killed.
If P=1 and then Q+P=1 then Q must be fact if P=1 is existence. So this picture may point to Q+P=1 and being a factual existence of aliens.
And sorry what is Q representing?
Sorry I had it the wrong way round it should have been P+Q=1 which means P is thought and Q is fact, both together would mean 1 is evidential rather than just thought or fact on their own.
The probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%.
By using what you are referring to as logical statement and evidence q and p .
Post by: Kryptid on 30/10/2017 19:47:08
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 19:53:16
Given that the image you posted is actual artwork done by someone as an art history class assignment, it doesn't prove anything about aliens: https://jack-lambert.deviantart.com/art/Cave-Painting-324650059 (https://jack-lambert.deviantart.com/art/Cave-Painting-324650059). ::)Well that's not where it said it was from what I read, I read it is 700 thousand years old and in Africa. But never mind there is plenty more of these that are evident.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 19:54:43
Post by: Kryptid on 30/10/2017 20:11:13
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 20:18:51
If ancient pictures are proof of the existence of something, then I guess all of those carvings and paintings of Horus, Baal, fairies and dragons are proof that they are real as well?We both know these type pictures do exist on cave walls and are very ancient although the pics I provided may be ''fake'' and not the exact pictures.
I think you have a very valued point which I have quoted which would cause me some concern about the logic I mentioned. I would now have to redefine my probability to P=0.5
I will have to research the topic furthermore to see if I can reach P=1 again.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 20:20:48
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 20:22:09
Fairies I can not find, I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/10/2017 20:32:17
I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.
First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 20:43:15
Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations. I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.
First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/10/2017 21:08:24
Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations.
Which are not conclusive to prove the existence of something.
Quote
I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.
There are stories all around the world of little people variously known as dwarfs, elves, fairies, leprechauns, menehune, yehasuri and a menagerie of other names. They are all mostly similar, in that they are usually depicted as looking like humans except being much smaller. Likewise, dragons and dragon-like creatures are known from around the world as drakes, lindorns, tatzelwurms, druk, qilin, Shenlong and many other names. Are we to believe that fairies and dragons are real just because many different cultures described them? We should not forget that all human cultures ultimately trace their origins back to the same place and thus it would not be surprising if myths from that original culture were carried with them and distorted over time to become all these different beings. There is no way to tell for sure that any given ancient image is of an alien, one of the "little people" or even a child wearing a mask. The interpretation is subjective. Something objective is needed, like an alien body or a crashed flying saucer.
Post by: The Spoon on 30/10/2017 21:24:18
Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest post with original image and the doctoring of it here:Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations. I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.
First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/249598004327326865/
Post by: guest39538 on 30/10/2017 22:10:20
Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest posRegardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations. I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.
First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.I am afraid google search is out of my control, I never noticed that either. Maybe I will have better luck with a video , pay attention to the last picture 3 mins into the video.Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest post with original image and the doctoring of it here:Regardless of the images I provided there are plenty of pics and videos out there that show these type illustrations. I accept these pics themselves are not evidence on there own. However when people are drawing the same type thing in different locations around the world, I think that alone shows us they are all seeing the same thing and drawing what they have seen.I am back to P=1 . There is nothing you have shown that disproves the observation of an identified alien present in our past.
First of all, I am not trying to disprove ancient interactions between humans and aliens. I allow for the possibility of it even though I can't say for sure one way or another. I can say that it definitely hasn't been proven. Second of all, you are shifting the burden of proof. It is not for others to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove yourself correct. All you have done is shown inconclusive (and at least one fake) image(s). That's not proof of anything.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
These drawings are certainly alien to the picture.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/249598004327326865/
Post by: Kryptid on 30/10/2017 23:44:48
Are you really that credulous? The image is faked. See pinterest post with original image and the doctoring of it here:
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/249598004327326865/
Thanks for that find. We should always be wary of what we see online.
I am afraid google search is out of my control, I never noticed that either. Maybe I will have better luck with a video , pay attention to the last picture 3 mins into the video.
That's the same image you posted earlier. As I said before, it's far too simple and generic of a shape to say that it's supposed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.
Seriously, you opened this thread with a picture you found on the Internet and made the statement that, "the probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%" when in fact it was a fake picture created by someone as a school project. Then you posted another fake picture (possibly two). You really need to reconsider how you go about doing research and coming to conclusions, because the way you're doing it now clearly isn't working.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 12:08:33
That's the same image you posted earlier. As I said before, it's far too simple and generic of a shape to say that it's supposed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.I obviously did not know the pics were fake, had the pics being real then my logic would of been correct. I am wrong on this one admittedly.
Seriously, you opened this thread with a picture you found on the Internet and made the statement that, "the probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%" when in fact it was a fake picture created by someone as a school project. Then you posted another fake picture (possibly two). You really need to reconsider how you go about doing research and coming to conclusions, because the way you're doing it now clearly isn't working.
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 13:09:11
You didn't even bother trying to establish whether the picture was faked or not. I am not sure if you actually care or not though. For you it is all about getting attention isn't it? If just one person was credulous enough to think it was real, you would have been able to crow about how people agree with you. Hence your tenuous relationship with the truth.That's the same image you posted earlier. As I said before, it's far too simple and generic of a shape to say that it's supposed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.I obviously did not know the pics were fake, had the pics being real then my logic would of been correct. I am wrong on this one admittedly.
Seriously, you opened this thread with a picture you found on the Internet and made the statement that, "the probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%" when in fact it was a fake picture created by someone as a school project. Then you posted another fake picture (possibly two). You really need to reconsider how you go about doing research and coming to conclusions, because the way you're doing it now clearly isn't working.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 14:38:59
Oh how we have professor psychologist here who uses a reverse technic to draw attention to his character. Trying to play the ''good cop''.You didn't even bother trying to establish whether the picture was faked or not. I am not sure if you actually care or not though. For you it is all about getting attention isn't it? If just one person was credulous enough to think it was real, you would have been able to crow about how people agree with you. Hence your tenuous relationship with the truth.That's the same image you posted earlier. As I said before, it's far too simple and generic of a shape to say that it's supposed to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft.I obviously did not know the pics were fake, had the pics being real then my logic would of been correct. I am wrong on this one admittedly.
Seriously, you opened this thread with a picture you found on the Internet and made the statement that, "the probability of alien existence concluded from this drawing is P=1 which is 100%" when in fact it was a fake picture created by someone as a school project. Then you posted another fake picture (possibly two). You really need to reconsider how you go about doing research and coming to conclusions, because the way you're doing it now clearly isn't working.
In my story I am in the hero of my story and you would be the villain who is out to get me. In your story , you are the hero of your story and I am the villain.
Of course I was lazy on this one with my research, of course I posted some fake pictures that at first I thought were genuine. I already admitted I was wrong on this one earlier in the thread. I removed any ammunition you had at that point so why do you continue trying to ''attack'' me?
You know you can't win right?
You know I will never give up until I reach my goal?
You know my hero of my story will always be smart enough to gain victory?
For the absence of replies and questioning is validation of the truth.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/10/2017 17:44:56
You know you can't win right?
I guess that depends on what exactly he's trying to "win" here.
Quote
You know I will never give up until I reach my goal?
Your goal being what, exactly? Proving the existence of aliens with pictures you found on the Internet?
Quote
You know my hero of my story will always be smart enough to gain victory?
Is this another case of that "I can't be wrong" syndrome you mentioned in another thread? You're not humble enough to admit that, as a fallible human being, your conclusions could potentially be wrong?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 18:24:19
Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.You know you can't win right?
I guess that depends on what exactly he's trying to "win" here.QuoteYou know I will never give up until I reach my goal?
Your goal being what, exactly? Proving the existence of aliens with pictures you found on the Internet?QuoteYou know my hero of my story will always be smart enough to gain victory?
Is this another case of that "I can't be wrong" syndrome you mentioned in another thread? You're not humble enough to admit that, as a fallible human being, your conclusions could potentially be wrong?
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 19:50:51
Nope. We ask for evidence which you invariably fail to supply. We call you out about not be able to supply evidence. You then go on about stuff you have made up about about being axioms which they patently are not. You then accuse people of being trolls. You get called out on this too. You then post some delusional stuff about how you will 'win' or how you are an 'expert' or some such. Sometimes you just start another thread. From time to time you say you a 'leaving science' and flounce. When nobody misses you, you then come back claiming you just had to let people know about it because it is so important. Invariably it is not.Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.You know you can't win right?
I guess that depends on what exactly he's trying to "win" here.QuoteYou know I will never give up until I reach my goal?
Your goal being what, exactly? Proving the existence of aliens with pictures you found on the Internet?QuoteYou know my hero of my story will always be smart enough to gain victory?
Is this another case of that "I can't be wrong" syndrome you mentioned in another thread? You're not humble enough to admit that, as a fallible human being, your conclusions could potentially be wrong?
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/10/2017 20:20:06
Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.
So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 20:34:49
The thread was over when I admitted I was wrong about the pictures because you all showed me the pics are fake where the place I got them claimed they were ancient . My mistake which I accepted as my mistake.Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.
So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?
It is a shame science can't except their mistakes hey such as an object being at rest in an inertia reference frame is not at rest and so on.
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 20:42:09
Science can accept its mistakes. Sadly you dont seem able to.The thread was over when I admitted I was wrong about the pictures because you all showed me the pics are fake where the place I got them claimed they were ancient . My mistake which I accepted as my mistake.Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.
So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?
It is a shame science can't except their mistakes hey such as an object being at rest in an inertia reference frame is not at rest and so on.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 20:46:37
That would be contradictory to my already made admittance of the mistake in this thread. My mistake is replying to you and letting you troll me. However I have nothing else better to do and the Beta blocker prevent me from getting irate. The failure will be all yours.Science can accept its mistakes. Sadly you dont seem able to.The thread was over when I admitted I was wrong about the pictures because you all showed me the pics are fake where the place I got them claimed they were ancient . My mistake which I accepted as my mistake.Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.
So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?
It is a shame science can't except their mistakes hey such as an object being at rest in an inertia reference frame is not at rest and so on.
And like I said, science so far as not accepted their mistakes. They are wrong on several things but will never admit it.
Post by: The Spoon on 31/10/2017 20:52:06
No - sciences has progressed by admitting mistakes and learning from it. Just because nobody agrees with your misreading of science does not make science wrong. It is because you do not have even a basic grounding in the subject.That would be contradictory to my already made admittance of the mistake in this thread. My mistake is replying to you and letting you troll me. However I have nothing else better to do and the Beta blocker prevent me from getting irate. The failure will be all yours.Science can accept its mistakes. Sadly you dont seem able to.The thread was over when I admitted I was wrong about the pictures because you all showed me the pics are fake where the place I got them claimed they were ancient . My mistake which I accepted as my mistake.Please do not bother speaking to me anymore, It is annoying you and your friend spoon keep trying to turn the threads into a soap and drama.
I wish you good day and will no longer respond to troll behaviour.
So what behavior would you consider to be a productive contribution to this thread?
It is a shame science can't except their mistakes hey such as an object being at rest in an inertia reference frame is not at rest and so on.
And like I said, science so far as not accepted their mistakes. They are wrong on several things but will never admit it.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 20:57:52
No - sciences has progressed by admitting mistakes and learning from it. Just because nobody agrees with your misreading of science does not make science wrong. It is because you do not have even a basic grounding in the subject.No, I have shown science to be incorrect about several things, I do not make the facts up, the facts exist. I know what I am talking about but unfortunately you can only remember what you were taught and have no idea how to put this knowledge into good use. I am sorry to inform you but I have more intellect and thinking ability than you do . Therefore I am far more clever than you.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/10/2017 20:59:50
I am sorry to inform you but I have more intellect and thinking ability than you do . Therefore I am far more clever than you.
And you know this, how?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 21:03:47
I know this by the type of conversation Mr Spoon offers.I am sorry to inform you but I have more intellect and thinking ability than you do . Therefore I am far more clever than you.
And you know this, how?
Post by: atbsphotography on 31/10/2017 21:05:09
Quote
No, I have shown science to be incorrect about several things
And these are? I'm certainly intrigued by this one
.
Thankfully I can say I learn by my mistakes, science isn't definite and if someone is wrong they do what is right to see it changed. You can do nothing more than learn and if you make mistakes learn from that mistake. I should think the science greats like Copernicus, Hawkins, Einstein ETC made mistakes and learned from them. And I'm sorry to say but they have a lot more intellect and intelligence than most of us do.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 21:09:28
And these are? I'm certainly intrigued by this oneWhere to start? Time dilation maybe or perhaps space expanding.
There is lots of errors and I have some answers to things that have no answers.
Post by: atbsphotography on 31/10/2017 21:16:47
And these are? I'm certainly intrigued by this oneWhere to start? Time dilation maybe or perhaps space expanding.
From what I can understand with regards to time dilation ( It isn't something I've actually looked into properly as of yet) It is right when it's said that when an object travelling at say 100mph would experience time in a different way to something that is at complete rest. So something travelling at the speed of light would most certainly experience time in a different way to something at a complete standstill.This is my thoughts on this like I have already said I've not looked deeper into it yet.
As for the expansion of the universe, there are a few theories to what it actually is, and whether they are right or not depends on the research to prove the theory right. If the research contradicts the theory it would be regarded as wrong, Take black holes, for instance, most of what we know about them came from Steven Hawkins and as such until proven otherwise his theories are right. Yet I've not seen anywhere someone who contradicts that.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 21:22:41
From what I can understand with regards to time dilation ( It isn't something I've actually looked into properly as of yet) It is right when it's said that when an object travelling at say 100mph would experience time in a different way to something that is at complete rest. So something travelling at the speed of light would most certainly experience time in a different way to something at a complete standstill.This is my thoughts on this like I have already said I've not looked deeper into it yet.I will first explain time dilation in realism terms. A person on the ground stationary counts time, a person in motion counts time slower than the person on the ground.
Both of them experience a different rate of counting but both of them experience the same amount of time passed.
Post by: atbsphotography on 31/10/2017 21:40:49
From what I can understand with regards to time dilation ( It isn't something I've actually looked into properly as of yet) It is right when it's said that when an object travelling at say 100mph would experience time in a different way to something that is at complete rest. So something travelling at the speed of light would most certainly experience time in a different way to something at a complete standstill.This is my thoughts on this like I have already said I've not looked deeper into it yet.I will first explain time dilation in realism << (Realistic) terms. A person on the ground stationary counts time, a person in motion counts time slower than the person on the ground.
Both of them experience a different rate of counting but both of them experience the same amount of time passed.
Isn't it the other way round, if I was to simultaneously stand stationary and be in constant acceleration at 100 mph I'm sure I would count time slower standing still than I would at a 100mph. The logic for this is the faster you are going the faster you experience time and the slower you are, in this case, stationery, you would time slower. Even though no matter what speed you are accelerating or if you are stationary, time would still be constant and would remain unchanged.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/10/2017 21:49:22
From what I can understand with regards to time dilation ( It isn't something I've actually looked into properly as of yet) It is right when it's said that when an object travelling at say 100mph would experience time in a different way to something that is at complete rest. So something travelling at the speed of light would most certainly experience time in a different way to something at a complete standstill.This is my thoughts on this like I have already said I've not looked deeper into it yet.I will first explain time dilation in realism << (Realistic) terms. A person on the ground stationary counts time, a person in motion counts time slower than the person on the ground.
Both of them experience a different rate of counting but both of them experience the same amount of time passed.
Isn't it the other way round, if I was to simultaneously stand stationary and be in constant acceleration at 100 mph I'm sure I would count time slower standing still than I would at a 100mph. The logic for this is the faster you are going the faster you experience time and the slower you are, in this case, stationery, you would time slower. Even though no matter what speed you are accelerating or if you are stationary, time would still be constant and would remain unchanged.
Quote
According to special relativity, the rate of a clock is greatest according to an observer who is at rest with respect to the clock. In a frame of reference in which the clock is not at rest, the clock runs more slowly, as expressed by the Lorentz factor.
The clock in motion counts slower than the clock at rest. So the faster you go the slower the count of the clock, but time passes constant and equally proportional for all things. Because time is a quantifiable past measurement directly proportional to the amount of history.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/10/2017 22:34:36
I know this by the type of conversation Mr Spoon offers.
Care to offer some testable evidence of that claim?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 13:09:07
NopeI know this by the type of conversation Mr Spoon offers.
Care to offer
Post by: Kryptid on 01/11/2017 14:25:04
Nope
I didn't think so. Making empty claims as usual.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/11/2017 15:18:33
Just avoiding the drama and sticking to science talk.Nope
I didn't think so. Making empty claims as usual.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/11/2017 20:14:00
Just avoiding the drama and sticking to science talk.
Good, because "I'm smarter than you!" is a very childish retort in a debate.