New surprises from Jupiter and Saturn

jupiter
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The latest data sent back by the Juno and Cassini spacecraft from giant gas planets Jupiter and Saturn have challenged a lot of current theories about how planets in our solar system form and behave.

The detailed magnetic and gravity data have been "invaluable but also confounding," said David Stevenson from Caltech, who will present an update of both missions this week at the 2019 American Physical Society March Meeting in Boston. He will also participate in a press conference describing the work. Information for logging on to watch and ask questions remotely is included at the end of this news release.

"Although there are puzzles yet to be explained, this is already clarifying some of our ideas about how planets form, how they make magnetic fields and how the winds blow," Stevenson said.

Cassini orbited Saturn for 13 years before its dramatic final dive into the planet's interior in 2017, while Juno has been orbiting Jupiter for two and a half years.

Juno's success as a mission to Jupiter is a tribute to innovative design. Its instruments are powered by solar energy alone and protected so as to withstand the fierce radiation environment.

Stevenson says the inclusion of a microwave sensor on Juno was a good decision.

"Using microwaves to figure out the deep atmosphere was the right, but unconventional, choice," he said. The microwave data have surprised the scientists, in particular by showing that the atmosphere is evenly mixed, something conventional theories did not predict.

Video of Jupiter's magnetic field. Credit: Caltech

"Any explanation for this has to be unorthodox," Stevenson said.

Researchers are exploring weather events concentrating significant amounts of ice, liquids and gas in different parts of the atmosphere as possible explanations, but the matter is far from sealed.

Other instruments on board Juno, gravity and magnetic sensors, have also sent back perplexing data. The magnetic field has spots (regions of anomalously high or low ) and also a striking difference between the northern and southern hemispheres.

"It's unlike anything we have seen before," Stevenson said.

The have confirmed that in the midst of Jupiter, which is at least 90 percent hydrogen and helium by mass, there are heavier elements amounting to more than 10 times the mass of Earth. However, they are not concentrated in a core but are mixed in with the hydrogen above, most of which is in the form of a metallic liquid.

The data has provided rich information about the outer parts of both Jupiter and Saturn. The abundance of in these regions is still uncertain, but the outer layers play a larger-than-expected role in the generation of the two planets' magnetic fields. Experiments mimicking the gas planets' pressures and temperatures are now needed to help the scientists understand the processes that are going on.

For Stevenson, who has studied gas giants for 40 years, the puzzles are the hallmark of a good mission.

"A successful mission is one that surprises us. Science would be boring if it merely confirmed what we previously thought," he said.


Explore further

Juno mission scientists discuss Jupiter's mysteries

More information: The 2019 APS March Meeting presentation "What Juno and Cassini have told us about Giant Planet interiors," by David Stevenson, will take place Wednesday, March 6, at 2:30 p.m. in room 258C of the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. Abstract: meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR19/Session/P62.1
Citation: New surprises from Jupiter and Saturn (2019, March 6) retrieved 23 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-jupiter-saturn.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1010 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 06, 2019
Wasn't there a recent phys.org article posted. about a similar unexpected disparity between the Earth's North & South Magnetic Poles fields?

Mar 06, 2019
Maybe some of the variations in the magnetic readings are due to those metallic hydrogen compounds that surely must have properties that explain the results.

Mar 07, 2019
""A successful mission is one that surprises us. Science would be boring if it merely confirmed what we previously thought," he said."

Absolutely. And it's a pity that so many commentators in the physorg phorums don't want to read of any "surprises" in Physics or having to learn anything new, and much prefer to keep the status quo as previously thought. Science is continuously changing and evolving - which is anathema to those who dislike changes that could falsify parts of GR/SR,
Isn't that right, rrwilliejoe?

Mar 07, 2019
List some "surprises in physics" that falsify any part of either GR or SR.

Mar 07, 2019
- which is anathema to those who dislike changes that could falsify parts of GR/SR,


Which have been tested multiple times, and have always passed. So what are you talking about?

Mar 07, 2019
A Moment in Time
- which is anathema to those who dislike changes that could falsify parts of GR/SR,


Castrogiovanni> Which have been tested multiple times, and have always passed. So what are you talking about?

Careful, TrollianCastrogiovanni - you know what comes after "So what are you talking about? "

Mar 07, 2019
A Moment in Time
- which is anathema to those who dislike changes that could falsify parts of GR/SR,


Castrogiovanni> Which have been tested multiple times, and have always passed. So what are you talking about?

Careful, TrollianCastrogiovanni - you know what comes after "So what are you talking about? "


Have you ever posted anything scientific or intelligible?

Mar 07, 2019
A Moment in Time

Have you ever posted anything scientific or intelligible?
A Moment in Time
- which is anathema to those who dislike changes that could falsify parts of GR/SR,

Castrogiovanni> Which have been tested multiple times, and have always passed. So what are you talking about?

Careful, TrollianCastroGiovanni - you know what comes after "So what are you talking about? "

Have you ever posted anything scientific or intelligible?

If
TrollianCastroGiovanni
you had not said, "So what are you talking about?
you
had rephrased this TOXIC sentence of yours
it would not have the undertones
all your sentences have
that in their finality
burst out into their fullness of their intended vocabulary
we've been telling you about it for years
but
do you listen
Not on your Nellie


Mar 07, 2019
Toxicity in textural scribing
If
TrollianCastroGiovanni
you had not said, "So what are you talking about?
you
had rephrased this TOXIC sentence of yours
it would not have the undertones
all your sentences have
that in their finality
burst out into their fullness of their intended vocabulary
we've been telling you about it for years
but
do you listen
Not on your Nellie

TrollianCastroGiovanni, your simple innocuous sentence
"So what are you talking about? "
Is
the root of your dilemma
so
why perpetuate it
instead
think about your inky textural scribing
and
do not think of your TOXIC phrase
"So what are you talking about?"
because, TrollianCastroGiovanni
your simple sentence pans out
in an endless variety of toxic apparitions
The likes of which, even now still do not bear thinking on

Mar 07, 2019
"Is
the root of your dilemma"

The poetic nail on the head. The people who think theoretical constructs are real (such as "time" being affected by velocity), invisible matter exists, matter can infinitely self compress and persistent echoes travel at the speed of light...yet remain for the miguided to misdiagnose their source....these people are the first to claim their beliefs are "science".

"Have you ever posted anything scientific or intelligible?"

I hope I never do ( and by extension the posters here worthy of respect never do either) by this persons standards. All it would mean is that I have exited reality in favor of the preferred mathematical mass delusion known as mainstream theoretical astrophysics.


Mar 07, 2019
Consarn those wacky scientists and mathematicians


Worry not my friend. Scientists will continue to utilize these mathematical and theoretical constructs you vehemently oppose in order to invent things like cell phones and computers which you rely so heavily upon. Their natural desire to question and understand the universe around them will ever benefit you, despite the fact that you curse them for doing so.

Mar 07, 2019
The people who think theoretical constructs are real (such as "time" being affected by velocity),


No, you mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that velocity affects time.

Mar 07, 2019
The people who think theoretical constructs are real (such as "time" being affected by velocity),


No, you mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that velocity affects time.

LMAO.
That's what he said, as his boyfriend tries to pummel the stupid out of his ass.
Castratedgiovassi is a "special" sock puppet of Da Schitts. This is him, completing the transformation to be his boyfriends' biatch.

Mar 07, 2019
The people who think theoretical constructs are real (such as "time" being affected by velocity),


No, you mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that velocity affects time.

LMAO.
That's what he said, as his boyfriend tries to pummel the stupid out of his ass.
Castratedgiovassi is a "special" sock puppet of Da Schitts. This is him, completing the transformation to be his boyfriends' biatch.


Are you as stupid as you appear to be? Obviously. I said incontrovertible proof, and that is what they have. Want the links? Science is obviously not your strong suit.

Mar 07, 2019

"No, you mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that velocity affects time. "

I actually mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that motion affects a devices ability to measure time who misinterpret that effect as time itself "slowing". One is reality, the other is a perspective only shared by those who do not deal in it.

"Worry not my friend."

I am not the least bit worried chum.

"Scientists will continue to utilize these mathematical and theoretical constructs you vehemently oppose "

Utilize? So far the only "use" we hear about is how the constructs have been employed to invent imaginary stopgaps to plug the mammoth holes that keep developing in gravity theory, but worry not chum, fantasy land is losing acreage every day.

" invent things like cell phones and computers which you rely so heavily upon. "

You are extremely confused about which scientists do what...but it's OK, you are consistent.

Mar 07, 2019
Antigoracle, considering all the avatars to choose from
The people who think theoretical constructs are real (such as "time" being affected by velocity),

No, you mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that velocity affects time.

Antigoracle> LMAO.
That's what he said, as his boyfriend tries to pummel the stupid out of his ass.
Castratedgiovassi is a "special" sock puppet of Da Schitts. This is him, completing the transformation to be his boyfriends' biatch.

Antigoracle, when considering the colourfull side of phys.org
Whata a nameth to chooseth, Castrogiovanni
considering all its unwelcome mutations, Castratedgiovassi
you would have thought
TrollianCastroGiovanni
coming from the rough streets sparking clogs as a lad
this crass nature
would be second nature
to TrollianCastroGiovanni
but
Apparently, old age is befuddling the old chap!

Mar 07, 2019
As we cross this distance through the vacuum between Earth and Saturn

Chronometers
all work
on the principle of the speed of light
light is not affected by the speed of the emitter
in this case the emitter is our chronometer
so
as we move our chronometer
the frequency changes
and
with it
the 10billion Hz
as this is simply walking across the room
and
it's frequency changes with the acceleration of gravity
Remember the space boffins slow orbital satellitic chronometers in orbit because of velocity and gravity
As we fly to Saturn
this is what is taking place inside our chronometer
the frequency changes with velocity and acceleration
nothing what so ever to with time
Purely a simple A-Level physics problem in Doppler shift to solve!

Mar 07, 2019
I actually mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that motion affects a devices ability to measure time who misinterpret that effect as time itself "slowing". One is reality, the other is a perspective only shared by those who do not deal in it.


Utter rubbish. How do they manage to predict it before it happens? You appear to be another poster with little scientific knowledge. Please link to the scientific literature to show how this is happening. You are making things up.


Mar 07, 2019
the frequency changes with velocity and acceleration
nothing what so ever to with time
Purely a simple A-Level physics problem in Doppler shift to solve!


Link to the scientific paper where this is asserted. otherwise you too are making up nonsense.

Mar 07, 2019
Consarn those wacky scientists and mathematicians


Worry not my friend. Scientists will continue to utilize these mathematical and theoretical constructs you vehemently oppose in order to invent things like cell phones and computers which you rely so heavily upon. Their natural desire to question and understand the universe around them will ever benefit you, despite the fact that you curse them for doing so.
says Bojingles

Yes indeed. Scientists will continue to blah blah blah. These utilisations of whatever they wish to utilise is not opposed by opposers. The only things that bona fide opposers favour opposing are theoretical constructs that have no direct credible evidence that may/could lead to the desired credible evidence that may/could establish such credible evidence as unchanging and unchangeable FACT.
Such as, eg, the human mind's concept of Time, which is still a Theoretical construct whose PHYSICAL existence has still not been validated or discerned

Mar 07, 2019
List some "surprises in physics" that falsify any part of either GR or SR.

Those would be a REAL surprise... :-)

Mar 07, 2019
A Moment in Time
- which is anathema to those who dislike changes that could falsify parts of GR/SR,


Castrogiovanni> Which have been tested multiple times, and have always passed. So what are you talking about?

Careful, TrollianCastrogiovanni - you know what comes after "So what are you talking about? "

Willis...

Mar 07, 2019
Actually, calling it the Doppler effect is incorrect. The actual Doppler effect is due to the difference in velocity between the medium in which a wave is being transmitted and the transmitter or receiver of the wave. Light doesn't work like this.

The speed of light is a constant for all observers in all states of motion, and there is no medium that transmits light. As a result of this, since the speed of light cannot change, and the momentum can, it is the momentum of light that changes with relative approach or recession of the source to or from the observer. Now, if the momentum changes, then the energy necessarily must change; and if the energy must change, so must the frequency, And it does; we can measure it. Radar speed guns used by the police measure it every day.

[contd]

Mar 07, 2019
[contd]
This can be interpreted various ways, and each of them is correct according to experiment. You can say it's time dilation causing the light to appear to be a different frequency in the frames of the emitter and observer. You can say it's length contraction for the same reason of frame-to-frame transforms. You can say it's due to the energy-momentum tensor in GRT being different in the different frames (and this allows you to note that although the energy changes from one frame to another, you can make a transform for it, though this is mathematically unwieldy). You get the same amount and sign of frequency transformation any way you do it. Note that you can apply only one transform in a given calculation; applying two will give erroneous results. If you want to use another transform, start over.

So don't call it "the Doppler effect" because it ain't.

Mar 07, 2019
I actually mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that motion affects a devices ability to measure time who misinterpret that effect as time itself "slowing". One is reality, the other is a perspective only shared by those who do not deal in it.

Please explain when a moving body emits a photon, what parameter is changing to preserve the speed of light? You fall in the category of people on here who refuse to deal in established science and math, and instead posit your opinions as fact. Excited to hear your solution to this problem.

imaginary stopgaps to plug the mammoth holes that keep developing in gravity theory
Consistent in pointing out BS


Ahh yes, the gravity denier. You and a handful of basement dwellers know so much more about physics than physicists. And the Earth is flat too of course.

Mar 07, 2019
So, @SEU, scientists all (not not some of them but all of them) lie?

You cannot possibly be serious and typing this on a computer connected to the Internet.

Mar 07, 2019
Finally - Light at the end of the tunnel
the frequency changes with velocity and acceleration
nothing to do with time
Purely a simple A-Level physics problem in Doppler shift to solve

Link to the scientific paper where this is asserted otherwise you too are making up nonsense

To think, TrollianCastroGiovanni
it has taken all these unfolding events
to
realise
the simplicity of the nature of measurement
all those sleepless nights
all the headaches
all the obscenities
for what
because
the laws governing frequency acceleration and motion
do not change
have not changed
its taken you a long time, TrollianCastroGiovanni
but
you have come round in the end
if only you had come round sooner
to the fact chronometers only measure acceleration and velocity
You would be in a better place
but, TrollianCastroGiovanni
This is how the cookie crumbles when you're in the naughty box, TrollianCastroGiovanni
Time is ethereal, just memories in the mind

Mar 07, 2019
"Utter rubbish. How do they manage to predict it before it happens?"

Um....they noticed that every single device keeping time "moved" slower when in motion? So they knew it would happen every time?
" You appear to be another poster with little scientific knowledge."

Well, I know that one second takes exactly one second to pass unless the clock is moving, then, for that moving clock, one second takes longer....that does not mean that "time" slowed, just the one clock....welcome to the reality of time.
" Please link to the scientific literature to show how this is happening. You are making things up."

Nope, every single experiment definitely shows that any device used to measure time as we know it on earth keeps a "different" time when the device is in motion....at no point in any reality does this change how long a second is...sorry.

At kittykat, I don't deny gravity exists. I am a theory denier....and with how shredded up that one is getting, understandably so.


Mar 07, 2019
The people who think theoretical constructs are real (such as "time" being affected by velocity),


you mean the people who have incontrovertible evidence that velocity affects time.

says castrojohnny

TIME IS ONLY A THEORY THAT HAS NO BASIS AT ALL AS A PHYSICAL DIMENSIONAL COMMODITY, and which has no bearing on length, height, width and Space.
VELOCITY, ALTITUDE and DIRECTION or ORIENTATION (VADO) affects MASS; Gravity also affects MASS. VADO may affect Events/Actions/Happenings/Occurrences. Such EVENTS may overlap and continue past or before their designated span, as measured by clocks.
The Theory of Spacetime is only a mathematical construct with no evidence that it exists. All actual devices such as GPS are based on measurements of Events and VADO within SPACE. That Space could be anywhere on a planet or somewhere in the Universe. It is all relative.

What is Time made of? If it is physical, then the senses should be able to detect it. Does it have Mass?

Mar 07, 2019
What is Time made of?
Same thing as distance. Looks like you don't "believe in" distance either.

Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuuuuuhhhhh.

Dance, troll. Amuse us all. Caper troll. No one will confuse your blurting with anything rational.

Ever try your "there is no time" defense for a radar speeding ticket?

I'd pay to watch that.

Mar 07, 2019
So, @SEU, scientists all (not not some of them but all of them) lie?

You cannot possibly be serious and typing this on a computer connected to the Internet.


I never said that ALL scientists lie. Why do you insist on telling LIES about me and other commentators. You are not proving your position by telling lies, and you only prove what a scumbag you really are - in triewth.
Many of them scientists are involved in discovering of Truth and actual Facts - not theoretical bunny farts to disseminate to the suckers such as you. Those scientists who choose to disseminate bunny farts to such as YOU, are finding willing subjects - and they KNOW it.
LOL

Mar 07, 2019
OK, so you said most of them do. Same question.

Major hint: it's not like 5 physicists. It's like 100,000 and I'm being very conservative; it's probably more like millions.

Mar 07, 2019
What is Time made of?
Same thing as distance. Looks like you don't "believe in" distance either.

Dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuuuuuhhhhh.

Dance, troll. Amuse us all. Caper troll. No one will confuse your blurting with anything rational.

Ever try your "there is no time" defense for a radar speeding ticket?

I'd pay to watch that.


Distance is relative to Height, Length and Width and Space.

Answer the question, scumbag. What is time made of?
Don't obfuscate, evade, and dismiss the question with your retarded comebacks such as the above.

Mar 07, 2019
Does it matter what it's relative to if you have to reach it... or walk it? Does it matter if I just count steps or take a ruler along?

Just askin'.

Like I said, dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuuuuhhhhh.

Time exists. We can see it. It affects all matter and energy. Even if we measure it with our low accuracy human senses it exists.

You are wrong and worming and squirming to try to avoid admitting it. We've seen lots of trolls like you. You are a class, and it's a rejected class by most rational people.

The ones who don't reject it are the failed philosophers.

Mar 07, 2019
Does it matter what it's relative to if you have to reach it... or walk it? Does it matter if I just count steps or take a ruler along?

Just askin'.

Like I said, dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuuuuhhhhh.

Time exists. We can see it. It affects all matter and energy. Even if we measure it with our low accuracy human senses it exists.

You are wrong and worming and squirming to try to avoid admitting it. We've seen lots of trolls like you. You are a class, and it's a rejected class by most rational people.

The ones who don't reject it are the failed philosophers.


Answer the question, dummy. What is time made of?

Mar 07, 2019
A Moment in Time

We are simply, protons and electrons occupying this vacuum
moving through this vacuum

A sad but fitting epitaph
time does not exist
except in the mind
in memories
that fragrant scent
that brush of hair in the wind
that laughter on the stairs
that tantalising music
Time, just memories in The Mind

Mar 07, 2019
Answer the question, dummy. What is time made of?

The same thing as space.

The same thing as space.

The same thing as space.

Need me to say it again?

We can transform them into one another. Space in one frame becomes time in another, and vice versa.

And you forgot the particle decay times, because you don't understand particle decay either, as evidenced by the fact you don't understand half-life.

You can run, squirt ink, lie, cheat and steal, but you can't get out of the way of that.

Mar 07, 2019
Does it matter what it's relative to if you have to reach it... or walk it? Does it matter if I just count steps or take a ruler along?

Just askin'.

Like I said, dumb da dumb dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb duuuuuuhhhhh.

Time exists. We can see it. It affects all matter and energy. Even if we measure it with our low accuracy human senses it exists.

You are wrong and worming and squirming to try to avoid admitting it. We've seen lots of trolls like you. You are a class, and it's a rejected class by most rational people.

The ones who don't reject it are the failed philosophers.


Answer the question, dummy. What is time made of?

The same thing as space.

The same thing as space.

The same thing as space.

Need me to say it again?


Wrong again. You're obfuscating as usual. Answer the question, dummy. What is time made of?

Mar 07, 2019
Time is a dimension.

Just like the 3 space dimensions.

What's a dimension? That's philosophy. This is a physics form.

Operational definition: a thing we can measure. That's a dimension.

But you wouldn't know enough math to understand that since you have forgotten how to solve

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Mar 07, 2019
"What is Time made of?
Same thing as distance."

Both are finite systems of incremental measurements that humanity "made up" as tools to better understand the physical world and it's processes. The absence of either one from a persons life will not change one fundamental aspect of their existence. What would change is how accurately they could describe said existence, but all of the events that make a "life" will still happen in the same sequence they would have whether anyone is counting the time between events or the distance between them.

Ever wake up with many things to accomplish that must happen in a sequence but you have total discretion how fast you work? Gotta love those days when time means nothing....

Time is not the same "thing" as space, anymore than "angry" is the same thing as a stab wound. One is tangible, the other is pliable and a man made construct.

Mar 07, 2019
Here's a mathematical definition of time:

d = v/t
Rearranging,
t = v/d

There ya go, fully qualified physical definition based on how much distance things achieve from the observer to the observed over a specified time based on what speed they're going and how long they went that speed, and a reverse definition based on how fast they were going and how long they did.

Simple math stuff, well beyond your second-grade math capabilities.

Mar 07, 2019
A Moment in Time

Time
when you are late for work
when your early to home
our mind
has a powerful trick
as we get up and brush our teeth
and
go through the morning ritual
do you not get a deja-vu
you have done this before
as you drive down the road
did you lock the door
your mind from the moment you wake up
is on autopilot
because it remembers each step
you did the previous days
your mind
is conjuring up these events we call time
because
that is why you have accidents to the office
your mind remembers all you did yesterday
as now it is on autopilot
effectively your mind is asleep carrying out a series of duplicate events
in the windmills of its mind

Time, just memories in The Mind

Mar 07, 2019
"What is Time made of?
Same thing as distance."

Both are finite systems of incremental measurements that humanity "made up" as tools to better understand the physical world and it's processes. The absence of either one from a persons life will not change one fundamental aspect of their existence. What would change is how accurately they could describe said existence, but all of the events that make a "life" will still happen in the same sequence they would have whether anyone is counting the time between events or the distance between them.

Ever wake up with many things to accomplish that must happen in a sequence but you have total discretion how fast you work? Gotta love those days when time means nothing....

Time is not the same "thing" as space, anymore than "angry" is the same thing as a stab wound. One is tangible, the other is pliable and a man made construct.
says theredpill

Precisely.

Mar 07, 2019
Here's a mathematical definition of time:

d = v/t
Rearranging,
t = v/d

There ya go, fully qualified physical definition based on how much distance things achieve from the observer to the observed over a specified time based on what speed they're going and how long they went that speed, and a reverse definition based on how fast they were going and how long they did.

Simple math stuff, well beyond your second-grade math capabilities.


Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

Mar 07, 2019
@SEU runz away whining and screaming from

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

How can you pontificate, prevaricate, and piss and moan about physics when you can't even do math?

Galileo and Kepler proved math works. What are you, an idiot? Halley proved it by correctly predicting the return of the comet named for him.

I own you, hair to toenails, and the fingernails with snot on them between. Bring it troll.

Mar 07, 2019
@SEU runz away whining and screaming from

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

How can you pontificate, prevaricate, and piss and moan about physics when you can't even do math?

Galileo and Kepler proved math works. What are you, an idiot? Halley proved it by correctly predicting the return of the comet named for him.

I own you, hair to toenails, and the fingernails with snot on them between. Bring it troll.


Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

Mar 07, 2019
Since you keep asking the same question, I keep giving the same answer: what is distance?

First you have to comprehend that distance is dimension, and there isn't any absolute up, down, right, left, closer or further except from where you're watching.

Then you have to notice that all of these change over time when something moves.

Since you don't seem clear on these concepts, you are ignoring reality, and no one will accept your philosophy as anything rational.

Which is what I said.

There's no movement without time, due cred for @Whyde for noting it in this thread.

Mar 07, 2019
Since you keep asking the same question, I keep giving the same answer: what is distance?

First you have to comprehend that distance is dimension, and there isn't any absolute up, down, right, left, closer or further except from where you're watching.

Then you have to notice that all of these change over time when something moves.

Since you don't seem clear on these concepts, you are ignoring reality, and no one will accept your philosophy as anything rational.

Which is what I said.

There's no movement without time, due cred for @Whyde for noting it in this thread.


Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
SEU
TrollianDaSchneib, is enamoured in that he thinks time is a physical entity
the fact is time only exist in the mind
the only physicality in our mind is its cellular structure
all that we see, the rockets, the moon, Saturn, all the planets
exist in our minds and so does time
but
unlike all we see around us that exist outside our mind
time only exists in our minds
TrollianDaSchneib does not need to worry so
concerning time
as
it only exists in our mind
it has no physical structure
because
There is no limit to what our minds are capable of imagining

Mar 07, 2019
Since I have three dimensions and you have only one, it is for me to ask you, what is distance made of that you have to reach across it or walk it first.

Whatever answer you come up with, it will be the same answer to your question. And it will almost certainly be wrong since you are innumerate and think there's no such thing as measurement.

That'll be popular at the meat counter where they measure things and it costs you money.

Ready to try fighting those radar speeding tickets because there is no time?

Just askin'.

Mar 07, 2019
by the by SEU, you dodged the bullet last night
just bear that in mind

Mar 07, 2019
SEU
TrollianDaSchneib, is enamoured in that he thinks time is a physical entity
the fact is time only exist in the mind
the only physicality in our mind is its cellular structure
all that we see, the rockets, the moon, Saturn, all the planets
exist in our minds and so does time
but
unlike all we see around us that exist outside our mind
time only exists in our minds
TrollianDaSchneib does not need to worry so
concerning time
as
it only exists in our mind
it has no physical structure
because
There is no limit to what our minds are capable of imagining
says granville

Distance is relative to the 3 dimensions within Space. Looking across the room; across the road; across the hills are all methods of measuring Distance - which can be SEEN.
If time was physical, it could also be SEEN - but the dummy can't bring itself to admit it.
Obfuscation and evasion lives in Da Schniebo's sick mind.

Mar 07, 2019
See, these people are trolls. They'll say any dumbass thing to try to "win." They don't care if it's real or not.

Take it in front of a judge and try to use it to argue you weren't speeding.

Mar 07, 2019
Since I have three dimensions and you have only one, it is for me to ask you, what is distance made of that you have to reach across it or walk it first.

Whatever answer you come up with, it will be the same answer to your question. And it will almost certainly be wrong since you are innumerate and think there's no such thing as measurement.

That'll be popular at the meat counter where they measure things and it costs you money.

Ready to try fighting those radar speeding tickets because there is no time?

Just askin'.


Stop your measly obfuscation and evasion and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
by the by SEU, you dodged the bullet last night
just bear that in mind
says granville

LOL Must have been a paper cardboard bullet. I didn't feel a thing.

Da Schnitzophrenic is still obfuscating while reduced to pretending that time is a real thing that isn't just in the human mind. Perhaps Da Scheide is able to pick up time and place it in his shopping basket to take to the checkout counter? Perhaps Da Scheide pays its bills with time instead of a farthing or two? Who knows.

Mar 07, 2019
Time is immediately observable.

Now I decide I want another drink from my ice water.

Later I have managed to pick it up and drink it.

"Now" and "later" are the definition of time. I can measure it by the time between desire and satisfaction, or I can get a chronometer and measure it precisely.

It's still time, and you're still a troll.

This is idiotic.

Mar 07, 2019
Actually this a good point
as Da Schneib insists its real and physical
Da Schneib is the one to give a full account as to its mass, structure
and properties
as no one else having seen this substance called time
What's on your mind Da Schneib

Mar 07, 2019
See, this is why I don't like philosophy. They think they can prove anything without data.

Mar 07, 2019
Time is immediately observable.

Now I decide I want another drink from my ice water.

Later I have managed to pick it up and drink it.

"Now" and "later" are the definition of time. I can measure it by the time between desire and satisfaction, or I can get a chronometer and measure it precisely.

It's still time, and you're still a troll.

This is idiotic.
says the troll Da Schnitzophrenic

Yes you are idiotic, apparently so. You are describing an ACTION aka an Event.
Now Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

Mar 07, 2019
I'm now idiotic because I can't pick up my drink and drink it without time? Everybody else doesn't experience this?

OK. More like "yeah, right troll."

Just sayin'.

Mar 07, 2019
The only Time Da Schneib remembers Time
Da Schnitzophrenic is still obfuscating while reduced to pretending that time is a real thing that isn't just in the human mind. Perhaps Da Scheide is able to pick up time and place it in his shopping basket to take to the checkout counter? Perhaps Da Scheide pays its bills with time instead of a farthing or two? Who knows.

Is when the publican calls Time

Mar 07, 2019
Actually this a good point
as Da Schneib insists its real and physical
Da Schneib is the one to give a full account as to its mass, structure
and properties
as no one else having seen this substance called time
What's on your mind Da Schneib
says granville

Da Scheide ducks, evades and obfuscates.
You're right. Since Da Scheide can SEE time, he should be able to explain all that he sees.
For a mental patient like Da Schniebo to be able to SEE time is a psychiatrist's dream come true.
Who else has such an abnormal ability to SEE time? Not me and not you.

Mar 07, 2019
Time exists and is observed.

Every time you try to deny it you run up against the measurement thing.

You are unphysical. That's because you're innumerate.

Try your case against the radar speed detector in court.

Let us know how many months in county jail you get.

Mar 07, 2019
TIME IS ONLY A THEORY
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No. Time can be and has been measured thus not a theory.
The Theory of Spacetime is only a mathematical construct with no evidence that it exists.
No. Spacetime is an essential part of relativity and relativity is via the evidence a proven scientific fact.
What is Time made of?
That's a nonsensical question.
If it is physical, then the senses should be able to detect it.
Our 'senses' do detect it; more specifically, our 'sense of time'. Sometimes something seems to take a 'long' time to us and sometimes a 'short' time.
Does it have Mass?
No. That's an extremely stupid question. Here is some more stupid questions;
Does distance have mass and, if not, does that mean there is no space?
Does a thought have mass and, if not, does that mean your mind doesn't exist?
Does temperature have mass and, if not, does that mean your cannot burn yourself?

Mar 07, 2019
If dear old Albert has written so extensively concerning Time
what has dear old Albert got to say on this substance called Time
if anyone can give a thorough in depth detailed definitive description
Dear old Albert's is qualified to give an opinion
So what say you Da Schneib
or
Are you calling Time on this Time

Mar 07, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit;
Many things exist that have NO mass.
Mass isn't something essential to the existence of ALL types of things.

Mar 07, 2019
TIME IS ONLY A THEORY
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

No. Time can be and has been measured thus not a theory.
- Measured by clocks and the human mind.

The Theory of Spacetime is only a mathematical construct with no evidence that it exists.
No. Spacetime is an essential part of relativity and relativity is via the evidence a proven scientific fact. Spacetime is a math construct that has no bearing on reality. Only Space is relevant in math equations.

What is Time made of?
That's a nonsensical question. Da Schniebo refuses to answer what you regard as a "nonsensical question", and think that he can SEE time.

If it is physical, then the senses should be able to detect it.
Our 'senses' do detect it; more specifically, our 'sense of time'. S.. something seems to take a 'long' time to us and sometimes a 'short' time. Our 'sense' of time stems only from the human mind that has established a measurement for actions

Mar 07, 2019
- (time) Measured by clocks and the human mind.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Thus proving time isn't just a theory (like you claimed).
If it can be measured, it exists.
Spacetime is a math construct that has no bearing on reality.
Very strange then that relativity with its spacetime has made many predictions that have since been verified via experiments and observations to be totally correct and those observations cannot be explained by any currently known alternative theory despite many failed attempts to come up with alternatives. -oh, actually, not strange; It proves that spacetime has a bearing on reality.

Mar 07, 2019
-contd-
Does it have Mass?
No. That's an extremely stupid question. Here is another stupid question; Does distance have mass and, if not, does that mean there is no space? Here is another stupid question; Does a thought have mass and, if not, does that mean your mind doesn't exist? says humy

There is nothing stupid about whether or not Time has Mass. Da Scheide claims to be able to SEE time, therefore time would need to have Mass if it can be seen.
Space has Mass. Thoughts are figments of the mind which are most often acted out/put into action. Distance is a measurement of Space of Point A to B.
Anything else?

Mar 07, 2019
- (time) Measured by clocks and the human mind.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

Thus proving time isn't just a theory (like you claimed).
If it can be measured, it exists.
Spacetime is a math construct that has no bearing on reality.
Ve that relativity with its spacetime has made many predictions that have since been verified via experiments and observations to be totally correct and those observations cannot be explained by any currently known alternative theory despite many failed attempts to come up with alternatives. -oh, actually, not strange; It proves that spacetime has a bearing on reality.
says humy

Time is ONLY a Theory which Einstein absurdly included with Space because he obviously didn't know any better. The equations would have had the same results without the time element that was made a part of it. They have never attempted to "do the math" while eliminating time from Spacetime. Time has no reality except in the human mind

Mar 07, 2019
This SEU thing appears to be completely clueless. Is that a fair statement?

Mar 07, 2019
HUMY...Humy...humy...hummmmy
- (time) Measured by clocks and the human mind.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
Thus proving time isn't just a theory (like you claimed).
If it can be measured, it exists.
Spacetime is a math construct that has no bearing on reality.
Very strange then that relativity with its spacetime has made many predictions that have since been verified via experiments and observations to be totally correct and those observations cannot be explained by any currently known alternative theory despite many failed attempts to come up with alternatives. -oh, actually, not strange; It proves that spacetime has a bearing on reality.

Humy, this is a brand new innovative angle
on this ethereal concept, Time
As it now appears
Dear old Albert
concerning all that he has written on this subject, Time
we appear to be attacking it at an angle
that
Does not appear in Dear old Albert's scribing

Mar 07, 2019
Claiming you can't see time happening in front of you appears to me to be a psychotic symptom.

Mar 07, 2019
"Utter rubbish. How do they manage to predict it before it happens?"

Um....they noticed that every single device keeping time "moved" slower when in motion? So they knew it would happen every time?


Clueless. Go look at the data for the first GPS satellite, NAVSTAR. Never had SR been tested before (I think). Scientists predicted the corrections that would be necessary due to both GR and SR. Others thought it wouldn't be necessary. Probably engineers and bureaucrats. Guess who was proven correct to (from memory) 3 parts in a trillion?
Get thee to a library. Get thee an education.

Mar 07, 2019
This is why Da Schniebo can't explain what time is made/consists of - because time is incalculable except for the increments on a CLOCK which the human mind was able to devise and program to explain those increments which DIVIDE the actions on the clock face or numbers.
Clocks measure the incremental positions on the clock face that give those increments to explain the passage of Actions/Events/Occurences as these actions are occurring. Without the benefit of clocks, humans would have to tell the time by the actions of the Sun in daylight and the Stars at night. The theory of time remains a placeholder of that which the human mind has produced. Nothing more.

Mar 07, 2019
Claiming you can't see time happening in front of you appears to me to be a psychotic symptom.


Claiming to SEE time in front of you IS psychotic. Tell your psychiatrist about your symptoms, Da Scheide.
Everyone else on Earth can only SEE Events/Actions/Occurrences happening in front of them. But YOU claim to SEE time as a physical object. That is psychotic, Schniebo

Mar 07, 2019
"Utter rubbish. How do they manage to predict it before it happens?"

Um....they noticed that every single device keeping time "moved" slower when in motion? So they knew it would happen every time?


Clueless. Go look at the data for the first GPS satellite, NAVSTAR. Never had SR been tested before (I think). Scientists predicted the corrections that would be necessary due to both GR and SR. Others thought it wouldn't be necessary. Probably engineers and bureaucrats. Guess who was proven correct to (from memory) 3 parts in a trillion?
Get thee to a library. Get thee an education.


Actually, that was well pre-dated by the Ives-Stilwell experiment in 1938;

https://en.wikipe...periment

Mar 07, 2019
No it's not. Now I decided to get a drink of water.

Later my hand started to move.

Later yet the cup of water moved toward my mouth.

And yet later I drank the water.

What's to explain?

Mar 07, 2019
No it's not. Now I decided to get a drink of water.

Later my hand started to move.

Later yet the cup of water moved toward my mouth.

And yet later I drank the water.

What's to explain?


Everything happens instantaneously in the weird universe inhabited by the crank SEU.

Mar 07, 2019
"Utter rubbish. How do they manage to predict it before it happens?"

Um....they noticed that every single device keeping time "moved" slower when in motion? So they knew it would happen every time?


Clueless. Go look at the data for the first GPS satellite, NAVSTAR. Never had SR been tested before (I think). Scientists predicted the corrections that would be necessary due to both GR and SR. Others thought it wouldn't be necessary. Probably engineers and bureaucrats. Guess who was proven correct to (from memory) 3 parts in a trillion?
Get thee to a library. Get thee an education.
says CG

Gravity is the determinant whether clocks run slow or fast, according to Velocity, Altitude, Direction and Orientation (VADO) which are all physical. This includes GPS. Scientists "predicted" the necessary corrections due to VADO. Gravity, not time.

Mar 07, 2019
Listening to Friday Night in San Francisco and trying to imagine 128th notes having any meaning without time.

https://www.youtu...fLE8KxGM

We are dealing here with a troll who denies "now" and "later." This is silly.

Mar 07, 2019
No it's not. Now I decided to get a drink of water.

Later my hand started to move.

Later yet the cup of water moved toward my mouth.

And yet later I drank the water.

What's to explain?


Everything happens instantaneously in the weird universe inhabited by the crank SEU.
says CG in complete adoration of Da Schniebo in the corner

All Descriptions of Actions. LOL That's all you've got? Pitiful

Mar 07, 2019
So define "now" and "later" if there is no time troll. I'm drinking out of my ice water, troll. And watching you flail, silly troll.

Mar 07, 2019
So define "now" and "later" if there is no time troll. I'm drinking out of my ice water, troll. And watching you flail, silly troll.


Now Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
No it's not. Now I decided to get a drink of water.

Later my hand started to move.

Later yet the cup of water moved toward my mouth.

And yet later I drank the water.

What's to explain?


Everything happens instantaneously in the weird universe inhabited by the crank SEU.
says CG in complete adoration of Da Schniebo in the corner

All Descriptions of Actions. LOL That's all you've got? Pitiful


You do not understand science, do you? All the evidence shows you to be talking out of your rectum. Back it up. Where are the scientific papers backing your puerile beliefs?

Mar 07, 2019
Time is made of dimension, just like space is.

Asked and answered, troll.

Now take it to court and try to deny radar speed guns.

Mar 07, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Only a lunatic would ask such a question.

Mar 07, 2019
No it's not. Now I decided to get a drink of water.

Later my hand started to move.

Later yet the cup of water moved toward my mouth.

And yet later I drank the water.

What's to explain?


Everything happens instantaneously in the weird universe inhabited by the crank SEU.
says CG in complete adoration of Da Schniebo in the corner

All Descriptions of Actions. LOL That's all you've got? Pitiful


You do not understand science, do you? All the evidence shows you to be talking out of your rectum. Back it up. Where are the scientific papers backing your puerile beliefs?
says CG

No. It is YOU who doesn't understand Science, except for the junk science that has been drilled into your weak mind.
You refuse to comprehend how the human mind perceives Events/Actions as the products of its own ability to describe what it has become aware of. The descriptions of Event/Action are necessary for the mind's sanity.

Mar 07, 2019
Note that "now" and "later" have not been defined.

That's a major defect in your abstraction in which there is "no time." it's up to you to define "time" given the existence of "now " and "later" if "time doesn't exist."

Since "now" and later can be seen by everyone but you.

Noted that you cannot explain it to a court of law and are avoiding the question, and if you are wise will not ever bring it before a judge.


Mar 07, 2019
Time is made of dimension, just like space is.

ROTFLMFAO!

Mar 07, 2019
Time is made of dimension, just like space is.

Asked and answered, troll.

Now take it to court and try to deny radar speed guns.
says Da Schitzophrenic

Nope. Wrong again. Time is neither a dimension nor is it made of dimension. SPACE IS a Dimension as it OCCUPIES and interacts with Mass/Energy, and objects move THROUGH it.

Now Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
Then speed, get busted, and bring your "there is no time" defense before a judge.

Mar 07, 2019
Note that "now" and "later" have not been defined.

That's a major defect in your abstraction in which there is "no time." it's up to you to define "time" given the existence of "now " and "later" if "time doesn't exist."

Since "now" and later can be seen by everyone but you.

Noted that you cannot explain it to a court of law and are avoiding the question, and if you are wise will not ever bring it before a judge.

says the head dummy

Now and Later are descriptions of Events and Actions, sometimes overlapping but most often singly.
Now Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
Speed, get busted with a radar gun, and bring this before a judge. Until then you're another empty hat.

Tell us how many months you get added to the sentence for contempt of court.

Liar.

Mar 07, 2019
Speed, get busted with a radar gun, and bring this before a judge. Until then you're another empty hat.

Tell us how many months you get added to the sentence for contempt of court.

Liar.
says Da Scheide

Poor argument. Even CG can tell that you have nothing but silly crap.
Now Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019

ROTFLMFAO!


At what? You appear to know nothing about science.

Mar 07, 2019
Not particularly a poor argument. You can't answer it.

Go ahead. Even appear in front of a court and make this argument for anyone else.

Show us the court transcripts.

Any time (heh) you like.

Here we wait.

Mar 07, 2019
Be back later. Precious has to go poop and pee on Da Schniebo outside.

Mar 07, 2019
So, no answers. You're afraid again, just like

2 + 2 / 2 = ?

Dumbshit wants to be Jack Nicholson. Noted. No one else will miss it.

Mar 07, 2019
Was here to read comments on the Saturn/Jupiter related phenomena and scientific observations written in the article above. Quite disappointed though.

Mar 07, 2019
Sorry, Bob, we got this bitch of trolls here and they keep posting bullshit. If you feel they are interfering you can post calling it bullshit, downvote them, report them, or leave and send another nastygram to those who are supposed to maintaining the site. Your choice.

Mar 07, 2019
Does a thought have mass and, if not, does that mean your mind doesn't exist?


Of course thoughts have mass. Thoughts are carried by electrical signals, and electrons have rest mass.

Why has nobody attempted to answer the perfectly fair and honest question I've now posed several times? The speed of light is finite and constant, this is an IMMUTABLE LAW (as Benni might say.) When a moving body emits a photon, what parameter is changing to preserve the speed of light?

Mar 07, 2019
Sorry, Bob, we got this bitch of trolls here and they keep posting bullshit. If you feel they are interfering you can post calling it bullshit, downvote them, report them, or leave and send another nastygram to those who are supposed to maintaining the site. Your choice.


So now you're telling people to LEAVE??
Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
You been answered three different ways, all correct, and you don't like any of them.

Trolls suck rotting shit.

What is space made of, troll?

Mar 07, 2019
You been answered three different ways, all correct, and you don't like any of them.

Trolls suck rotting shit.

What is space made of, troll?
says Da Doofus

And you've been wrong 3 different ways.

LOL That's easy. Space is made up of quantum particle inclusions in Matter/Energy, but on a very fine scale that is indiscernible. Unlike time that is a figment of the imagination of humans

Mar 07, 2019
Sez you with no links and no quotes.

Space is made up of quantum particle inclusions in Matter/Energy
I have no idea what you even think that is supposed to mean. On its face it is a word salad that has no actual meaning.

More trolling lies.

Mar 07, 2019
You been answered three different ways, all incorrect, and you don't like any of them.

Trolls like Da Schniebo sucks rotting shit.

What is time made of, troll?


Now Stop your measly obfuscation and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
Here's a semantic equivalent:

Time is a hickenlooper with sparkling wings. Time is made with extra elves.

Mar 07, 2019
Sez you with no links and no quotes.

Space is made up of quantum particle inclusions in Matter/Energy
I have no idea what you even think that is supposed to mean. On its face it is a word salad that has no actual meaning.

More trolling lies.


Now Stop your measly obfuscation and evasion and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF? Don't keep trying to weasel out.

Mar 07, 2019
Then say something that's not pasted-together technobabble.

Time is made of little teeny fly wings.

Mar 07, 2019
Then say something that's not pasted-together technobabble.

Time is made of little teeny fly wings.


Now Stop your measly obfuscation and obvious evasion and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
Time passes like the nose of a wombat born on the winds of March. And I do mean born, not borne.

Mar 07, 2019
Time passes like the nose of a wombat born on the winds of March. And I do mean born, not borne.


Now Stop your measly obfuscation and obvious evasion and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
Time is a willis. If you don't find time you cannot see your own taint. Time will make you puke garden slugs.

Mar 07, 2019
Time is a willis. If you don't find time you cannot see your own taint. Time will make you puke garden slugs.


You're still talking gibberish.
Now Stop your measly obfuscation and obvious evasion and Answer the question, dummy. WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Mar 07, 2019
There are many times; most of them are wombly. Which one did you mean? One of the wombly ones I guess.

I figure if you're going to answer with nonsense I get to as well.

Try saying something sane people can understand.

If you can, which is looking less and less likely.

Mar 07, 2019
What's the difference between a time?

Three low bridges and a dessicated orange because a motorcycle doesn't have any doors.

I can do this all night.

Bring it, troll.

Mar 07, 2019
Can you tell yet that I'm not impressed with technobabble like

Space is made up of quantum particle inclusions in Matter/Energy
yet?

WTF is a "quantum particle inclusion?"

Sounds like "time is a hickenlooper" to me.

Mar 07, 2019
Now stop posting nonsense and tell us why clocks work if there is no time.

If you have the balls, which I doubt sincerely.

Mar 07, 2019
The only way to deal with trolls is to beat them down with their own games.

Time is a quantum particle inclusion in jebus. Like this one: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

yep
Mar 08, 2019
See, this is why I don't like philosophy. They think they can prove anything without data.


Yet the problem with data is perspective, like mistaking math for empirical evidence to prove anything.

Mar 08, 2019
No, the problem is mistaking empirical evidence for math.

And there's no math in philosophy anyway. And no evidence either. Maybe you forgot.

Mar 08, 2019
Time is ONLY a Theory which Einstein absurdly included with Space because he obviously didn't know any better.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

It is 'obvious' to anyone with half a brain that knows something about relativity here that all the contrary to the above is the case.
WOW! You say "he obviously didn't know any better"!? So with your moronic delusional arrogance you think you 'know better' than that great genius about space and time?
Sorry, but I have news for you; You don't and you are an idiot.
The equations would have had the same results without the time element that was made a part of it.
for anyone that has studied the equations like myself, Clearly FALSE. The exact opposite is the case. This shows your complete ignorance of the subject you make out to know all the about. Just for once in your life, study some REAL science, and NOT your own made-up CRAP, then come back to us.

Mar 08, 2019
Maybe he should just buy a watch.

Mar 08, 2019
No. It is YOU who doesn't understand Science, except for the junk science that has been drilled into your weak mind.
You refuse to comprehend how the human mind perceives Events/Actions as the products of its own ability to describe what it has become aware of. The descriptions of Event/Action are necessary for the mind's sanity.


I repeat - you know nothing about science. I doubt you have ever studied it. Only an idiot would ask 'what is time made of'.


Mar 08, 2019
"You refuse to comprehend how the human mind perceives Events/Actions as the products of its own ability to describe what it has become aware of."

Obviously he has no clue. He doesn't get that every single human being perceives time in a different way, the only commonality being the way we ( humanity ) have, over the eons, decided to divide it up so that every human could have a uniform reference for it. Without the clock, we would use the sun as in ancient times, or just refer to the separation of events.

As to the GPS.....SEU nailed it, compensating for the distance of signal travel and velocity's effect on a moving devise in no way "proves" anything about the slowing of time, again, it merely proves velocity has an effect on moving systems.

Hey BO!!! The speed of light is an immutable law, you answered your own question. Any photon in free space must, by the laws of physics, move at a set velocity independent of the emitting body and any velocity it has.

Mar 08, 2019
As to the GPS.....SEU nailed it, compensating for the distance of signal travel and velocity's effect on a moving devise in no way "proves" anything about the slowing of time, again, it merely proves velocity has an effect on moving systems.


Complete and utter nonsense. How are physicists able to predict the alterations necessary before the thing has even taken off, using GR and SR, and be shown to be correct to within 3 parts in a trillion? Some party trick, that is! You obviously have no idea about the subject.

Mar 08, 2019
How are physicists able to predict the alterations necessary before the thing has even taken off, using GR and SR, and be shown to be correct to within 3 parts in a trillion?

"compensating for the distance of signal travel and velocity's effect on a moving devise "

Neat when one can use the post that incited a question to answer the question it incited.

"You obviously have no idea about the subject"

Observing your comprehension of words, one can assume you aren't mentally equipped to judge. Looking at the rest of your posts...hypothesis confirmed!

Mar 08, 2019
How are physicists able to predict the alterations necessary before the thing has even taken off, using GR and SR, and be shown to be correct to within 3 parts in a trillion?

"compensating for the distance of signal travel and velocity's effect on a moving devise "

Neat when one can use the post that incited a question to answer the question it incited.

"You obviously have no idea about the subject"

Observing your comprehension of words, one can assume you aren't mentally equipped to judge. Looking at the rest of your posts...hypothesis confirmed!


Complete idiocy. Link to the science for that please. In the meantime, read some science that proves you have no idea what you are talking about;

https://www.atico...copy.pdf

(scroll down to 'Relativity')

http://www.softsc...ula/222/

Mar 08, 2019
Further;

https://ntrs.nasa...page=197

NTS-2 technological features encompass the world's first orbiting cesium frequency standards, built by Frequency and Time Systems (FTS);nickel-hydrogen batteries (developed by COMSAT); three axis gravity gradient stabilization with momentum wheel unloading; control of the spacecraft orbit; verification of Einstein's relativistic clock shift;

Mar 08, 2019
And further;

http://www.astron...gps.html

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion [2].

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture).

TBC.

Mar 08, 2019
CONT....................

...... As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativistic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)!


And guess what? That is exactly what was predicted using GR and SR before the launch. And that is what was seen. Funny how Einsteins maths gives precisely the correct answers, over 20 years after he died! And the cranks still can't give us any science.

Mar 08, 2019
Yeah...no.
I will take the math of motion at face value, but the laughable interpretations and extensions of it I will leave for the simple minded who want to swallow the whole shebang because they lack the mental capacity to know any better. ( that would be you Castrol10W30). Guys like you who think GR and SR have never failed have to completely ignore WHY dark matter was created ( and added to the equations) but doesn't actually exist...because at galactic scales....they (in their original state) fail at predictability. And you forget that although a singularity is mathematical consequence of GR...it isn't a physical one. ( despite how AP's wish to interpret the light coming from where they believe a singularity is). It's a shame that people with such impressive mathematical abilities chose this field, it's like having the best engineers in the world designing tech that is only available inside a video game.

Enjoy learning about BH's. DM, DE and the BB. sleep tight.

Mar 08, 2019
This is super dumb.

How can the frequency shifts from both SR and GR be predicted before the satellite is launched?

With GR and SR, duuuuhhhhhhhh ummm.

Works too, doesn't it? Dumb duh dumb dumb, dumb duh dumb dumb duuuuuuhhhhhhh.

Ain't that frickin' amazing.

The stupid is pretty thick around here today.

Mar 08, 2019
SEU> WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

TrollianCastroGiovanni, you come out with all these links
but
Not one link describing WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
TrollianCastroGiovanni, not even one link that Dear old Albert wrote
from when he was in the patent office
describing, WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
you can hardly give definitive exacting measurements to within 3 parts in a trillion
when you do not even now the first thing concerning the substance of the matter in hand, Time.
This is not a good start, TrollianCastroGiovanni
You could at least provide Dear old Albert's papers describing WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

Mar 08, 2019

Enjoy learning about BH's. DM, DE and the BB. sleep tight.


Science-free crap. You have just been handed your ass, and you still have nothing to come back with? No science? Do the maths. Those equations that predicted the precise correction were from 1905 & 1915!
And no, GR and SR have passed every test thrown at them. I'm guessing you are another of the people that post here who don't actually understand science. Full of hot air, but scientifically illiterate and innumerate.

Mar 08, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


What an idiotic question. Science does not appear to be your strong point.

Mar 08, 2019
"How can the frequency shifts from both SR and GR be predicted before the satellite is launched?"

(snicker) ""compensating for the distance of signal travel and velocity's effect on a moving devise "..dumdedumdumduuuummmm indeed.

Math isn't magic, and you are not a smart person ( first debate here with you had you end up trying to counter my original point by stating it later in the thread...first impressions...you know what they say) Of course it works, it's math based on MEASURED variables...which is the same reason is DOESN"T work on galactic scales....perhaps a sleepover with Castrol and you two can listen to your fairytales about gravity and "spacetime" together.

If you ever want to learn actual physics as it relates to the universe you live in, you'll need a different bedtime story though.


Mar 08, 2019
compensating for the distance of signal travel and velocity's effect on a moving devise "..dumdedumdumduuuummmm indeed.


Liar. Link please. I've just shown you how it is calculated from equations worked out long before the launch of that satellite in '77. Your comprehension skills appear to be on a level with your scientific and numeracy skills. In other words, as close to non-existent as makes no difference. Got any science?

Mar 08, 2019
If you calculate it with your theory, which is math, and then you do it and it comes out just like the theory says, then I'd say the math works.

Gee, ya think?

What a dumbshit.

Mar 08, 2019
......which is the same reason is DOESN"T work on galactic scales.....


Liar.

https://www.skyan...y-scale/

Mar 08, 2019
This reminds me of the guy who decided to kill a raccoon, chased it into a storm drain, and poured gasoline down the storm drain and threw in a match to light it and the match went out.

So he climbed down into the storm drain, and it was dark, so he lit a match to see by.

This is an actual Darwin award. Also known as "auto-Darwinating."

Mar 08, 2019
Theredpill, you can say that again
Math isn't magic, and you are not a smart person

TrollianCastroGiovanni is not the smartest cookie in the cookie jar
as
TrollianCastroGiovanni presence, bears witness
In the naughty box

Mar 08, 2019
@Castro, was the '77 launch for LORAN? I think that's pre-GPS, but I'm too lazy to look it up this morning.

Mar 08, 2019
This reminds me of the guy who decided to kill a raccoon, chased it into a storm drain, and poured gasoline down the storm drain and threw in a match to light it and the match went out.

So he climbed down into the storm drain, and it was dark, so he lit a match to see by.

This is an actual Darwin award. Also known as "auto-Darwinating."


Indeed. Quite why some people wish to come to places like this to show off their complete ignorance of all things scientific is beyond me.

Anyways, just for kicks, I thought I'd take the SR equation for time dilation and do it myself for NAVSTAR;

observer time = proper time / sqrt 1 - (v/c)^2

What we end up with is 86400/ 0.999999999916625 = 86400.0000072.

Well, there's a thing! 7 microseconds.

For anybody who wants to try it, the velocity is 3874 m/s.

Anybody wanting to calculate the GR portion, the altitude is 2.0184 x 10^6 m.

EDIT: This is for the NAVSTAR satellite.


Mar 08, 2019
@Castro, was the '77 launch for LORAN? I think that's pre-GPS, but I'm too lazy to look it up this morning.


NAVSTAR. This is an initial report on the satellite. Scroll down a little way to 'Frequency Determination'.

https://ntrs.nasa...page=197

Comparison of this value to the predicted value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp 10^12 gives a difference of -3.1 pp 10^12.


Mar 08, 2019
@Castro, never mind, I'm surprised the first GPS sats were launched in the '70s. I have heard before the clusterfuck introduced by the EEs because they wouldn't use SR and GR in the original satellites; and that luckily they had added a mechanism to vary the time signals just in case they were wrong, which they turned out to have to use.

But thanks anyway, man.

Mar 08, 2019
Hey BO!!! The speed of light is an immutable law, you answered your own question. Any photon in free space must, by the laws of physics, move at a set velocity independent of the emitting body and any velocity it has.


That's only the answer to the question if you think the answer to the question "Why is the sky blue?" is "because it's blue." Surely you're intelligent enough to see that's not really an answer. When a moving body tries to add velocity to a photon, some parameter must be changing in proportion to the added velocity in order to preserve the speed of light.

Let's go back to PV=nRT as an example of what I'm trying to illustrate here. If we have a gas that is trapped in a box, and none of the gas is allowed to escape from this box (V is constrained), what happens as I increase temperature of the gas?

Apply this understanding to the Lorentz factor.

Mar 08, 2019
"Indeed. Quite why some people wish to come to places like this to show off their complete ignorance of all things scientific is beyond me."

Hey you walked in the door....LMAO...and look at you go!

"Liar"
Ignorance is thinking "gravity" is the force responsible for lensing observations...and that it drives the rest of what we observe.
"Anyways, just for kicks, I thought I'd take the SR equation for time dilation and do it myself for NAVSTAR;"
As I said, I trust the math of motion and using observed variables, and I am even somewhat impressed with your ability to apply it. It's a shame you are wasting your abilities on imaginary twaddle such as believing you are using a curved "spacetime" metric, or believe it is correct when the curve leads to infinity such as in a singularity. One of many areas where math and physical reality part ways...for those of us not conditioned to believe "the rest of the story".

" Darwin award."

LMAO...migrating bodies that stop....

Mar 08, 2019
Be back later. Precious has to go poop and pee on Da Schniebo outside.

So.... Precious knows what time it is...

Mar 08, 2019
"some parameter must be changing in proportion to the added velocity in order to preserve the speed of light. "
OK....somebody needs to learn about photon emission....it isn't the same thing as a moving boat firing an anti-aircraft gun where the velocity of the shell has the speed of the boat added to it.
"Let's go back to PV=nRT "

If you are trying to associate pressure laws to quantum EM phenomenon, let me know how your unique angle at tackling the problem you have created works out. As for a photon in free space, the velocity of the emitting particle is irrelevant to the speed of the emitted photon...as observed every single time and stated by you. The frequency shift results in the inference of directionality we interpret....yes..the sky is blue because it is blue. No, there is no "kickback" from the emission as it is either the velocity or an interaction that causes the emission in the first place.

Mar 08, 2019
@Castro, never mind, I'm surprised the first GPS sats were launched in the '70s. I have heard before the clusterfuck introduced by the EEs because they wouldn't use SR and GR in the original satellites; and that luckily they had added a mechanism to vary the time signals just in case they were wrong, which they turned out to have to use.

But thanks anyway, man.


Yes, that was mentioned in this paper by Neil Ashby;

https://link.spri...03-1.pdf

Section 5, just below Fig. 2. Not sure the referenced author was an EE though.


Mar 08, 2019
Ignorance is thinking "gravity" is the force responsible for lensing observations...
Ummmm, Eddington 1919?

You know, like, real scientific papers and stuff. Reporting actual data. Observed during the total eclipse of that year.

Here's the paper: https://royalsoci...920.0009

These idiots can't keep the math and the data separate. The average IQ is 100.

Mar 08, 2019
"Indeed. Quite why some people wish to come to places like this to show off their complete ignorance of all things scientific is beyond me."

Hey you walked in the door....LMAO...and look at you go!

"Liar"
Ignorance is thinking "gravity" is the force responsible for lensing observations...and that it drives the rest of what we observe.
"Anyways, just for kicks, I thought I'd take the SR equation for time dilation and do it myself for NAVSTAR;"


You really are thick, aren't you? You got got shown up horribly, you still haven't got any science, so what are you doing here? Do the maths. You are 100% wrong. Go find some science to prove your nonsense. There isn't any. You are batting zero. The equations used come from GR and SR, you fool. If you think that has nothing to do with curved space-time, you truly are stupid. How the hell else did he derive the equations. Show us.

Mar 08, 2019
Ignorance is thinking "gravity" is the force responsible for lensing observations...and that it drives the rest of what we observe.


No, you are ignorant. Gravitational lensing is 100% proven. There is no competing hypothesis, nor explanation. You really need to study some science, as you appear to have very little grasp of it.


Mar 08, 2019
Gravitational lensing is 100% proven.
Yeah, in like 1919. March of 1919 actually, which makes it a hundred years ago. Nice when a theory works out, huh?

Mar 08, 2019
OK....somebody needs to learn about photon emission....

I agree, I'm trying to help you.

it isn't the same thing as a moving boat firing an anti-aircraft gun where the velocity of the shell has the speed of the boat added to it.

Categorically false, though it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

If you are trying to associate pressure laws to quantum EM phenomenon, let me know how your unique angle at tackling the problem you have created works out.

Facepalm.... you've missed the point entirely.

No, there is no "kickback" from the emission

Again, not only is this entirely incorrect, but it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (time dilation and length contraction.)

Mar 08, 2019
I guess Newton's laws are tossed out now along with GR/SR and everything else EU proponents don't feel like believing in at the time.

Let me correct my above comment as well:
The velocity of the emitting body does not add to the velocity of the photon (as I've stated several times,) however, just like an anti-aircraft gun firing a shell, an atom emitting a photon will definitely have momentum applied in direction opposite to the photon and in commensurate force to the emitted photon's energy. Though again, this is not what the discussion is about. We are talking about how the speed of light - c's constancy affects time and length.

Mar 08, 2019
I guess Newton's laws are tossed out now along with GR/SR and everything else EU proponents don't feel like believing in at the time.

Let me correct my above comment as well:
The velocity of the emitting body does not add to the velocity of the photon (as I've stated several times,) however, just like an anti-aircraft gun firing a shell, an atom emitting a photon will definitely have momentum applied in direction opposite to the photon and in commensurate force to the emitted photon's energy. Though again, this is not what the discussion is about. We are talking about how the speed of light - c's constancy affects time and length.

Wait... Don't all photons have the same emitted energy state?

Mar 08, 2019
@Whyde, absolutely not. Photons can carry different energy states, which are determined by their momentum. This is generally measured as frequency. This is why we can fingerprint atoms in distant stars; the electrons in the atoms can only emit or absorb certain frequencies, depending upon the differences between their orbitals, which in turn depend on the exact charge of the nucleus.

Individual photons' energy determines whether they are radio, microwave, terahertz, infrared, light, ultraviolet, X-ray, or gamma ray.

Mar 08, 2019
" We are talking about how the speed of light - c's constancy affects time and length."

The speed of light affects time eh? Demonstrate this...GO! ( just be careful because I am deliberately setting you up yet again kittykat)

If you want to actually learn the physical mechanism behind why light is lensed as opposed to the math version invoking imaginary constructs, closely study the propagation diagram of a wave:
https://www.toppr...c-waves/
Focus on the magnetic component as that is how certain field geometries can polarize light, separate wavelengths ( as in a prism) and certain others can cause it to bend around the field creating what we observe as lensing. It (a required field geometry)is also the reason every object in space DOESN'T lense something "behind" it.

yeah yeah, math math link math.... I am so glad I learned physics instead.

Mar 08, 2019
The speed of light affects time eh? Demonstrate this...
Einstein 1905 "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"

http://www.ffn.ub...vity.pdf

Next?

Mar 08, 2019
Focus on the magnetic component as that is how certain field geometries can polarize light, separate wavelengths ( as in a prism) and certain others can cause it to bend around the field creating what we observe as lensing.


Utter nonsense. Please link to the scientific literature to show which idiot is suggesting such a thing. I want to see the detections explained using whatever maths they invoke.


Mar 08, 2019
The speed of light affects time eh? Demonstrate this...GO!

Apologies, the correct phrasing perhaps should have been how the speed of light *relates* to time and length rather than affects. This relationship can be examined with the Lorentz factor. Google it.

( just be careful because I am deliberately setting you up yet again kittykat)

Again? Like how you explained Newton's laws are invalid?

If you want to actually learn the physical mechanism behind why light is lensed...

Again, what does lensing have to do with anything? It's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

math math link math.... I am so glad I learned physics instead.

I see you're using the term learned very liberally here. You're under the impression that Newton's 3rd law is either invalid, or for whatever reason doesn't apply to photon emission.
Although the fact that they apparently didn't involve math is really putting things in perspective here.

Mar 08, 2019
... I am so glad I learned physics instead.


I very much doubt that, given that you appear to be innumerate. If you had, you would know that we can measure the mass of the Sun from gravitational lensing;

http://www.jb.man...ion1.htm

You would also know that we can also measure the mass of the Sun using Kepler's third law.

Guess what? They come out the same.

So your silly magnetic nonsense was shown to be wrong 100 years ago by Einstein and Eddington.

Physics? I doubt you have ever seen the inside of a high school science book.

Mar 08, 2019
yeah yeah, math math link math.... I am so glad I learned physics instead.

Please elaborate on this physics sans maths.

Mar 08, 2019
I can see why these cranks don't like math - it has a habit of showing their crazy nonsense to be trivially wrong.

Mar 08, 2019
I can see why these cranks don't like math - it has a habit of showing their crazy nonsense to be trivially wrong.

Yes! It's also a thoroughly humbling endeavor, and cannot be persuaded or negotiated; a serious insult to the ego so those who are fragile tend to shy away, distract, or obfuscate.

Mar 08, 2019
Ok Bo, you started off with a question about a particles velocity relationship with a photon it emits. Claimed that particles recoil when they emit light ( even though they are emitting light BECAUSE of their motion) so there is a part of that relationship you need to investigate. I have actually watched video of a fibre optic cable recoiling due to emitting light, but this is a case where light is forced through a "tube" by a remote emitter....not the same as a particle with velocity moving through magnetic fields of varying flux density, emitting photons when it interacts with them.

"Again, what does lensing have to do with anything? It's irrelevant to the conversation at hand."

Really? What must light "push off" if it is causing a particle to recoil upon emission? Newton's third law....? It is funny that you would think it works one way to prove your point but wouldn't work that way when a photon traverses a magnetic field 100,000 LY across...


Mar 08, 2019
"I can see why these cranks don't like math "
So..you have the reading comprehension of a gnat... but want to have a conversation. Oh oh....
A collection of statements I have made in this thread:
"As I said, I trust the math of motion and using observed variables, "
"It's a shame that people with such impressive mathematical abilities chose this field,"
"I will take the math of motion at face value, but the laughable interpretations and extensions of it I will leave for the simple minded who want to swallow the whole shebang because they lack the mental capacity to know any better."

I love math, I hate when people apply it incorrectly. Now, as much fun as the new "jones" has been, it still wreaks of the same moronic posting style, lack of comprehension and can only argue with appeals to authority because it doesn't really know a damn thing...just like the old jones. Castrol10W30 joins his jones sock on ignore....


Mar 08, 2019
I love math, I hate when people apply it incorrectly.


Prove, mathematically, where it has been applied incorrectly. You mentioned lensing. We kicked your ass on that one. You mentioned time dilation. We kicked your ass on that one. So, go ahead. Show where the maths is wrong. Or at least link to a real scientist who is claiming such things. I'll wait, but I won't be holding my breath.

Mar 08, 2019
Atomic recoil in Newton's third
theredpill> Ok Bo, you started off with a question about a particles velocity relationship with a photon it emits. Claimed that particles recoil when they emit light
Really? What must light "push off" if it is causing a particle to recoil upon emission? Newton's third law....? It is funny that you would think it works one way to prove your point but wouldn't work that way when a photon traverses a magnetic field 100,000 LY across...

For a particle created and emitted in recoil
the emitting particle also recoils
so
where do the recoil particles go on disintegration
as
in a pion to a muon
because, at the moment of creation
the muon recoils
so
the pion exists for this recoil to take place
which means kinetic energy in motion has already taken place
as
when the pion disintegrates
there is no recoil
Effectively, perpetual motion
Is this recoil heretical physics

Mar 08, 2019
Ok Bo, you started off with a question about a particles velocity relationship with a photon it emits.


Yes, I was trying to illustrate the relationship between time, length, and the speed of light. This relationship can be described mathematically with Lorentz transformations. Specifically it describes how time dilates and length contracts with velocity. I'm sorry you don't want to believe this.

Claimed that particles recoil when they emit light

I'm not claiming anything, conservation of momentum is a law of physics.

Mar 08, 2019
"Prove, mathematically, where it has been applied incorrectly."
Galactic rotation curves, 80% more matter required if the math is correct...no matter found...math is incorrect. Black holes, all math is perfect, solution to equations doesn't exist because it physically cannot...math although correct, describes a fairytale.
" You mentioned lensing. We kicked your ass on that one. "
LMAO...awww Jones...a legend in your own mind...and no, you just typed more words..which doesn't make anything you said kick ass in nature....although your capacity for demonstrating your lack of ability to think has legendary kick ass stature.
"You mentioned time dilation. We kicked your ass on that one."
Actually, I didn't mention "time dilation" once above so...enjoy your acid. You are clearly "peaking".
" I'll wait"....
patience is a virtue, likely the only one you have, if you have any. This new entity of yours is just as stupid as its predecessor.


Mar 08, 2019
patience is a virtue, likely the only one you have, if you have any. This new entity of yours is just as stupid as its predecessor.



You got your ass kicked boy. Claimed time dilation was nothing to do with Einstein's GR and SR. You were shown to be wrong. Claimed lensing was nothing to do with mass. Proven wrong. Remember? Mass of the Sun measured via lensing and Kepler? Your ass was kicked. You have presented no science, and cannot perform any to prove your baseless, unscientific assertions. Still batting zero.

Mar 08, 2019
Galactic rotation curves, 80% more matter required if the math is correct.


And there is very good evidence that that matter is there. Ironically, some of it from gravitational lensing, which I've just shown is due to mass, not magnetic crap.

Black holes, all math is perfect, solution to equations doesn't exist because it physically cannot...math although correct, describes a fairytale.


Wrong. 4m solar masses in a very small volume at the galactic center. Orbits of the stars proves it. Gravitational redshift proves it.

And you still have nothing. No alternatives. No science. No mechanisms. No evidence. Zilch. Just a bunch of untutored hot air converted into pointless pixels. Try harder, boy. You are out of your depth.

Mar 08, 2019
"Yes, I was trying to illustrate the relationship between time, length, and the speed of light." from this question?
" When a moving body emits a photon, what parameter is changing to preserve the speed of light?"
I didn't take your initial query as rhetorical....and that you were really trying to illustrate a point.
"Specifically it describes how time dilates and length contracts with velocity."
OK, no matter what velocity an object has, what we measure as 1 second doesn't change, regardless of velocity's effect on the object. Do you understand that? An atomic clocks oscillations may change when it experiences an increase in velocity, do you understand that it is not "time" that is affected, it is the clock? Do you understand that time, without "clocks" becomes 100% subjective? The only relationship between time and velocity in the real universe is that the time to get from A to B decreases with increased velocity.

I'm sorry you don't want to believe this.



Mar 08, 2019
An atomic clocks oscillations may change when it experiences an increase in velocity, do you understand that it is not "time" that is affected, it is the clock?


Wrong, as already shown. I even did the maths for you.


Mar 08, 2019
Dumbshit doesn't even know how an atomic clock works in the first place.

Mar 08, 2019
"You got your ass kicked boy."

Final post to the Jones sock. The above is the extent of your mental ability...it's not terrible as it incorporates imagination, an ethnic flare and an attempt at appearing superior. But alas, the rest of your remarks show the same old Jones, no thought, no understanding, no life....just the same fall back to the appeals to an authority not mutually recognized but presented as though they are. You may as well have just stuck with the Jones thing but as your ratings were sliding and that is apparently the only criteria you have to judge your life by, I understand the attempt at a new persona...but like one would expect from someone with no real mental prowess, you just come across as...you. I will see that you comment in future threads, thankfully I will be spared the pain of the stupidity of your remarks by the ignore function. Good luck miss.

Mar 08, 2019
Final post to the Jones sock.


Still no science. Comment on the mass of the Sun being the same whether we use lensing or Kepler, for instance. Running away, aren't you? Getting your ass kicked, aren't you? Don't bother answering - it is patently clear to anyone reading this thread.

Mar 08, 2019
Final post to the Jones sock.


Translation: "You know far more about this than I do, and you keep embarrassing me. Therefore, I'm chickening out, due to being scientifically and mathematically illiterate."

Correct?

Mar 08, 2019
"Dumbshit doesn't even know how an atomic clock works in the first place."

LMAO!!!!
https://www.lives...ork.html

Specifically laughing at the part about "changes of state"...those would be oscillations..."the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.

Just like our first debate....you just haven't got a clue....LMAO. However, chin up slugger...you're way to juvenile (and therefore funny because of what you do to yourself) to put on ignore like new Jones. Even the egg has you pegged.
Bedtime kids, can't wait to do it again sometime.

Mar 08, 2019
.............and an attempt at appearing superior.


Not difficult when dealing with untutored fools like you. Still no science? We're waiting........

Mar 08, 2019

Bedtime kids, can't wait to do it again sometime.


Translation: "Sick of getting my ass kicked. Running away to mommy."

Mar 08, 2019
I didn't take your initial query as rhetorical...

It wasn't rhetorical, I'm looking for a solution besides the known one which involves time dilation.

OK, no matter what velocity an object has, what we measure as 1 second doesn't change. The only relationship between time and velocity...is that the time to get from A to B decreases with increased velocity.


The first half is true if I'm interpreting it correctly (If both the primed and unprimed observer have an atomic clock, 1 second is 9192631770 cycles regardless)

The second half is only true if you toss out SR. If I'm traveling at relativistic speeds, time will travel slow as measured by an unprimed observer. In other words, if I fly past earth traveling at .9c 1 second for me will still be 9192631770 cycles, however, in the time it took you to measure the same 9192631770 cycles on your clock, you will have observed my clock as having cycled fewer times. Otherwise the speed of light is violated.

Mar 08, 2019
.... however, the second half is only true if you toss out SR. If I'm traveling at relativistic speeds, time will travel slow as measured by an unprimed observer. Otherwise the speed of light is violated.

Please use quote tags, it makes reading and responding much easier.


He has been linked to the SR equations for time dilation, and I even showed him the maths that proves it correct. Unfortunately, it seems to be beyond his limited comprehension.

Mar 08, 2019
I can see why these cranks don't like math - it has a habit of showing their crazy nonsense to be trivially wrong.

Yes! It's also a thoroughly humbling endeavor, and cannot be persuaded or negotiated; a serious insult to the ego so those who are fragile tend to shy away, distract, or obfuscate.

says Iloseyouwin

"a serious insult to the ego so those who are fragile tend to shy away, distract, or obfuscate."

Congratulations. You have described Da Schniebo almost perfectly. He tends to distract, lie and obfuscate on a regular basis (as though his very life/Soul depended on it).
Who are these "cranks" that are being accused of not liking Math? Perhaps you don't yet understand that this is ONLY a physorg phorum where calculations are not necessary when arguing about the realities. Math is only a "medium", as a Theory that is groundless until it can be PROVEN through realistic experimentation. Until then, Math is faerie dust written on the wind.

Mar 08, 2019
Physics theories are written with math equations.

No math, no physics.

How else can you say, the force equals the mass times the acceleration, without math?

Mar 08, 2019

says Bojingles
OK, no matter what velocity an object has, what we measure as 1 second doesn't change. The only relationship between time and velocity...is that the time to get from A to B decreases with increased velocity.
- Time can't be dilated. Only Space can dilate. One second always remains one second unless the clock's mechanism is defective. Velocity can never increase past c. You are contradicting yourself. First you say "what we measure as 1 second doesn't change."
But then you say that "the time to get from A to B decreases with increased velocity." What happened to that 1 second that is unchangeable? No matter at what velocity, 1 second is still only 1 second and does not decrease or increase.

The first half is true if I'm interpreting it correctly (If both the primed and unprimed observer have an atomic clock, 1 second is 9192631770 cycles regardless)
- What do you mean by "primed and unprimed" observer?

Mar 08, 2019
Physics theories are written with math equations.

No math, no physics.

How else can you say, the force equals the mass times the acceleration, without math?


Just the way you said it - without all the math symbolism and mumbo jumbo.

Mar 08, 2019
See, this is why I don't like philosophy. They think they can prove anything without data.


Yet the problem with data is perspective, like mistaking math for empirical evidence to prove anything.
says yep

A wise and true choice of definition. I congratulate you, sir.

Mar 08, 2019
Time is ONLY a Theory which Einstein absurdly included with Space because he obviously didn't know any better.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

It is 'obvious' to anyone with half a brain that knows something about relativity here that all the contrary to the above is the case.
WOW! You say "he obviously didn't know any better"!? So with your moronic delusional arrogance you think you 'know better' than that great genius about space and time?
Sorry, but I have news for you; You don't and you are an idiot.
The equations would have had the same results without the time element that was made a part of it.
for anyone that has studied the equations like myself, Clearly FALSE. The exact opposite is the case. This shows your complete ignorance of the subject you make out to know all the about. Just for once in your life, study some REAL science, and NOT your own made-up CRAP, then come back to us.
says humy

You have drunk the "kool-aid" of lies.

Mar 08, 2019
yeah yeah, math math link math.... I am so glad I learned physics instead.

Please elaborate on this physics sans maths.
says Iloseyouwin

Physics is explainable without Math, since Physics is experimentation with set methods and goals and can be done by employing those methods to achieve the goals as predicted or hoped for; while Math is simply Theoretical numbers and symbols that are purported to explain those goals and the methods to achieve them. But the Math doesn't always fit the correct methods - therefore the Math must be revised/changed to better describe those correct methods, until the Math and the methods match up.

Mar 08, 2019
Ok Bo, you started off with a question about a particles velocity relationship with a photon it emits. Claimed that particles recoil when they emit light ( even though they are emitting light BECAUSE of their motion) so there is a part of that relationship you need to investigate. I have actually watched video of a fibre optic cable recoiling due to emitting light, but this is a case where light is forced through a "tube" by a remote emitter....
...
Really? What must light "push off" if it is causing a particle to recoil upon emission? Newton's third law....? It is funny that you would think it works one way to prove your point but wouldn't work that way when a photon traverses a magnetic field 100,000 LY across...

This makes me wonder.... why would a massless photon cause a recoil?

Mar 08, 2019
Be back later. Precious has to go poop and pee on Da Schniebo outside.

So.... Precious knows what time it is...
says Whyde

Of course not. Precious knows the FEELING of a full bladder and/or a full large intestine. Strictly physical and nothing to do with time. Silly you.

Mar 09, 2019
Physics theories are written with math equations.

No math, no physics.

How else can you say, the force equals the mass times the acceleration, without math?


Just the way you said it - without all the math symbolism and mumbo jumbo.


This is precious.

Mar 09, 2019
yeah yeah, math math link math.... I am so glad I learned physics instead.

Please elaborate on this physics sans maths.
says Iloseyouwin

Physics is explainable without Math, since Physics is experimentation with set methods and goals and can be done by employing those methods to achieve the goals as predicted or hoped for; while Math is simply Theoretical numbers and symbols that are purported to explain those goals and the methods to achieve them. But the Math doesn't always fit the correct methods - therefore the Math must be revised/changed to better describe those correct methods, until the Math and the methods match up.

As well as this. You won't be determining whether those 'methods' have or have not achieved their goals without math. Nor will you be determining goals in the first place without...math!

Mar 09, 2019
Physics theories are written with math equations.

No math, no physics.

How else can you say, the force equals the mass times the acceleration, without math?


Just the way you said it - without all the math symbolism and mumbo jumbo.
So you can't directly translate that into

F=ma

You're completely innumerate?

Then why are you posting on a physics site?

SMH

Mar 09, 2019
Physics is explainable without Math,
No, it's not. This is complete nonsense.

Physics is about quantifying things. That is, counting and measuring them.

To do that you need numbers.

To talk about those numbers, you need math.

No math, no physics. It's just that simple.

Mar 09, 2019
...Perhaps you don't yet understand that this is ONLY a physorg phorum where calculations are not necessary when arguing about the realities. Math is only a "medium", as a Theory that is groundless until it can be PROVEN through realistic experimentation. Until then, Math is faerie dust written on the wind.


The trouble with this being that as soon as you abandon mathematics you're no longer arguing about realities, but specifically, arguing about non-realities. Please do not declare in a public place what "math" is where impressionable people could read your ego preserving rationalizations and feel compelled to also abandon reality. "Realistic experimentation", otherwise known as "experimentation" by people not trying to project a facade, is specifically deemed useless within the scientific method without a coherent application of math from theory, through experimentation, and on through compiling the data, and submitting for review.

Mar 09, 2019
Trying to imagine this individual balancing a checkbook. Comedy gold.

Mar 09, 2019
Physics is explainable without Math


No it isn't. Explain Kepler's third law without math. Explain GR and SR without math. Can't be done. If you can't do math, you can't do physics. And pretty much any other science.

Mar 09, 2019
this is ONLY a physorg phorum where calculations are not necessary when arguing about the realities. Math is only a "medium", as a Theory that is groundless until it can be PROVEN through realistic experimentation. Until then, Math is faerie dust written on the wind.


Trivially false. As I proved to the poster redpill. He claims SR has nothing to do with time dilation. I point him to the math that proves him wrong. He claims lensing is not due to mass. I show him the math that proves him wrong. He presents zero science in return. That is typical crank behavior. And is precisely what you are doing. No science, no math, no evidence. Hot air. You re not talking science. You are making things up.


Mar 09, 2019
This makes me wonder.... why would a massless photon cause a recoil?

Supposition 1 - the creation of the photon...
Supposition 2 - once they're created, they are PULLED off the electron...
(Just a thought exprmnt…)

Mar 09, 2019
@Whyde, momentum is conserved.

If a photon goes out in direction X with momentum A, then the atom must recoil in direction -X with momentum -A.

Photons may not have mass, but they have momentum. And this is one of Newton's Laws: action and reaction.

Mar 10, 2019
I would imagine that there are a couple of major effects going on with the Gas Giants, one of which is that:
A. The metallic,liquid hydrogen is probably an extremely good, rather dense (due to close packing) solvent that would do well for separating the incoming items like:
B. The orbital junk Jupiter and Saturn regularly pick up, being the incoming comets and asteroids such as the Shoemaker-Levy set that certainly did a job in stirring up old Jove.

Effects such as these, chemical recombinant heating, minor amounts of fission, possible catalytic mediated fusion and convection should keep the constituents well mixed as well as turbulent wind motions affected by outside gravitational sources and temperature gradients.

Mar 10, 2019
Five stars for that one, @Steel.

Dunno if you're right; no one does. But at least you're thinking.

Mar 10, 2019
this is ONLY a physorg phorum where calculations are not necessary when arguing about the realities. Math is only a "medium", as a Theory that is groundless until it can be PROVEN through realistic experimentation. Until then, Math is faerie dust written on the wind.


Trivially false. As I proved to the poster redpill. He claims SR has nothing to do with time dilation. I point him to the math that proves him wrong. He claims lensing is not due to mass. I show him the math that proves him wrong. He presents zero science in return. That is typical crank behavior. And is precisely what you are doing. No science, no math, no evidence. Hot air. You re not talking science. You are making things up.


Time cannot dilate as it is only a CONCEPT invented by the human mind.
Early humans did not require math to determine the Events going on in their world. They only had to OBSERVE AND RECORD those Events to determine anything.
Later, math was invented by the human mind


Mar 10, 2019
-contd-
Math is only a "medium", as a Theory that is groundless until it can be PROVEN through realistic experimentation. Until then, Math is faerie dust written on the wind.


Time cannot dilate as it is only a CONCEPT invented by the human mind.
Early humans did not require math to determine the Events going on in their world. They only had to OBSERVE AND RECORD those Events to determine anything.
Later, math was invented by the human mind
says I

Theories can be explained in plain English rather than in contrived symbols, simple arithmetics, and the word "WHERE" that is used to EXPLAIN what the Purpose of those symbols and their results/outcomes are. They may SEEM like a 'shorthand' version to explain the Theory, but these math equations are MOST OFTEN PRECEDED by the explanation IN ENGLISH (or whichever language). If math equations aren't explained previously in English, the equations/symbols are pure gibberish.
Only SPACE IS ABLE TO DILATE/EXPAND, etc