Search by Author (Last month only)
Public forum posts since 03 Sep '22 .
Enter the exact name of the post author
  1. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    29 Sep '22 17:30
    The funniest thing a fascist can do is bounce down a flight of stairs and not get up again.
  2. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    22 Sep '22 05:53
    @shavixmir said
    You are correct.
    They don’t say so themselves. It was the Washington Post writer who incorrectly called them that.
    Ah. A bonehead American. Then it's settled.
  3. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    22 Sep '22 00:19
    @shavixmir said
    https://youtu.be/zSV3Q4ztGaA

    The US Space Force has revealed its song.
    Now, let me be the first to get down on my knees and beg Satan, Jesus and Tinkerbell that this isn’t a hoax.

    It’s so fukking horrifically awful, nearly nazi-esque and retarded that I got dispensation from the mods for swearing.

    https://www.spaceforce.com/
    Their own website…

    Holy hell… it’s ...[text shortened]...
    Hahahaha
    Hahaha

    God damn. That will have the alien stormtroopers doubled up in fear, no doubts!
    It's like a high school fight song.
  4. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    21 Sep '22 20:14
    @shavixmir said
    On their site they do refer to it as the Netherland Times.

    Sort of like the Wahington Post…
    Where? I searched around for it yesterday, and again today. If it's anywhere it's probably a bonehead typo.
  5. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    21 Sep '22 05:10
    @shavixmir

    It seems to be called the NL Times, officially.
  6. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    16 Sep '22 21:41
    @averagejoe1 said
    Boardwalk at Coney Island. Jumping in the bumper cars, custard smears on two of them.
    Get a life, douche nozzle.
  7. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    16 Sep '22 18:15
    @metal-brain said
    You are wrong. Time is fundamental to the universe and your existence. Without time nothing would exist.
    That may be, but now you're moving the goal posts again by substituting "time" for "time dilation."
  8. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    13 Sep '22 17:321 edit
    @metal-brain said
    I never said otherwise. I meant time dilation from mass, not speed. I simply was not referring to SR, which is why I asked why you keep bringing it up. It is not useful in the context I am talking about because I was not talking about speed. You are, but you are just digressing unnecessarily into SR. I was not talking about that, so why are you? You did not prove anything ...[text shortened]... means we are too. We are experiencing time dilation from both mass and speed. More from mass though.
    I'll take the matter as settled, then.

    It's irrelevant where you move your goalposts next.
  9. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    13 Sep '22 03:462 edits
    @metal-brain said
    @Soothfast
    I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.
    You're just not paying attention.

    Your "equivalence principle" that "time dilation is gravity" is only valid in the context of general relativity, not special relativity. Ergo it is not a principle that applies to the universe at large.

    The PBS Nova programs have not deceived you, but you have misconstrued their message.

    I've said it before, but you didn't believe it. You still won't believe it, but maybe what I've said will be of interest to others.
  10. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    12 Sep '22 21:031 edit
    The Twin Paradox:

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

    The paradox is not that one twin staying home ages more quickly than the other who goes off somewhere and returns. It's that each twin sees the other as moving away and then coming back, so why does only one of them age more quickly?

    As the article mentions, however, the experience of the twins are not identical. One of them experiences acceleration to get up to speed, get somewhere, stop, and then return. However, the degree of time dilation depends only on how close the traveling twin gets to c and/or how long the traveling twin travels. These parameters are independent of acceleration and gravity issues. More fundamentally, however, the traveling twin occupies two inertial frames during his trek: an outbound frame and an inbound frame. The resting twin does not do this.

    That's all there is to that. But there is also this from the article concerning the "leaving" and "returning" phases of the traveling twin's trip:
    Explanations put forth by Albert Einstein and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.[8] However, it has been proven that neither general relativity,[9][10][11][12][13] nor even acceleration, are necessary to explain the effect, as the effect still applies to a theoretical observer that can invert the direction of motion instantly, maintaining constant speed all through the two phases of the trip. Such observer can be thought of as a pair of observers, one travelling away from the starting point and another travelling toward it, passing by each other where the turnaround point would be. At this moment, the clock reading in the first observer is transferred to the second one, both maintaining constant speed, with both trip times being added at the end of their journey.
  11. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    12 Sep '22 20:40
    Here's a blog that looks at some excerpts from one of Brian Greene's books:

    https://www.scottdstrader.com/blog/ether_archives/000122.html

    The last excerpt is of particular interest:


    All this led Einstein to conclude that the force one feels from gravity and the force one feels from acceleration are the same. They are equivalent. Einstein called this the principle of equivalence.

    ...

    With special relativity, Einstein proclaimed that absolute spacetime provides the benchmark, but special relativity does not take account of gravity. Then, through the equivalence principle, Einstein supplied a more robust benchmark that does include the effects of gravity. And this entailed a radical change in perspective. Since gravity and acceleration are equivalent, if you feel gravity's influence, you must be accelerating.


    Object #1 going a steady velocity of 0.99c with respect to Object #2 will experience time dilation from the point of view of #2. But there is no acceleration and hence, by the equivalence principle immediately above which holds that "gravity and acceleration are equivalent," there is no gravity.
  12. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    12 Sep '22 20:22
    @metal-brain said
    I didn't post an equation on this thread that I am aware of.
    Shallow doo is just making up BS nonsense.
    Previous page you wrote:

    Hogwash!

    Einstein's General Relativity equation has a "T" for time in it.
    You just claimed General Relativity does not exist. Now you have a problem with Einstein and his GR equation.


    You're referring to an equation, which is as good as typing it. So, produce this equation, or link to it, or something. Then state some semblance of a coherent argument for your thesis. It might help to thresh out your argument a bit better than "time dilation is gravity."
  13. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    12 Sep '22 20:17
    The equivalence principle explained:

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

    There are many "equivalence principles" in general relativity, though they can roughly be arranged in order of increasing generality. The "strong equivalence principle" states:

    1) The gravitational motion of a small test body depends only on its initial position in spacetime and velocity, and not on its constitution.

    2) The outcome of any local experiment (gravitational or not) in a freely falling laboratory is independent of the velocity of the laboratory and its location in spacetime.


    Main thing here is the first sentence of the article: "In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass."

    Foremost to note is that the principle's domain of validity is the mathematical framework of general relativity alone, and does not incorporate special relativity and the time dilation that special relativity models as a function of velocity alone (i.e. no acceleration and no mass).
  14. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    10 Sep '22 01:42
    @averagejoe1 said
    Been doing fine for 250 years,,,,tell us why it has to change, please? The “ social arrangement” I believe you call it?
    The nation has changed substantially in every respect over 250 years, despite the kicking and screaming of antediluvian dimbulbs such as yourself.

    Or haven't you noticed?

    The nation couldn't have survived to today if it kept on as if it were 1776 decade after decade. I can't even imagine the depths of self-delusion that's being reflected by your statement.

    This is like talking to a six year old.
  15. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2526
    09 Sep '22 23:141 edit
    @averagejoe1 said
    Apologies, I am really not given to opening random links. I am only here for one reason, to see how libs can think like they do. The group thing, dependence, the welcome govt influence on their person, equal at end of day, such as that.
    Actually the avatar is a Mexican saddle horn, but I figure you likely would not like to hear about AJoe hobbies. I don’t have a ho ...[text shortened]... 6, et al. I do have one of of trying to find good in socialism , can y’all key me in on that?😹🥴
    You're not here to learn anything, including "how liberals think." You're here to troll and hear yourself shout.

    The kind of Darwinian capitalistic shіthole you envision as the ideal social arrangement would collapse into chaos within a year, ending only in civil war and a revolution.
Back to Top

Search Site Content

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree