• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

As for the moon hoax, this video clip is enough to show how the first Apollo moon mission was a Hollywood-like production: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRrfSq_A_wk

A real lunar module would have momentum and even with very powerful steering thrusters it would not be possible to stop the rotations instantaneously like that.
 
Anders Lindman said:
A second is the measurement of the rate of change in the now. Time as a dimension is a redundant concept.
Click to expand...

Special pleading. Meters are a measurement of the rate of change in the here.

It doesn't change the fact that space is three dimensions. And when you consider time to be a dimension in your equations, they work. When you don't, they don't. So that's pretty good evidence that you, Anders, are wrong.

The past is information in the now.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make sense.

The amount of information is always increasing which creates the arrow of time. So the past can exist without time being a dimension. The universe can be a quantum computation of some kind. The universal quantum state contains both space, energy and matter and also the information about the past.
Click to expand...

Word salad. Come back when you have something rational to say.
 
JayUtah said:
But it's dangerous imo to cling to ideas too much based on only what authorities have told us.

You've cited several authorities in support of your beliefs. What makes your authorities so much more credible than someone else's?

Your approach doesn't seem more reliable. I would argue that it's dangerous to believe in stuff you just make up and don't really think about.
Click to expand...

Jay, would you mind using the quote function properly ? It's hard to follow your posts.
 
Belz... said:
Special pleading. Meters are a measurement of the rate of change in the here.

It doesn't change the fact that space is three dimensions. And when you consider time to be a dimension in your equations, they work. When you don't, they don't. So that's pretty good evidence that you, Anders, are wrong.
Click to expand...

I take it you mean meters as a measurement of distance. Yes, the 3 dimensions of space are of course real. Past and future are also real, but the question is how to accurately describe time. If we could move in the direction of time away from the now, then I would say that time is kind of a dimension, but I doubt that it's possible to do that.

The 3 dimensions of space can be verified directly through our everyday experience of reality. Time as a dimension is only a construct that may or may not reflect reality accurately.

We can roughly measure time in our own minds, such as "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi..." and that is a measurement that doesn't involve measuring lengths.

Julian Barbour has described how the concept of time as a 4th dimension is redundant:

"Where does the time go? Independent physicist Barbour presents an unusual alternate to the standard way of viewing the four-dimensional universe (three spatial dimensions and time), beginning with how our perception of time is formed. Time, he says, does not exist apart from events: the motions of the sun and the stars, the mechanical movement of a clock." -- http://www.amazon.com/End-Time-Next...5925/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317895954&sr=8-1
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

There are scientists who seriously have started thinking about the universe as being purely a process of information, that information is more fundamental than energy and matter.

Take a DVD for example. It doesn't contain actual time, yet it can be played and then time is experienced. That's not an accurate analogy for how the universe works but it shows kind of how time may be a result of information processing in the now.
 
You live in a sad, paranoid little world, Anders, that appears to be mostly in your mind.
 
Anders Lindman said:
As the quote I posted from Wikipedia said, it was not at all self-evident. Here it is again:

<snipped repost of the item which I showed to Anders in the first place>

If it really was self-evident, then the dangers would have been recognized already in 1895, instead of not being 'fully appreciated' by scientists until after the second world war.
Click to expand...

It was self-evident (or, if you prefer, "fully appreciated") by the period you were talking about - post WW2 - precisely because of incidents like those you quoted. The destructive power of atomic bombs was obvious, but so too was the harm caused by exposure to their radiation and when a scientist working with radioactive materials managed to kill himself by exposure to a burst of radiation lasting only moments, it was absolutely clear that ionising radiation was directly harmful.

Can you come up with examples of the massive propaganda campaign against nuclear energy that you claim then existed? I predict not.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Your prediction fails: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQGdGeP3DT8
Click to expand...

Really? That film isn't anti nuclear propaganda.

Granted, it does show a couple of examples of "anti" material, but a small ad in the newspaper saying "MOVE TO THE COUNTRY! Be Safe FROM ATOMIC ATTACK Live in WINDERMERE ACRES" isn't a massive campaign of anti nuclear propaganda however much you want it to be. It's a feeble attempt to sell real estate that's too far out of town to be valuable.

Got anything better?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Really? That film isn't anti nuclear propaganda.

Granted, it does show a couple of examples of "anti" material, but a small ad in the newspaper saying "MOVE TO THE COUNTRY! Be Safe FROM ATOMIC ATTACK Live in WINDERMERE ACRES" isn't a massive campaign of anti nuclear propaganda however much you want it to be. It's a feeble attempt to sell real estate that's too far out of town to be valuable.

Got anything better?
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oyZP9iWNHU
 
Anders Lindman said:
As for the moon hoax, this video clip is enough to show how the first Apollo moon mission was a Hollywood-like production: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRrfSq_A_wk

A real lunar module would have momentum and even with very powerful steering thrusters it would not be possible to stop the rotations instantaneously like that.
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, you have no idea how it should behave and therefore are not qualified to reach this conclusion.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I take it you mean meters as a measurement of distance. Yes, the 3 dimensions of space are of course real. Past and future are also real, but the question is how to accurately describe time.
Click to expand...

If that's the question, then the fact that relativity equations accurately predict and model how things work should be enough for you.

If we could move in the direction of time away from the now, then I would say that time is kind of a dimension, but I doubt that it's possible to do that.
Click to expand...

If we could move in the direction of space away from the here, then I would say that space is a kind of a dimension, but I doubt that it's possible to do that.

Do you see what I mean ?

There are scientists who seriously have started thinking about the universe as being purely a process of information, that information is more fundamental than energy and matter.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, and it's a very elegant way of looking at things. But it doesn't change the observed behaviours of objects, which much be modeled.
 
Belz... said:
If we could move in the direction of space away from the here, then I would say that space is a kind of a dimension, but I doubt that it's possible to do that.

Do you see what I mean ?
Click to expand...

Not really. Space is a 3-dimensional, well, space. Space exists as a direct experience. Neither the past nor the future exist as a direct experience.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not really. Space is a 3-dimensional, well, space. Space exists as a direct experience. Neither the past nor the future exist as a direct experience.
Click to expand...

The past doesn't currently exist as a direct experience because you're not there now. You could say the same for major cities all over the world - they don't exist as a direct experience because you're not there now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom