DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I recognized my error about Eistein's Nobel. The fellows who won the Nobel for the Higgs were both theorists and experimenters.
Elons Little Plan
- Thread starter captainmorgan
- Start date
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
"Invent an antigravity machine and you invent time travel too."
which has been my only disagreement.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Space time are linked, there is a correlation as you would say, the effects are well proven many different ways. Local gravity affects the passage of time too and gravity can cause time dilation, not just accelerating to 90% of lightspeed, actually there is no difference. So, what happens if you can remove the effects of gravity from your frame of reference? Your frame of reference changes in relation to your surroundings where gravity does have an effect on the passage of time in that frame of reference. I'm not talking about going back in time, you can't do that anymore than you could go up in a gravity field, without some help.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
*Nobels
No. They are awarded for experiments that either support or drive significant revision to the theoretical corpus. It’s indirect, thus the Nobels “for relativity” were for the experiments (notably Michelson-Morley) and observational astronomy (like Mercury’s advancing argument of perihelion) that confirmed and delimited the laws that devolved from the theory.
There were also some maga-like politics involved.
The dramatic story behind general relativity's Nobel Prize snub - Advanced Science News
More than 100 years on after Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize, some confusion remains around the committee's reasons for omitting relativity.
www.advancedsciencenews.com
thus any good flat-earth theory recognizes that the earth is not truly flat but slightly hyperbolized
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
yes, but the theoreticians are the cart to the experimentalists’ horse
n. b. anyone claiming this is a thread derail might consider that this is a railativistic effect.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
These days it is usually a mix of the theorists and the experimenters who validated it, science is more of a team effort these days as the mysteries get harder to crack. Unless it is for something narrow in scope but important technologically like the transistor or blue LED and then it was a team, and these things made a big difference. Inventing a better mouse trap will win the Nobel every time!*Nobels
No. They are awarded for experiments that either support or drive significant revision to the theoretical corpus. It’s indirect, thus the Nobels “for relativity” were for the experiments (notably Michelson-Morley) and observational astronomy (like Mercury’s advancing argument of perihelion) that confirmed and delimited the laws that devolved from the theory.
There were also some maga-like politics involved.
The dramatic story behind general relativity's Nobel Prize snub - Advanced Science News
More than 100 years on after Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize, some confusion remains around the committee's reasons for omitting relativity.
thus any good flat-earth theory recognizes that the earth is not truly flat but slightly hyperbolized
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
this is the uniquely obstinate way you say “yeah sorry you’re right”.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
If you start posting mathematical formulas then @sunni might stomp!
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Science is a team effort and has been for a while experimenters and theorists are invloved, they need theorists or the dullards wouldn't know what to do!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
why?
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
You spoke of derailing the thread! Going esoteric is one way to do it!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I then proceeded to provide the out.You spoke of derailing the thread! Going esoteric is one way to do it!
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Out of what exactly, speak clearly.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I did.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
How many people in this conversation? Think more would be interested if people started posting mathematical formulas that it takes years of specialized training and regular use to understand? Even if someone worked in science, they are a lay person outside of their specialty these days, it is labor intensive to say the least for a lay person to understand these concepts from the inside out using math alone.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Still not a tos issue.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I thought derailing a thread would get you stomped on, or posts deleted which seems to be the preferred way to deal with minor and infrequent transgressions.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
The correlation is inherent in the context.
Step thru the three dimensions: each is a fundamental characteristic of physical existence - length, width, height. We might say the fourth natural characteristic would be mass, but it’s actually secondary to another characteristic: persistence.
“Time” misses the mark: in order for any thing to be taken note of, it must persist long enough to be noted; beyond that, we’re simply tracking duration…which is closer to memory or history than to what we commonly think of as “time” per se.
Space is the ground upon which durable things interact & play out; ‘time’ enters the field as the experience of persisting in space - that is, of duration. That time is a fundamental characteristic of space is false; time is a fundamental characteristic of persistence in space, without which time has no referent. More stringently, time is a product of *observation* whether local or remote: without the capacity for observation, no thing in space can note or compare any ‘relativistic’ element…including an increase in duration.