Quote from Matt Watts on July 22nd, 2018, 01:42 AM

So Lynx, what was the question again?  Travelling to the stars in no time at all?

I think Cycle has made it clear, even if you became a photon, you'd still be limited to covering distance at 300,000 kilometers per second and since the stars are so far away, you'll be dead long before you get there.  Case closed.

Oh and by the way, Tesla's LMD waves don't actually penetrate a Faraday Cage.  That was just an measurement artifact due to a poorly constructed test apparatus.  If Cycle redid the test properly, all would see clearly no electromagnetic radiation escapes.


You know, sometimes I forget why I joined this forum.  It seems all the really good stuff has already been solved.  The scientific method gave us the answers.  Let's deal with it since there is really very little left to learn about our little world, our prison planet.  We don't need any instincts, creativity or imagination, science is the bomb.  Let's just spin our wheels in circles until we blow ourselves up.  There's nothing else out there and if there is, it's way too far away to worry about.  Eat, sleep, work, sh1t, shower, shave, pay taxes and die.  I'm all in.  What's not to like about this world.  It's scientifically perfect.  Ah man, got to love it, while you cry yourself to sleep.......zzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ    :offtobed:

And dream about reality.  Hopefully my heart stops in the process.

I was hoping to find those willing to share their thinking outside the box on this subject here regardless of how spectacular it may seem, just to spark new ideas using vivid imagination and hopefully also disregard all man made laws of physics and mathematics in the process as thinking outside the box is the only way to discover new interesting anomalies after all.

I'm pretty sure I don't get 50 more years on this small planet, but I can do my very best to stretch the box frames a little.

I have a copy of Einstein's theory of relativity and I can understand that you would be better served getting a grip of it all if you also understood the math, but just by reading his examples about the train, lighting strikes, etc, that in itself gets ideas spinning in my head.
He really knew how to think outside the box.
I wonder what theories he would have had to share with us today.

Quote from Matt Watts on July 21st, 2018, 03:39 PM

Sorry Cycle, you're stuck in a box and have willingly accepted the box you created to be your boundaries.  Maybe it's good enough for you, but not for me, Nav, Lynx and countless others.  When this movie comes out,



I'd like you to go see it.

Can't wait to see it, thanks for sharing :thumbsup:

Regarding UFO:s, I, for one, find it more than interesting when it comes to multiple witness sightings of UFO:s.
Such as the files MUFON keep in their hangar 1.
They sieve through the reports and keep the crackpots out, leaving actual, real, true, etc, reports on UFO:s, so yes, it's extremely interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_UFO_Network

Quote from Matt Watts on July 22nd, 2018, 01:42 AM

Oh and by the way, Tesla's LMD waves don't actually penetrate a Faraday Cage.  That was just an measurement artifact due to a poorly constructed test apparatus.  If Cycle redid the test properly, all would see clearly no electromagnetic radiation escapes.

I never said anything about LMD waves nor their attenuation by a Faraday cage. I clearly stated that by generating gravitational waves using the weak electrogravitic coupling (the coupling is weak unless the charged particle is moving at a high fraction of the speed of light), one could send signals through any Faradic shielding. Because it wouldn't be the EM fundamental force (photons) mediating the signal, it'd be the gravitational force. And thus far, we haven't developed anything which can effectively shield or block or redirect gravity.

You want a true revolution in science? Create that gravitational wave communication device and sell it. Incorporate it into WiFi (imagine having a world-wide WiFi connection of your very own that no one could block or hack into), cell phones (imagine having a world-wide cellphone signal that no one could block or hack into), etc. Then there'd be governments the world over scrambling to get their scientists to figure out a way to manipulate gravity such that they can listen in and/or block the signal.

And once that happens, once we figure out how to manipulate gravity on a major scale, you've got interstellar travel at major fractions of the speed of light.

Of course, then we'd also have gravitational WMDs... imagine an entire city which has its gravity modulated at successively increasing frequency until every building reaches its resonance and collapses in upon itself.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 02:07 AM

By half way I mean each craft is the same distance from the detector relatively speaking. Jim measures the distance and gets the same measurement as what Fred does.

Then they would naturally be using the geodesic metric. But in your example, you clearly stated that they had to be using a Cartesian metric because you clearly stated that the beams arrived at different times, hence the target was not geodesic-aly half-way, it was Cartesian-aly half-way. You seem to be confused.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 02:07 AM

I see your logic actually but I have another question and i'm not really good with maths. Both men measure the speed of light to be the Universal constant but what happens when Fred observes Jim's laser which is visible as red light and Jim observes Fred's laser?
Fred's clock is running at half the speed of Jim's and if Jim looks through a telescope at Fred will he see the clock running slower, if he see's the clock running slower will he see Fred's laser running slower?

Again, simple. The light climbing out of the gravity well will be red-shifted. Light is affected by Relativistic Doppler shift, and gravity is a non-inertial (accelerational) force.

Quote from Cycle on July 22nd, 2018, 09:58 AM

They they would naturally be using the geodesic metric. But in your example, you clearly stated that they had to be using a Cartesian metric because you clearly stated that the beams arrived at different times, hence the target was not geodesic-aly half-way, it was Cartesian-aly half-way. You seem to be confused.

Again, simple. The light climbing out of the gravity well will be red-shifted. Light is affected by Relativistic Doppler shift, and gravity is a non-inertial (accelerational) force.

Do you know what I think? I think that neither spacecraft will be able to see each other at all. Why? Because Fred will always be in Jim's past and my understanding of past, present and future here on Earth is that you cannot see anyone in your future or past but only in the present.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 10:16 AM

Do you know what I think? I think that neither spacecraft will be able to see each other at all. Why? Because Fred will always be in Jim's past and my understanding of past, present and future here on Earth is that you cannot see anyone in your future or past but only in the present.

We know this to be untrue. Even our satellites are in a different time frame due to the planet's gravity well. If what you said was true, we'd send our satellites up to space and they'd just wink out of sight!

When a person starts walking, their time frame is slowed in comparison to a geographically stationary frame... so according to your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" that person should wink out of sight forever!

Because we are deeper in the Earth's gravity well than the moon, your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" says that we can never see the moon!

Because we are less-deep in the Sun's gravity well than the Sun itself, your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" states that we can never see the sun! Likewise, because the Sun is less-deep in the Earth's gravity well than we are, your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" states that we can never see the sun!

Therefore your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" is flawed. The scientific method dictates that therefore you must take into account the data, and thus change your belief to come into line with the facts.

Quote from Cycle on July 22nd, 2018, 10:29 AM

We know this to be untrue. Even our satellites are in a different time frame due to the planet's gravity well. If what you said was true, we'd send our satellites up to space and they'd just wink out of sight!

When a person starts walking, their time frame is slowed in comparison to a geographically stationary frame... so according to your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" that person should wink out of sight forever!

Therefore your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" is flawed. The scientific method dictates that therefore you must take into account the data, and thus change your belief to come into line with the facts.

Yes but we are talking about a clock running at half the speed of another clock. If 10 days pass for one clock then 5 days have only passed for the other clock, Fred would be 5 days behind Jim so Jim would be technically 5 days into Fred's future. I don't know about you but personally speaking I don't think I can see any future events.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 10:42 AM

Yes but we are talking about a clock running at half the speed of another clock. If 10 days pass for one clock then 5 days have only passed for the other clock, Fred would be 5 days behind Jim so Jim would be technically 5 days into Fred's future. I don't know about you but personally speaking I don't think I can see any future events.

Now you're arguing scales... effectively you're trying to state that a little bit of a shift of time frame is OK (in the example of the person walking and thus slowing their time frame in comparison to a geographically-stationary person; and in the case of us being further down in our planet's gravity well than our satellites... or the moon... or the sun), but a larger shift of time frame (in the case of your example of Jim and Fred, where one is further down in a gravity well than the other) isn't.

Of course, you do realize that destroys your argument from the outset, yes?

Therefore your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" is flawed. The scientific method dictates that therefore you must take into account the data, and thus change your belief to come into line with the facts.

Quote from Cycle on July 22nd, 2018, 10:48 AM

Now you're arguing scales... effectively you're trying to state that a little bit of a shift of time frame is OK (in the example of the person walking and thus slowing their time frame in comparison to a geographically-stationary person; and in the case of us being further down in our planet's gravity well than our satellites... or the moon... or the sun), but a larger shift of time frame (in the case of your example of Jim and Fred, where one is further down in a gravity well than the other) isn't.

Of course, you do realize that destroys your argument from the outset, yes?

Therefore your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" is flawed. The scientific method dictates that therefore you must take into account the data, and thus change your belief to come into line with the facts.

My argument that I can't see the future or past here on Earth is flawed? How so?

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 11:00 AM

My argument that I can't see the future or past here on Earth is flawed? How so?

Reread what I wrote and just admit you're wrong, Nav. You're attempting to conflate retrocognition and precognition with time frames. It's not working, and you're embarrassing yourself with yet another display of your inaptitude.

All time frames in the present can 'see' each other, but those time frames may have evolved at different rates. Or didn't you know that time is relative in a non-inertial frame, Nav? That's sort of the whole point of Einstein's General Relativity.

And since your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" is flawed, the scientific method dictates that therefore you must take into account the data, and thus change your belief to come into line with the facts.

To do otherwise is to admit you're operating out of ignorance and you prefer it that way.

That's why I've told you repeatedly:
"Educate yourself, Nav."

So are you telling me that here on Earth, if someone is in my future I can see them? If a spacecraft in space is 5 days into my future I should see it?

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 11:11 AM

So are you telling me that here on Earth, if someone is in my future I can see them? If a spacecraft in space is 5 days into my future I should see it?

:facepalm:

Reread what I wrote and just admit you're wrong, Nav. You're attempting to conflate retrocognition and precognition with time frames. It's not working, and you're embarrassing yourself with yet another display of your inaptitude.

All time frames in the present can 'see' each other, but those time frames may have evolved at different rates. Or didn't you know that time is relative in a non-inertial frame, Nav? That's sort of the whole point of Einstein's General Relativity.

And since your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" is flawed, the scientific method dictates that therefore you must take into account the data, and thus change your belief to come into line with the facts.

To do otherwise is to admit you're operating out of ignorance and you prefer it that way.

That's why I've told you repeatedly:
"Educate yourself, Nav."

So, getting back to Jim and Fred in their spacecraft, 10 days have elapsed for Jim but only 5 days have elapsed for Fred. You said

Quote

but those time frames may have evolved at different rates

. So Fred looks through his telescope and see's that Jim's time frames have evolved at different rates. When he makes a few calculations he see's that those time frames are quicker than his own. In fact-double that of his own. But that means that the speed of light in a vacuum for Jim compared to himself is double. You can't have it both ways, either they look at each other and see time moving at the same constant and the speed of light is the same constant for both of them OR one of them is in a different time reference frame to the other and are therefore invisible to each other.
It is you that is making a complete idiot of yourself, go back and read Einstein again and read what he says about viewpoints concerning time dilation. Einstein himself stipulates in this scenario that you cannot see future and past events and that objects in separate time reference frames are invisible to each other, stating that otherwise the Universe would be chaotic.
You're a child in a mans game, now go home and play with your comics boy.
 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'll remind everyone on the forum what Cycle has implied today. He stated that my observation here on Earth that I cannot see past and future events is flawed.
Well, actually I think I've just seen myself walking back from the kitchen 10 minutes ago.
 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :cleaning: :cleaning:

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 11:32 AM

So, getting back to Jim and Fred in their spacecraft, 10 days have elapsed for Jim but only 5 days have elapsed for Fred. You said . So Fred looks through his telescope and see's that Jim's time frames have evolved at different rates. When he makes a few calculations he see's that those time frames are quicker than his own. In fact-double that of his own. But that means that the speed of light in a vacuum for Jim compared to himself is double.

:facepalm:

Your utter confusion stems from your refusal to do the mathematics by which you could potentially educate yourself, Nav.

But if you wish to persist in displaying your willing inaptitude, that is your right... one would think you'd be embarrassed by it, but you appear to be proud of being ignorant.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 11:32 AM

You can't have it both ways, either they look at each other and see time moving at the same constant and the speed of light is the same constant for both of them OR one of them is in a different time reference frame to the other and are therefore invisible to each other.

Or you're completely confused and therefore completely wrong, yet you refuse to admit you're wrong and continue to stubbornly argue from a position of ignorance.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/gratim.html#c4

Using a correct metric, the speed of light is invariant because it takes into account the geodetic effect.

You're still attempting to use an incorrect Cartesian metric upon a geodesic gravitationally-influenced space-time 'surface' and thereby claim that the speed of light is relative and therefore (for some inexplicable reason) the time frames become 'out-of-sync' and therefore different time frames in the present cannot see each other. That's just insane.

You've completely misinterpreted Einstein's General Relativity to fit your insane sentient universe fairy-tale blather. You should be embarrassed, Nav.

You're proving that not only don't you know anything about the topic, but you refuse to educate yourself, while at the same time you want everyone to listen to your uneducated blather and believe it... and when you're cornered by the facts, you spew out more insults. That means you're losing, you know you're losing, yet you want everyone to believe the lies you've led yourself to believe.

How's that working for ya, Nav? Not too well, given your insult-spewing tantrums. :-D

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 11:45 AM

I'll remind everyone on the forum what Cycle has implied today. He stated that my observation here on Earth that I cannot see past and future events is flawed.
Well, actually I think I've just seen myself walking back from the kitchen 10 minutes ago.
 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :cleaning: :cleaning:

Awww, now Nav has to resort to lies to cover up the fact that he's been proven wrong.

I very clearly stated:

Quote

All time frames in the present can 'see' each other, but those time frames may have evolved at different rates. Or didn't you know that time is relative in a non-inertial frame, Nav? That's sort of the whole point of Einstein's General Relativity.

And since your "understanding of past, present and future here on Earth" is flawed, the scientific method dictates that therefore you must take into account the data, and thus change your belief to come into line with the facts.

To do otherwise is to admit you're operating out of ignorance and you prefer it that way.

That's why I've told you repeatedly:
"Educate yourself, Nav."

Have you no conscience, Nav? Now you're resorting to lies as means of covering up the fact that your fairy-tales about a sentient universe and time frames not being able to see each other if they evolve at different rates (non-inertial time frame relativity being the underlying basis of Einstein's General Relativity) are all just the mad maunderings of a malcontent too afflicted by Dunning-Kruger to educate himself. :D

Quote from Cycle on July 22nd, 2018, 11:58 AM

:facepalm:

Your utter confusion stems from your refusal to do the mathematics by which you could potentially educate yourself, Nav.

But if you wish to persist in displaying your willing inaptitude, that is your right... one would think you'd be embarrassed by it, but you appear to be proud of being ignorant.

Or you're completely confused and therefore completely wrong, yet you refuse to admit you're wrong and continue to stubbornly argue from a position of ignorance.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/gratim.html#c4

Using a correct metric, the speed of light is invariant because it takes into account the geodetic effect.

You're still attempting to use an incorrect Cartesian metric upon a geodesic gravitationally-influenced surface and thereby claim that the speed of light is relative and therefore (for some inexplicable reason) the time frames become 'out-of-sync' and therefore different time frames in the present cannot see each other. That's just insane.

You've completely misinterpreted Einstein's General Relativity to fit your insane sentient universe fairy-tale blather. You should be embarrassed, Nav.

You're proving that not only don't you know anything about the topic, but you refuse to educate yourself, while at the same time you want everyone to listen to your uneducated blather and believe it... and when you're cornered by the facts, you spew out more insults. That means you're losing, you know you're losing, yet you want everyone to believe the lies you've led yourself to believe.

How's that working for ya, Nav? Not too well, given your insult-spewing tantrums. :-D

The actual true answer to this paradox has been discussed many times Cycle but I knew you'd dig yourself into an hole you can't get out of with it. Einstein as well as many of his followers and contemporaries concluded that in this paradox that two realities are born. The two spacecraft actually end up not in separate time reference frames divided by time but.....in two separate parallel realities, later physicists state that in this type of scenario that each craft is in a separate but parallel Universe (but that is debatable) that can never be joined again. Each craft has taken a path that is a unique event and there paths can never cross ever again. But you gave it your best shot and failed, many others failed before you, don't worry about it. Just place yourself on the pile of folks who also failed.
Found ya comics yet?
 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:11 PM

The actual true answer to this paradox has been discussed many times Cycle but I knew you'd dig yourself into an hole you can't get out of with it. Einstein as well as many of his followers and contemporaries concluded that in this paradox that two realities are born. The two spacecraft actually end up not in separate time reference frames divided by time but.....in two separate parallel realities,

What?! No. I encourage you to substantiate your blather with corroborating evidence.

Again, using a correct geodesic metric to take into account the gravitationally-induced space-time curvature, the speed of light is invariant. The time frames will evolve at different rates, but each time frame in the present can see all other time frames in the present.

As an analogy, imagine you're walking through a room with several movies playing. Some are playing at 2x, some are playing at 0.5x, and some are playing at 1x.

Are you unable to see any of the movies not playing at 1x? No, of course not. You can see all of them, regardless of their playback speed.

It's the same for time frames. All time frames in the present can 'see' all other time frames in the present, even if those other time frames evolved at a different rate. That is the underlying basis for Einstein's General Relativity. The rate of time evolution for non-inertial time frames is relative to the time evolution of all other time frames.

You're attempting to state that only time frames which have evolved at exactly the same rate can 'see' each other. That's ignorant and blatantly false, a complete misinterpretation and misapplication of Einstein's theory.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:11 PM

later physicists state that in this type of scenario that each craft is in a separate but parallel Universe (but that is debatable) that can never be joined again. Each craft has taken a path that is a unique event and there paths can never cross ever again. But you gave it your best shot and failed, many others failed before you, don't worry about it. Just place yourself on the pile of folks who also failed.
Found ya comics yet?
 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is the most insane take on the universe I've ever read, Nav. You're saying that if a spacecraft dips into a gravity well, it winks out of existence for anyone not traveling along with that spacecraft, because its time frame has evolved at a different rate than the time frame of an external observer.

I encourage you to name these "later physicists" you claim expounded upon these parallel and completely separate universes which ensured that once a time frame's evolution changed from any other time frame's evolution, those time frames could no longer see each other.

According to you, when you walked from your kitchen "10 minutes ago", your house stayed stationary and therefore your time frame shifted and everything around you disappeared! Or weren't you aware that motion affects time frame evolution, Nav?

So now, according to your ignorant take on how the universe operates, you're floating in a completely empty time frame with no connection to any other. How exactly are you spewing out your blather on this forum, Nav? Psychic communication? :rofl:

Quote from Cycle on July 22nd, 2018, 12:25 PM

What?! No. I encourage you to substantiate your blather with corroborating evidence.

Again, using a correct geodesic metric to take into account the gravitationally-induced space-time curvature, the speed of light is invariant. The time frames will evolve at different rates, but each time frame in the present can see all other time frames in the present.

As an analogy, imagine you're walking through a room with several movies playing. Some are playing at 2x, some are playing at 0.5x, and some are playing at 1x.

Are you unable to see any of the movies not playing at 1x? No, of course not. You can see all of them, regardless of their playback speed.

It's the same for time frames. All time frames in the present can 'see' all other time frames in the present, even if those other time frames evolved at a different rate. That is the underlying basis for Einstein's General Relativity. The rate of time evolution for non-inertial time frames is relative to the time evolution of all other time frames.

That is the most insane take on the universe I've ever read, Nav. You're saying that if a spacecraft dips into a gravity well, it winks out of existence for anyone not traveling along with that spacecraft, because its time frame has evolved at a different rate than the time frame of an external observer.

I encourage you to name these "later physicists" you claim expounded upon these parallel and completely separate universes which ensured that once a time frame's evolution changed from any other time frame's evolution, those time frames could no longer see each other.

According to you, when you walked from your kitchen "10 minutes ago", your house stayed stationary and therefore your time frame shifted and everything around you disappeared!

So now, according to your ignorant take on how the universe operates, you're floating in a completely empty time frame with no connection to any other. How exactly are you spewing out your blather on this forum, Nav? Psychic communication? :rofl:

You failed. get over it. Both craft each enter there own relationship with space time that is unique. Some physicists say that parallel Universe are born and there are a infinite number of possibilities but I don't buy it, I prefer Einsteins idea that the past, future and present are just different realities in spacetime that coincide with each other. This fellow has a similar idea:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2932870/Is-future-decided-New-theory-time-suggests-past-present-future-exist-universe.html
What is reality? It is just an ability to be somewhere in space time just like Einstein says. But you'll probably be arguing with him next.
You know your problem Cycle? You think you are super human intelligent, you think that no one on this forum has any brains and you're the most educated person here. Far from it, you're unable to think out of the box, you'll can't make reasonable adjustments to what you have learned because you actually think you know everything. You've made claims on here that human beings already know everything there is to know which is just being naive at the very least. You're not smart Cycle, you're just blinkered and narrow minded and a fool.
So without further a due I would like to invite you to feck off.
 

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

You failed. get over it.

He says, after having been proven not only to be wrong about everything, but after proposing a sentient universe in which, if a time frame evolves differently than any other time frame, those time frames lose connection to each other... therefore your take on the universe says objects moving at different rates or in different gravitational fields simply wink out of existence.

That's not woo-woo. Not at all.

Why do you find it so difficult to simply admit you're wrong, Nav? You can't educate yourself if you never admit your beliefs are wrong, which is why you've demonstrated your inaptitude so many times in this thread.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

Both craft each enter there own relationship with space time that is unique.

And you've already stated multiple times that those "relationships with space time" have no connection between them, and therefore any object which moves or is at a different gravitational potential has a different rate of evolution of its time frame, and therefore it simply winks out of existence for all other time frames!

That's not woo-woo. Not at all.

Why do you find it so difficult to simply admit you're wrong, Nav? You can't educate yourself if you never admit your beliefs are wrong, which is why you've demonstrated your inaptitude so many times in this thread.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

Some physicists say that parallel Universe are born and there are a infinite number of possibilities but I don't buy it, I prefer Einsteins idea that the past, future and present are just different realities in spacetime that coincide with each other. This fellow has a similar idea:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2932870/Is-future-decided-New-theory-time-suggests-past-present-future-exist-universe.html

A philosopher? He's not a scientist, so he doesn't understand how quantum mechanics and General Relativity work. He, like you, can spew whatever blather he wants whether it's actually connected to reality or not. The difference between him and you, though, is that some people accede to authority and believe him. :D

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

What is reality? It is just an ability to be somewhere in space time just like Einstein says. But you'll probably be arguing with him next.

I don't have to argue with Einstein. I agree with his theory. You're the one arguing against General Relativity, Nav... and you're failing badly at it.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

You know your problem Cycle?

Sure. I don't suffer fools gladly. :D

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

You think you are super human intelligent, you think that no one on this forum has any brains and you're the most educated person here.

Where have I ever stated that, Nav? Are you attempting to ascribe to me your own feelings about me? Sure you are... you're psychologically projecting what you think about me and attempting to twist it around and ascribe it as though that's what I felt about myself.

You're so transparent, Nav. :D

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

Far from it, you're unable to think out of the box,

You mean fantasize about things that will never be? You appear to excel at that... the problem is, you apparently believe your wholly manufactured fairy-tales. :D

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

you'll can't make reasonable adjustments to what you have learned because you actually think you know everything. You've made claims on here that human beings already know everything there is to know which is just being naive at the very least.

You'll be getting right on providing the link where I've ever made that claim, Nav, or you'll be forced to admit you're lying.

So... you're spewing out fairy tales with no connection whatsoever to reality; you're demonstrating your willful inaptitude and inability to grok actual science; you're insulting and demeaning me after I've proven you wrong on all of your blather; you're goalpost-shifting and desperately hopping from topic to topic as you're proven wrong on each topic in the hopes that you can gain even a single point so you're not forced to admit you've been completely wrong about everything; and you're resorting to lies.

Are you "winning", Nav? :D

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 12:43 PM

You're not smart Cycle, you're just blinkered and narrow minded and a fool.
So without further a due I would like to invite you to feck off.

Awww, you've been proven wrong about all of your blather, and now you're butthurt again, so you're spewing out insults and ad hominems. That's not good. :D

Relativity failure from the Master of the Universe. It just won't do will it? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :nono: :nono: :nono:

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 01:05 PM

Relativity failure from the Master of the Universe. It just won't do will it? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :nono: :nono: :nono:

Ah, the spankard's last bastion... trying to get the last word.

Are you "winning", Nav?  :cool:

Quote

Awww, you've been proven wrong about all of your blather, and now you're butthurt again, so you're spewing out insults and ad hominems. That's not good. :D

Neither was this by you.

Quote

Who's being mad now, Nav? You claim no one can know what's happening outside their own bodies... yet we can look out across vast reaches of the universe. If I were just a bit meaner, I'd say your mental problems were flaring up again... but I'm a nice guy, so I won't say that out loud

There are no winners and losers Cycle, just you failing Relativity 101 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :nono:

Let's find something you can pass!
A man has two dogs and one dog dies, how many dogs does he have left. :hillbilly: :hillbilly:

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 01:31 PM

Neither was this by you.

Just admit you're wrong about all of your fairy-tale blather, Nav, and your nightmare ends. Then you can embark upon educating yourself so you don't embarrass yourself so badly in the future.

Quote from nav on July 22nd, 2018, 01:31 PM

There are no winners and losers Cycle, just you failing Relativity 101 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :nono:

No, I haven't. I explicated accurately the precepts of General Relativity.

It was you who was claiming that time frames with different rates of time evolution didn't have any connection between them (in direct contradiction to General Relativity), so any object which moved and any object in a different gravitational field simply winked out of existence for all other time frames. One would think you'd at least do a quick reality check before you spewed your blather, but apparently you don't mind embarrassing yourself in such a manner.

Are you "winning", Nav? :cool: