GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 10 of 11 < 123456789 10 11 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   I debunked Albert Einstein while eating ice cream (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=145029)

Contempt 09-22-2011 06:01 PM
Einstein was a fraud

redshift 09-22-2011 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 1911574)
I've always known Einstein was wrong about time travel but I never felt I had the time to properly debunk it.
So tonight, I'm eating Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" icecream and a simple answer to the problem presented itself

The theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time. Here is why its wrong:

Time has no relationship to people. Time passes regardless of what a person does.
if something happends in another galaxy and it takes a year to see it because the light is traveling from so far away, by the time we see it, its already a year old (standard stuff)
But if we travel at faster than the speed of light towards that galaxy, we will get closer to seeing the galaxy in realtime. we will NOT be turning back the clock.
The proof of this is our ability to travel faster than the speed of sound.
If a sound takes 10 seconds to reach our ear because the action creating it was so far away, we hear an action that happened 10 seconds ago. Not unlike seeing something from the other galaxy that happened already.
Now, if we travel at the speed of sound towards the action that made the sound, we DO hear the sound sooner but we do not travel back in time.
Swap speed of sound with speed of light and you see why Albert Einstein is wrong. :1orglaugh
You really don't understand what you are talking about.

SL|M! 09-22-2011 06:59 PM

12clicks 09-22-2011 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by redshift (Post 18445891)
You really don't understand what you are talking about.
Yeah, I keep hearing that from guys unable to explain themselves.

BestXXXPorn 09-22-2011 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18445986)
Yeah, I keep hearing that from guys unable to explain themselves.
I can explain...

Sound has no mass... it's just a vibration of the air.

When you're talking about traveling faster than the speed of light, you're talking about a physical object moving through space... faster than light. All comparisons are off at that point.

Let's keep in mind the recent discovery of something traveling faster than light was a neutrino... a sub atomic particle that can pass through walls regardless of size...

papill0n 09-22-2011 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18444947)
A timely bump
yeah what with it being international fucking idiot day and all

moeloubani 09-22-2011 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18445986)
Yeah, I keep hearing that from guys unable to explain themselves.
Here is an explanation:

The speed of sound can change, while the speed of light can never change. If you're driving in a car and you yell at someone in front of you, the sound waves are traveling at the speed your car is + the speed of sound. So relative to someone standing on the road as you go by, that sound is travelling at faster than the speed of sound.

The same doesn't apply to light, so when you're in a car and you turn on the lights, the light is still going the speed of light and not the speed of light + the speed of your car.

If I'm traveling towards sound, that sound is going to reach me going faster than it normally would be at rest. But if I'm travelling towards light, the light is reaching me at the same speed as it would if I were at rest.

So if I wanted to jump in a spaceship and travel towards a planet at faster than the speed of light, I'm going to arrive at the planet and see things that happened before I even left, since I'm travelling at faster than the speed of light.

Time travel happens more going the other way, future travel, where the closer to the speed of light you go the more time changes and five minutes for you might be hundreds of years for someone at rest relative to you.

grumpy 09-23-2011 03:12 AM
how do i make myself look stupid, any suggestions???

Diomed 09-23-2011 04:12 AM
It will end like this,

yes we can travel past the speed of light.

Time is a force of nature, and like other forces of nature it can be manipulated. It can be slowed down, distorted, maximized, manipulated for whatever purpose needed.

We will be able to "pivot" between time, but it wont be time travel as described in the movies.. more like practical skewing.

12clicks 09-23-2011 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestXXXPorn (Post 18446049)
I can explain...

Sound has no mass... it's just a vibration of the air.

When you're talking about traveling faster than the speed of light, you're talking about a physical object moving through space... faster than light. All comparisons are off at that point.

Let's keep in mind the recent discovery of something traveling faster than light was a neutrino... a sub atomic particle that can pass through walls regardless of size...
no where did you mention time.
time is the key factor in the explanation or lack there of.

12clicks 09-23-2011 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18446215)

If I'm traveling towards sound, that sound is going to reach me going faster than it normally would be at rest. But if I'm travelling towards light, the light is reaching me at the same speed as it would if I were at rest.
incorrect. any time two objects head towards each other, they are closing the space between them faster than if only one of them is in motion, whether it be a light particle or a car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18446215)
So if I wanted to jump in a spaceship and travel towards a planet at faster than the speed of light, I'm going to arrive at the planet and see things that happened before I even left, since I'm travelling at faster than the speed of light.
again, incorrect. you will merely see things that you hadn't yet SEEN on earth, not things that hadn't happened yet. you can not see a thing before it happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18446215)
Time travel happens more going the other way, future travel, where the closer to the speed of light you go the more time changes and five minutes for you might be hundreds of years for someone at rest relative to you.
regardless of how fast you go, you will age at the same rate. this is the fallacy of the time travel theory.

12clicks 09-23-2011 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grumpy (Post 18446511)
how do i make myself look stupid, any suggestions???
by thinking this will be a career for you?

PR_Glen 09-23-2011 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilnjscb (Post 18445047)
Einstein was an overhyped idiot. If light has no mass, and travels as a wave, it cannot have an upper limit when traveling through a vacuum.
I think he is over quoted personally. He was recognized for his theories regarding physics and relativity not as a philosopher, despite his attempts.

But calling him an idiot is just foolish, if he is an idiot then we are fuckin' seaweed...

xholly 09-23-2011 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18446900)
incorrect. any time two objects head towards each other, they are closing the space between them faster than if only one of them is in motion, whether it be a light particle or a car.
yes, as sound changes pitch when in motion, light changes colour to be either red for moving away or blue for moving towards the observer. By measuring the red shift or blue shift you can determine an objects speed.

Quote:
regardless of how fast you go, you will age at the same rate. this is the fallacy of the time travel theory.
take a flight in a spaceship at 99.99% speed of light for 5 or so years and when you come back everyone you know WILL be dead or very old. I don't think youve debunked einstein just yet.

same reason they adjust the clocks on the gps satellites every day, because the clocks literally run at different speeds when closer to a strong gravity source or when travelling at near the speed of light.

12clicks 09-23-2011 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by xholly (Post 18446971)
yes, as sound changes pitch when in motion, light changes colour to be either red for moving away or blue for moving towards the observer. By measuring the red shift or blue shift you can determine an objects speed.
irrelevant to what you quoted.



Quote:
Originally Posted by xholly (Post 18446971)
take a flight in a spaceship at 99.99% speed of light for 5 or so years and when you come back everyone you know WILL be dead or very old. I don't think youve debunked einstein just yet.
no, you'll all be 5 years older, you'll have been covering a lot of distance. nothing more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xholly (Post 18446971)
same reason they adjust the clocks on the gps satellites every day, because the clocks literally run at different speeds when closer to a strong gravity source or when travelling at near the speed of light.
since GPS satellites don't travel at the speed of light, I assume you're arguing that gravity effects the ability to properly count time.


If time travel had anything to do with the speed of light, the guys at CERN couldn't have tracked the particles that travelled faster than the speed of light because they would have arrived before anyone knew they were sent. :winkwink:

Lint 09-23-2011 10:39 AM
http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf

Lint 09-23-2011 10:43 AM
http://www7.economist.com/blogs/babb...1/09/neutrinos

"The odds, it must be admitted, are that a mistake has been made somewhere in the long chain of timing measurements required to compare the moment when neutrinos are created at CERN by smashing a beam of protons into a target, and their detection in Gran Sasso, though OPERA's researchers have done their best to account for all possible instrumental quirks. What makes the result slightly less than incredible is that an experiment in America, called MINOS, detected a similar anomaly in 2007. MINOS's researchers dismissed that result as a mismeasurement."

moeloubani 09-23-2011 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18446900)
incorrect. any time two objects head towards each other, they are closing the space between them faster than if only one of them is in motion, whether it be a light particle or a car.


again, incorrect. you will merely see things that you hadn't yet SEEN on earth, not things that hadn't happened yet. you can not see a thing before it happened.



regardless of how fast you go, you will age at the same rate. this is the fallacy of the time travel theory.
Any two objects headed towards each other would be closing the space between them faster except for light. Light is a constant speed.

If the sun exploded then we on Earth wouldn't see it happen for 8 minutes or so after someone who is on the sun would see it happen. But for that 8 minutes we would keep circling the sun normally because even the force of gravity can only travel at the speed of light. So for all intents and purposes, the sun hasn't exploded for us until the light reaches us because only then do we get any affects of it.

And finally if you go fast you will age at the same rate relative to yourself. But if you measure the rate that you age or that time passes compared to someone at rest relative to you, time for you will pass much slower than time for them.

I don't know if you're just being 12clicks the troll here or if you're serious, seems to me you're trolling. Nobody can not know so much when they are sitting in front of a computer, right?

Jack Sparrow 09-23-2011 11:02 AM
Damn. I see the most ridiculous arguments and statements on time, light, speed and more flying around in one thread.

12clicks: even 1 of the basics of time you are getting wrong. Seriously wrong.

Sukiho 09-23-2011 11:07 AM
its all relative, thats why its called relativity, what are you measuring the speed of light relative to? what time are you measuring your time against?

ilnjscb 09-23-2011 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 18446949)
I think he is over quoted personally. He was recognized for his theories regarding physics and relativity not as a philosopher, despite his attempts.

But calling him an idiot is just foolish, if he is an idiot then we are fuckin' seaweed...
You're right, that was too strong. The theories are blatantly incorrect in many ways, and Einstein worship has kept science from moving forward in some ways. Emotionally abusive, yes, overhyped, yes, an undeserving icon, yes, but an idiot, no. I get torqued at overhyped people.

ilnjscb 09-23-2011 11:26 AM
"So if the neutrinos are pulling this fast one on Einstein, how can it happen?

Parke said there could be a cosmic shortcut through another dimension ? physics theory is full of unseen dimensions ? that allows the neutrinos to beat the speed of light."

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP58b5...951b36b35.html

From a post 8-21-2011

"This theory of photonic mass is incorrect. Theories of photons are 100 years old and mostly centered around shaky postulates such as relativity.

An object cannot have no mass but have energy. A photon is a result particle with a form that exists outside the currently observable universe.

That is also why the universe did not "appear" from nothing. There are other, currently unobserved frames with physical laws that may not correspond to the frame in which we live."

Being a smart guy +10
Being unable to monetize -50
Score: -40 (Dumbass)

12clicks 09-23-2011 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani (Post 18447304)
Any two objects headed towards each other would be closing the space between them faster except for light. Light is a constant speed.
the car's speed is not constant and we're not talking about light heading away into space, we're talking about the closing speed of light. if the thing its closing on is moving, the speed of closure changes, the speed of light does not.

12clicks 09-23-2011 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sparrow (Post 18447344)
Damn. I see the most ridiculous arguments and statements on time, light, speed and more flying around in one thread.

12clicks: even 1 of the basics of time you are getting wrong. Seriously wrong.
odd then that with the passage of time, my argument becomes more correct.

Jack Sparrow 09-23-2011 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18447534)
odd then that with the passage of time, my argument becomes more correct.
Not really no.
Or i must be seriously misreading some of your posts.

No offense btw. You know me.

moeloubani 09-23-2011 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18447518)
the car's speed is not constant and we're not talking about light heading away into space, we're talking about the closing speed of light. if the thing its closing on is moving, the speed of closure changes, the speed of light does not.
Even if you are racing head on into a beam of light, the speed that the light is reaching you is the speed of light, not the speed of light + the speed of you travelling towards it. If you were racing towards me in a car going 100km/h and as you passed I threw a ball up with no horizontal speed, the ball would hit you as if it were traveling at 100km/h. Now if I stood ahead and threw the ball at you at 50km/h, when it hit you it would be going(relative to me, who is at rest) 50km/h + 100km/h. But it doesn't work that way with light, the speed of light remains a constant. So the fact that you're traveling towards the light doesn't mean that the light is hitting you any faster, the speed of light relative to anything remains the same.

grumpy 09-23-2011 01:25 PM
lol, why does every serious thread ends in a pissing contest. Must love GFY

BestXXXPorn 09-23-2011 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18447255)
no, you'll all be 5 years older, you'll have been covering a lot of distance. nothing more.
This is 100% untrue... Time slows as you approach the speed of light. It's where the whole theory/myth of time travel comes from because if time stops at the speed of light, what happens when you travel faster than the speed of light?

This has been proven. If you take two atomic clocks and put one at the base of the empire state building and one at the top then time passes more slowly for the clock at the top than the clock at the base. And that's accounting for time dilation due to mass as well as relative speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

There have been many, many experiments done to prove time dilation and the effects of gravity and relative speed.

seeandsee 09-23-2011 02:06 PM
.speed of light --->X

.faster of light ---->X
at this point you are not in future, you are just faster than light, i really dont know why is so hard to understand it, its like you see airplane take off, then you go to other country with faster airplane and wait for it, and here it is, you was faster, lulz

papill0n 09-23-2011 02:07 PM
arguing science with 12clicks :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Matt 26z 09-23-2011 04:47 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

---
Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential, the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds.
---

So in theory if you could enter into a state of true zero gravity, time will stand still for you while Earth time continues forward.

Titan 09-23-2011 08:36 PM
You can't travel back in time. It would be like setting your house on fire then putting it back together from ash. Time is simply how fast all objects move. Gravity is like universal friction slowing down all movement. When you travel fast your acceleration increases mass and thus gravity increasing the universal friction you would experience. Effectively time dilation. Travelling faster than the speed of light supposedly is impossible but just because you break the laws of physics doesn't mean you can now magically get to travel back in time. It's comic book logic.

Shey 09-23-2011 08:44 PM
Can we just stick to peddling porn? Y'all are giving me a brain freeze, a "Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" brain freeze :)

xholly 09-23-2011 09:24 PM
ice cream theory failed peer review :)

Varius 09-24-2011 02:00 AM
The concept of time is man-made and as such it is flawed and can be interrupted many different ways - thus neither you, or Einstein, or any other GFYer here is right or wrong :2 cents:

Your example also isn't even an example of "popular" time travel. A more fun example would be arguing for or against a concept like, if you could "travel back in time", could you hang out with a long-dead historical figure?

The key to unlocking everything = vibration.

Jack Sparrow 09-24-2011 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan (Post 18448869)
You can't travel back in time. It would be like setting your house on fire then putting it back together from ash. Time is simply how fast all objects move. Gravity is like universal friction slowing down all movement. When you travel fast your acceleration increases mass and thus gravity increasing the universal friction you would experience. Effectively time dilation. Travelling faster than the speed of light supposedly is impossible but just because you break the laws of physics doesn't mean you can now magically get to travel back in time. It's comic book logic.
Wrong.

Lets say these particles arent faster then light but travelled through another dimension, thus taking shortcuts. They would in fact be going back in time.

Einsteins theory can still hold. But can be different if there are more dimensions.

mineistaken 10-28-2015 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 1911574)
The theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time. Here is why its wrong:
Well this is obvious to anybody, my question is this: did Einstein actually say that? That if you travel faster than speed pf light you travel in time?
That would be ridiculous :1orglaugh

12clicks 10-28-2015 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mineistaken (Post 20618743)
Well this is obvious to anybody,
I suggest you read the whole thread then as it doesn't seem that obvious :1orglaugh

Relic 11-19-2016 02:20 AM
Nothing to say

hjnet 11-19-2016 04:08 AM
I'd not like to read the whole thread, so I hope he's just trolling?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:41 PM.
Page 10 of 11 < 123456789 10 11 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc