0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The difference them is that pseudoscience relies on "reason" and "logic" whereas science depends on validation, modification and rejection of theories.
In question are -
time dilation - a change in any output of any arbitrary time device has no effect on time.space time - not observed, time is ageless in and of a space.SR - uses the time dilation calculation in its own calculation, expanding space - space can not be observed as moving.the big bang - a prequel, and also said space expanding in the theory making it null and void
1. First and foremost of these traits is that [they] work in almost total isolation from their colleagues ... isolation in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers.2. The pseudoscientist submits his or her work not to bona fide experts in the field but to the general public, though the general public is not qualified to evaluate it.3. The pseudoscientist speaks through organizations he or she has founded, thus avoiding genuine peer review and conveying an aura of professional expertise.4. The pseudoscientist considers himself or herself to be a genius (most likely misunderstood and persecuted).5. The pseudoscientist regards colleagues to be, almost without exception, "blockheads".6. The pseudoscientist compares himself to Galileo, Bruno, Pasteur, or other well-known, well-respected scientists whose work met initial hostility and resistance. The pseudoscientist repeatedly cites comparisons between his or her view and historical cases of persecution of true genius, which was initially misunderstood. (This functions as a form of fallacy of positioning).7. The pseudoscientist exhibits a strong compulsion to focus criticism on the greatest scientists and/or best-established theories of the day.8. The pseudoscientist tends to write in a complex jargon often making use of phrases, terms and locutions he or she has coined. This rhetoric can be quite persuasive, creating a beautifully crafted jigsaw puzzle of assertions. Clever use of circular reasoning, equivocations, and other persuasive tricks makes it difficult to refute pseudoscience by logic and authentic scientific evidence.
In reading several topics on various things over several years , and countless internet forum time , I have come to a concern that psuedo science is being quoted and stated to be facts and true.
time dilation - a change in any output of any arbitrary time device has no effect on time.
space time - not observed, time is ageless in and of a space.
SR - uses the time dilation calculation in its own calculation,
expanding space - space can not be observed as moving.
the big bang - a prequel, and also said space expanding in the theory making it null and void
These are just a few off the top of my head.
Please define a non-arbitrary clock. And note that the theoretical equations of relativity do not specify what sort of clock you can use. It just happens, remarkably, that if you use an atomic closk (that was invented a long time after Einstein's publications on relativity) you get the answer Einstein predicted. Sheer luck? Not entirely, because it doesn't seem to matter whether you use a rubidium, caesium or krypton clock.
This forum is not a soap box to stand on and deride any and every scientific theory out there. The New Theories section is here to propose and discuss alternative theories, one at a time.ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!I suggest to anyone who has questions about why/how a specific theory was formulated, and what evidence supports or challenges that theory: start a thread about a particular theory and stay on topic!Thank you.
ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!
I have asked for evidence to show how an arbitrary clock such as the Caesium clock can in any way effect time itself.
Quote from: chiralSPO on 12/05/2015 21:46:22This forum is not a soap box to stand on and deride any and every scientific theory out there. The New Theories section is here to propose and discuss alternative theories, one at a time.ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!I suggest to anyone who has questions about why/how a specific theory was formulated, and what evidence supports or challenges that theory: start a thread about a particular theory and stay on topic!Thank you.Oh no, I will banned rather quickly no doubt now you are a moderator. My theory is not a theory about any specific subject, it is a theory that science persists in attributing content as fact when science can not back it up with solid evidence.I have asked for evidence to show how an arbitrary clock such as the Caesium clock can in any way effect time itself.
I rest my case , again you defend Psuedo science that does not have hard evidence. You are convinced the things I mention are real, when they have no evidence.
Quotetime dilation - a change in any output of any arbitrary time device has no effect on time.That may well be true, but it depends on what you mean by "time". Einstein uses a kind of time in his model which is quite different from what you have in mind.
Moving on , I ask for evidence of a space-time when space is obviously immortal.
Quote from: chiralSPO on 12/05/2015 21:46:22ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!I'm afraid we are back to TB's original post in which it is obvious he does not understand the basic measurement of the passage of time aka time. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=54560.0If we take this statement:Quote from: Thebox on 12/05/2015 22:08:51I have asked for evidence to show how an arbitrary clock such as the Caesium clock can in any way effect time itself. We all know, and he knows, that it is impossible to provide evidence for something which does not happen. A caesium clock DOES NOT affect time, never has, never does, never will. It doesn't even affect a timing dilation. If 2 cars travel from the same point to the same destination via 2 different routes, no one in their right mind would suggest that the odometers are responsible for the difference in distance measurement, anyone who did would be considered an idiot making inane comments. This has been covered in yet another Box post.The fundamental problem is TB's lack of understanding of any basic concept of physics and his insistence on his own theories and definitions, any explanation is automatically dismissed, without being fully understood. Even schoolchildren learning physics would not make errors of this magnitude. It is impossible to explain anything to him because of this lack of understanding and his troll like behaviour. I say troll like, because I am coming to the conclusion that this behaviour is deliberate and intended to disrupt and occupy resources of this forum. I can quite understand why he has been banned from other forums, and I have reason to believe he was considered a troll in those.
The title alone suggests it, science have had me arguing about an arbitrary change of a timing keeper for several years by a definition of suggestive content. All forums have argued a time dilation occurs, I have argued it does not because the Caesium clock is arbitrary , no different to a wall clock.It is their mistake in mixing up time and an arbitrary time keeper, and also my mistake for thinking the reality of time and not considering you were simply arguing about a change in arbitrary time/timing.Thank you Colin for understanding and agreeing with me.
If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate, but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time" or somehow goes slower, then that is your model. I think one could put this model to good use, but it is less elegant and more difficult to use and interpret, and ultimately makes the same predictions (if used correctly). So good luck convincing anyone to use this model.
''If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate''Time itself does not exist unless by arbitrary use. It is impossible to prove time exists other than arbitrary use and the existence of matter.''but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time''Yes arbitrary time is dependent to the matter/object or observer. And dependent to gravitational flux.and this is a paradox that gives the same answers, arbitrary time is the timing of something.