“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

Atomic clocks measure hyperspace? Atomic clocks measure the aether? Atomic clocks measure frozen time? Atomic clocks measure atomic molecular physics? Atomic clocks measure third space? Atomic clocks measure warped hyperspace? Atomic clocks measure neutrons and electrons?

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

If, you put an pretty darn big magnet in the same room as an atomic clock you would warp timespace into warped hyperspace function x. If, you put an pretty darn big hoover in the same room as an atomic clock you would warp timespace into vortex space function y. If, you put an pretty darn big heater in the same room as an atomic clock you would warp timespace into thermal space function z. F: x.y.z. Altogether. VWT (Vortex Warped) Thermal Hyperspace Aquapods? Like out of the film alien.

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

HyperAquapod anyone? An Aquapod that does Hyperspace? An Aquapod Third Space or ATS.

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

ATS anyone? QTSA (Quantum Third Space Aquapod).

“Pope & President”
Since: Aug 12
London, UK

Judged:
1
or MTA (MATRIX THIRDSPACE AQUAPOD) OR QTA (QUANTUM THIRDSPACE AQUAPOD)

Since: Mar 12
Dubai, UAE

I see that the inability to disprove unicorns is once again trumpeted by god's champions as proof of their position.

“talk to the kitteh”
Since: Jun 10
Location hidden

Chimney1 wrote: I see that the inability to disprove unicorns is once again trumpeted by god's champions as proof of their position. There are things that were at one time only suspected as real that have since been proven to be exactly that. Atoms were once considered as only fantasy until they were proven to exist. Given enough time, and the right tools, every dream of mankind may be proven to be real.

“There is no such thing”
Since: May 08
as a reasonable person

nanoanomaly wrote: <quoted text>There are things that were at one time only suspected as real that have since been proven to be exactly that. Atoms were once considered as only fantasy until they were proven to exist. Given enough time, and the right tools, every dream of mankind may be proven to be real. Everyone knows that dreams are real just like: concepts, thoughts, ideas, emotions, and the internet. Each and every one of those things can be measured physically in one form or another.


Since: Jun 07
Location hidden

Lil Ticked wrote: <quoted text>Everyone knows that dreams are real just like: concepts, thoughts, ideas, emotions, and the internet. Each and every one of those things can be measured physically in one form or another. Creationist posing as agnostic.

The Dude
Birkenhead, UK

Skeptic wrote: <quoted text> Creationist posing as agnostic. And teh Commies, TEH COMMIES ARE EVERYWHERE!!!

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Still waiting on Polymath's response to post #13617.
While waiting we might as well dig into another one of this logical fallacies. I will formulate this as another simple question for him.
The two mathematical time dilation models (GR and SR) produce testable quantitative results from observational input fed into the equations. The questions for Polymath here is:
Are the results produced by combined relativistic mathematical time dilation model to be considered testable predictions of the model?
If the quantitative results from the time dilation model are not actual predictions of model, what the heck are they?

“Wear white at night.”
Since: Jun 09
Albuquerque

humble brother wrote: Still waiting on Polymath's response to post #13617. While waiting we might as well dig into another one of this logical fallacies. I will formulate this as another simple question for him. The two mathematical time dilation models (GR and SR) produce testable quantitative results from observational input fed into the equations. The questions for Polymath here is: Are the results produced by combined relativistic mathematical time dilation model to be considered testable predictions of the model? If the quantitative results from the time dilation model are not actual predictions of model, what the heck are they? Your comments are nothing but pseudoscientific claptrap so you have no reasonable expectation that anyone would respond at all.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: Still waiting on Polymath's response to post #13617. Sorry, but I thought it was so ignorant of how scienc3e actually proceeds and *should* proceed that you might be able to figure it out for yourself. Yes, we get to do calculations based on our observations and use the results of those calculations to test our ideas. For example, we can measure, using our own devices, the location of another object and the events happening on that object. This allows us to determine the time dilation on a moving ship. The results of such a calculation are the predictions of the model. if the time dilation were different, the observations would be different and would thereby show the model to be wrong. While waiting we might as well dig into another one of this logical fallacies. I will formulate this as another simple question for him. The two mathematical time dilation models (GR and SR) produce testable quantitative results from observational input fed into the equations. The questions for Polymath here is: Are the results produced by combined relativistic mathematical time dilation model to be considered testable predictions of the model? Yes, of course they are. The model predicts the results of observations and calculations based on those observations. The general relativistic model subsumes the special relativistic model by including the effects of gravity. If the quantitative results from the time dilation model are not actual predictions of model, what the heck are they? Why do you have the impression that they are NOT predictions of the model? The model makes very definite predictions about the results of observations and the calculations based on those observations. Those *are* the 'quantitative results' of the model.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: Sorry, but I thought it was so ignorant of how scienc3e actually proceeds and *should* proceed that you might be able to figure it out for yourself. Yes, we get to do calculations based on our observations and use the results of those calculations to test our ideas. For example, we can measure, using our own devices, the location of another object and the events happening on that object. This allows us to determine the time dilation on a moving ship. The results of such a calculation are the predictions of the model. if the time dilation were different, the observations would be different and would thereby show the model to be wrong. <quoted text> Yes, of course they are. The model predicts the results of observations and calculations based on those observations. The general relativistic model subsumes the special relativistic model by including the effects of gravity. <quoted text> Why do you have the impression that they are NOT predictions of the model? The model makes very definite predictions about the results of observations and the calculations based on those observations. Those *are* the 'quantitative results' of the model. When a quantitative prediction of a mathematical model is shown to be incorrect the model is falsified. As an example in the twin paradox the two brothers (only one accelerates) produce identical calculations from the quantitative model. Even theoretically it is certain that at least one of those quantitative predictions will fail miserably upon observation of the facts when the traveler returns. So you will always have at least one miserably failing prediction of the time dilation model. So what needs to be falsified in your view? Or is it just fine in "your science" when quantitative predictions fail miserably?

Since: Jun 07
Location hidden

The Dude wrote: <quoted text> And teh Commies, TEH COMMIES ARE EVERYWHERE!!! Shut the f*ck up you ignorant piece of sh*t troll with no understanding of the burden of proof and no evidence of your claim that "god is possible". Go get your f*ck buddy nuggin and prove any of the horsesh*t that comes out of your keyboard.

The Dude
Birkenhead, UK

Judged:
1
Skeptic wrote: <quoted text> Shut the f*ck up you ignorant piece of sh*t troll No. Have a nice day. :)

Since: Apr 11
Location hidden

The Dude wrote: <quoted text> No. Have a nice day. :) 20Oct12..... .....For the benefit of the General Public on TOPIX Forums, and especially the 'youth' of the WholeWideWorld.....would Skeptic and Dude explain what 'f*ck' means. Ps:.....Dis otta fall in line with the Terms and Conditions you agreed to 'before' you signed on the dotted line of joining onto TOPIX Forums. ....You are both schidtforbrains....and when it comes to 'skeptic'..BobLoblah believes dat there is more brains in a bottle of wadda. Forever and Ever BobLoblah

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> When a quantitative prediction of a mathematical model is shown to be incorrect the model is falsified. As an example in the twin paradox the two brothers (only one accelerates) produce identical calculations from the quantitative model. No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less. Even theoretically it is certain that at least one of those quantitative predictions will fail miserably upon observation of the facts when the traveler returns. So you will always have at least one miserably failing prediction of the time dilation model. So what needs to be falsified in your view? Or is it just fine in "your science" when quantitative predictions fail miserably? Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”
Since: Dec 10
Location hidden

polymath257 wrote: <quoted text> No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less. <quoted text> Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model. These calculations have been shown in reality to be as predicted by several different methods also haven't they? I know when we talk of the twin paradox it is just a mind twister into understanding LR and SR , but real figures have been done on smaller scales that match the groundwork done by Lorentz and Einstein , so I don't understand what hb is arguing about. I posted this link hoping he would read it, ill do it again. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gpsrel... Also the Gravity B probe has shown GR to be correct also. So how can hb argue about it when real world tests have confirmed the theories?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: No, this is wrong. The model gives different predictions. it predicts the accelerated twin will age less. So then, lets look at the good old twins paradox. Can you produce quantitative predictions as calculated by both twins that numerically agree on the aging of both twins? Choose which ever acceleration and velocity for the traveling twin that suits you best. Lets see if you can produce two simple predictions or if you in fact have been uttering nonsense here. polymath257 wrote: Once again, your lack of understanding does not falsify the model. I find your comments very funny. Just put your money where your mouth is and give me two simple quantitative predictions that agree on the aging of the twins.

