Author Topic: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!  (Read 9780 times)

Offline trdsf

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #135 on: September 05, 2018, 02:18:41 PM »
Newton wasn't even wrong, really -- not within the limits of 17th century measurement.  All Newton was, was incomplete, and to this day it's sufficiently accurate to get astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts to orbit and back, as nothing meaningfully relativistic is going on there.

The difference with GPS is that time has to be measured phenomenally accurately, accurately enough that the tiny differences caused by relativity does matter.  You can't do GPS with Newtonian physics... but there was a certain scarcity of satellites in the 1600s and 1700s, so that's hardly his fault.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #136 on: September 05, 2018, 03:04:17 PM »
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“Let others pride themselves about how many pages they have written; I'd rather boast about the ones I've read.”
― Jorge Luis Borges

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #137 on: September 06, 2018, 12:00:41 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've read enough of Ronald Hatch's stuff to figure out that all he has done is built an elaborate mathematical reformulation of GR and SR and insisting that they're not GR and SR and that everything observed is merely "apparent." He does not contest that the effects of SR and GR are observed, he merely insists that they are only a seeming. But his physics is no more Newtonian than Einstein's relativity.

...

I think physicists can see through the little mathematical games he's playing and are thinking, "How cute!"
The above judgement was based on snippets gleaned from abstracts behind a paywall (I refuse to shell out money for an internet battle). Since then, I've managed to track down some equations that our friend Hatch is using from a slideshow presentation from 2000.

The first thing to remark is that Hatch does not understand GR on its own terms. This is clear from his own attempts to characterize the "gravitational scale factor" of GR. In GR, the metric plays a central role in the physics of spacetime. Instead, what he expresses as the scale factor is just the gravitational redshift for a Newtonian potential, z = exp(-GM/rc²)-1, plus 1. But we don't use this expression or any similar one for deriving the kinematics of free-falling particles; we derive it explicitly from the metric.

Speaking of the weak field, Hatch's scale factor for his "revision" looked awfully familiar to me, so I checked in my copy of A First Course on General Relativity by Bernard Schultz, and lo and behold, I found it (or rather, its square, but it's in a d_² term) in the metric expression for the weak field approximation. Specifically, in the time component, which is the dominant component of the weak field approximation for a Newtonian potential, ϕ = -GM/r. From this, you can recover Newton's gravitational force law, dp⃗/dτ = F = -m∇ϕ = -GMm/r², for a particle free-falling in this metric.

No, Dr. Hatch, GR does NOT derive F = -GMm(z+1)/r² as you claim!

Thing is about the weak field approximation, it's been kicking around since Einstein, and is derivable from GR with the assumptions that the gravitational field is weak (with escape velocities well below light) and for small velocities (again, well below light). Under the assumptions of the weak field/small velocities, the metric can be treated as straight Minkowskian perturbed by a very small matrix, h, and under the Lorentz transformation, the metric transforms in such a way that our h transforms as if it were a tensor itself, and leads to what Schultz calls a "convenient fiction" that h is a background field on flat spacetime. Hatch claims his is an "ether theory," and this is part of the reason why it works after a fashion. The other thing is that we can derive the weak field approximation for the Newtonian potential completely in GR. I don't know how Hatch derived his expression for his gravitational scale factor, but if his calculations are in any way sound, I wouldn't be surprised that he somehow recapitulated the result of GR's weak field approximation.

As such, I'm able to put a finer point on that little thing that physicists say when they see Hatch's stuff: "How cute! He re-derived Einstein's gravitational weak field approximation!" So it's no wonder physicists aren't taking him seriously. He's literally coming up with stuff that has been known for almost a century and treating it as if he's come up with a brand new interpretation. It'll even sorta work for weak fields.

Addendum: I have just now learned that Hatch's scale factor, s, comes exactly from the weak field approximation. Just straight rips it off. It's called an "approximation" for a reason. So, yeah, it really is just a recapitulation of an approximation that physicists have known about for almost a century. ⑨

Oh, and he's derived the full spherically symmetric external field in GR wrong. We know what it is. It's the Schwartzschild metric, which does NOT have exponentials in its expression. ⑨ /Addendum

Now, his alternate Lorentz transformation? That's more difficult to fathom, because I have yet as this writing to track down an explicit expression. He does make reference to an absolute frame, though how one's supposed to find the absolute frame (and thus get the "really correct" value of c) is beyond me. However, Hatch does reference the apparent speed of light in tranverse and parallel (along-side) directions as ct = c/γ; cp = c/γ², and a length contraction along the parallel direction is lp = l/γ, while transverse length is unaffected. (As always, γ = sqrt(1-v²/c²).)

Let's work out a Michelson-Morley type experiment here. Figuring the lengths of the two arms in Earth's frame, E, and translating to the "true frame" will allow us to avoid parallel and transverse speed of light shenannigans. The parallel moving tube is measured to be L = l'p in E, so it's "true length" is lp = γL, so it takes light tp = 2γL/cγ² = 2L/cγ to travel this distance. For the transverse moving tube, measured at L = l't in E, its "true length" is lt = L, so it takes light tt = 2L/cγ*. The difference is ∆t = tt - tp = 2L/cγ - 2L/cγ = 0, so it appears that it replicates the Michelson-Morley experiment and no fringing is detected.

But * indicates an incorrect derivation: the light does NOT travel lt = L along the transverse path, because the ends of that tube are MOVING forward at v — the light that gets reflected from the far mirror has to be traveling along a diagonal outward, and takes a similar diagonal back. In fact, the actual path traveled by the light can be shown to be γL each leg, not L. This gives us tt = 2γL/cγ = 2L/c, which gives us a ∆t = 2L/c - 2L/cγ = 2L/c (1-1/γ) ≠ 0. Ergo, Hatch's derivation of transverse and parallel length contraction does NOT produce an equal time along both tubes.

Taking it from E, this becomes t'p = 2L/cp = 2Lγ²/c; t't = 2L/ct = 2Lγ/c, so ∆t' = γ∆t = 2Lγ/c - 2Lγ²/c = 2Lγ/c (1-1/γ), which gives us ∆t = 2L/c (1-1/γ) the same magnitude of fringe shifting.

But of course, Michelson and Morley and other experiments of its type show no such fringing. Hatch's equations make the wrong predictions. Too bad, so sad.

And the nail in this coffin comes in the form of his conclusion, which predict that "LIGO experiments should indicate failure of GRT model within 10 years." Except that LIGO detected their first gravitational wave on 14 September 2015. While five years late, it does mean that Hatch's prediction is wrong, and six have been detected since. Womp, womp.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #138 on: September 06, 2018, 03:17:23 AM »
The claims you make about you reading Kant's work, and telling me I am a liar is really a frustration to any intellect.
All you are doing is taking everything I say, and write pages of opposing claims.
I do not have a problem with any of that, for you have a right to speak your mind.
But, I thought I really need to show you that you are not truthful in your so called facts you present here.
You say: I also never read that he (Kant) makes any assertion one way or another about the Flood.
This is again a derailment strategy telling me my claims are lies, sending me out to get the sources, which you said you read!
Why do you act this way?
Well, I decided to not ignore you, but to prove to you what I claimed was true.

All you did is to demonstrate that You did not read Kant's essay!
And we already established you also never read the Bible.

Here is Kant on ONE of many REFERENCES OF THE FLOOD!

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
Quote from: Mousetrap
Well, I tried to count the times he referred to the Biblical God, the Biblical narratives, the Flood, etc.
If I were to remove these references from his Natural History of the Universe based on Newtonian principles, It will be unintelligible.
Like I said before, I think of the two of us, I'm the only one who actually read Kant's paper. I even noted that he makes lots of references to the Creator. I also never read that he makes any assertion one way or another about the Flood. The Flood, after all, occurred long after the Earth was formed. So, yeah, I think you can drop all the references to the Creator, the biblical narratives (which are hardly mentioned at all, so no prob), the Flood and all that and it will still be quite intelligible.
And here is one page on Kant and the flood.
Now who is lying?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Could we not imagine that the Earth once had a ring like Saturn? It could have risen from its surface just as Saturn’s did and have remained for a long time while the Earth was slowed down by who knows what cause from a much faster rotation to its present rate, or that we can consider that universal basic material falling sideways was capable of having formed it in accordance with the rules explained above, which we do not have to take completely seriously if we want to indulge our penchant for oddities. But what a stock of lovely explanations and consequences such an idea presents us with! A ring around the Earth! What a beautiful sight for those created to inhabit the Earth as a paradise; what comfort for those on which nature smiles from all sides! But this is nothing compared with the confirmation such a hypothesis can borrow from the chronicle of the story of creation and which is no small recommendation for applause for those who believe they are not desecrating but rather confirming the honour of revealed religion when they make use of it to give the excesses of their wits some prestige. The water of the firmament mentioned in Moses’ description has already caused the interpreters some effort. Could one not use this ring to help to get oneself out of this difficulty? Without a doubt this ring consisted of watery vapours, and in addition to the advantage it was able to provide the first inhabitants of the Earth, there is the additional one of having it break when required so that floods could punish the world which had made itself unworthy of such beauty. Either a comet, whose attraction brought confusion into the regular motions of its parts, or the cooling of the area of its location unified its dispersed vaporous particles and hurled it down onto the earth in one of the most gruesome cloudbursts. It is easy to know what the consequences of this were. The whole world disappeared under the water and in the strange and volatile vapours of this unnatural 1:304 rain also absorbed that slow poison which brought all creatures closer to death and destruction. Now the figure of a pale and light arc had disappeared from the horizon and the new world, which could never remember this sight without feeling terror in the face of this terrible tool of divine revenge, perhaps saw, with not a little consternation, in the first rain that coloured arc that appeared to copy the first in shape but, through the assurance of the reconciled heavens, was to be a sign of grace and a memorial of a continuing preservation of the Earth, changed as it now was. The similarity of the shape of this memorial sign with the event it signified could commend such a hypothesis to those who are devoted to the dominant tendency of bringing the miracles of revelation into the same system as the ordinary laws of nature. I consider it more advisable completely to forgo the fleeting applause such correspondences might arouse for the true pleasure that arises from the perception of regular
« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 08:45:57 AM by Mousetrap »
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #139 on: September 06, 2018, 09:55:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The claims you make about you reading Kant's work, and telling me I am a liar is really a frustration to any intellect.
All you are doing is taking everything I say, and write pages of opposing claims.
Well, isn't that was a debate is about?

Quote
This is again a derailment strategy telling me my claims are lies, sending me out to get the sources, which you said you read!
Why do you act this way?
Because you're an asshole. You come here and ruin our wa with these pointless threads about the Bible forsaw science and blah blah blah. You pretend that this stuff is scientifically justified, but when I show it isn't, you instead get your panties in a twist and devolve into the typical Christian spew-fest.

Quote
Well, I decided to not ignore you, but to prove to you what I claimed was true.

All you did is to demonstrate that You did not read Kant's essay!
And we already established you also never read the Bible.
I've never read it cover to cover, yes. I don't pretend otherwise. But in that respect, I'm not much different from most Christians. Even if I had, you'll find something else to complain about. It's simply a waste of time to read the whole Bible on your behalf.

Quote
Here is Kant on ONE of many REFERENCES OF THE FLOOD!
----
And here is one page on Kant and the flood.
Now who is lying?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Could we not imagine that the Earth once had a ring like Saturn? It could have risen from its surface just as Saturn’s did and have remained for a long time while the Earth was slowed down by who knows what cause from a much faster

<snip>

dominant tendency of bringing the miracles of revelation into the same system as the ordinary laws of nature. I consider it more advisable completely to forgo the fleeting applause such correspondences might arouse for the true pleasure that arises from the perception of regular
It has been over a month since I read this, and now that I see it again, I do remember reading this section. In fact, here was my comment to you about this very passage:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uh, no you haven't. Even Kant himself doesn't say that scripture is where his description of his nebular theory came from. He, in fact, references Thomas Wright. And lots of other people, but only one brief mention of the actual bible and that's in reference to the waters above the firmament, and how a ring around Earth could resolve that problem. He, however, arrived at his nebular theory by his own work and building on the work of others.
So, did I forget? Yes, I'll cop to that. Did I lie? No. Did I read Kant's essay? Certainly, because the only reason I knew about the ring similar to Saturn in the first place to comment about it a month ago is because I read it in Kant. Who's lying? YOU ARE. Why is it that, in all of the "many" references to the flood in Kant you boast about, why did you pick out the VERY SAME reference that I picked up on a month ago? The reason why is that this is the only reference that you could find to the Flood. There are not "many;" there is one. Singular.

Furthermore, Kant's passage on the Flood is all fluff and no crunch. Where is the justification for anything Kant says here? Without that justification, it's just an assertion and can be dismissed as such. No wonder I forgot about it.

I accept your correction. Now, what about the rest of it?

What about mass-energy equivalence?

What about the Michelson-Morley experiment, which according to your own boy Hatch's "theory," would should have detected something but we know produces a null result?

What about the relativistic Doppler effect?

What about the lengthening of the half-life of relativistic unstable particles?

What about the sheer number of theories that use SR as a foundation that successfully predict results?

What about the fact that we cannot accelerate particles past the speed of light even though Newton's mechanics say they should be going many times the speed of light?

What about the fact that it doesn't matter what frame you work in, their results apply across frames via the Lorentz transformation?

What about the fact that GR, another successful theory by Einstein, and SR can be formulated in a coordinate-free way?

What about the fact that, at best, Hatch has recapitulated the weak field approximation of GR and toting it as an alternative?

What about the fact that Hatch predicted no gravity waves, yet LIGO and other detectors have now detected them?

Don't try to use my faulty memory on Kant (which is not the subject of this thread) to derail us from the echoing absence of response to any of the above. You attribute to malice on my part what is reasonably explainable by a forgetful brain. You are a very disingenuous person, to turn an honest mistake into a reason to claim some sort of malice on my part.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #140 on: September 07, 2018, 02:25:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote from: Mouse Trap
Well, I decided to not ignore you, but to prove to you what I claimed was true.

All you did is to demonstrate that You did not read Kant's essay!
And we already established you also never read the Bible.
I've never read it cover to cover, yes. I don't pretend otherwise. But in that respect, I'm not much different from most Christians. Even if I had, you'll find something else to complain about. It's simply a waste of time to read the whole Bible on your behalf.
Oh, but you did say that between you and I you are the only one who read Kant's Natural history.
Did you forget?
Let me show you your exact words!

Quote from: HR
Like I said before, I think of the two of us, I'm the only one who actually read Kant's paper. I even noted that he makes lots of references to the Creator. I also never read that he makes any assertion one way or another about the Flood. The Flood, after all, occurred long after the Earth was formed. So, yeah, I think you can drop all the references to the Creator, the biblical narratives (which are hardly mentioned at all, so no prob), the Flood and all that and it will still be quite intelligible.

And you have the audacity to tell me I am a liar!

I am leaving for Ghana tonight for 3 weeks.
When I return, I am going to take you up on the Mickelson Morley experiment, and Lorenz transformation.
But this time I hope you will be more liberal in your approach on what I will show you, and will not just post pages of arguments.
If we can dissect with minimalism, every fact on what I will work on, It will be possible that either I will show you what I found and understand what SR and GR, and you can perhaps show me exactly where I went wrong in my understanding.
Or, I will be able to show you something you never thought about.
I think such a proposition is reasonable, and I hope you will agree to such a brain linking.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2018, 02:26:32 AM by Mousetrap »
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #141 on: September 07, 2018, 06:06:34 AM »
Have a good business trip ;-)
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #142 on: September 07, 2018, 08:50:20 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

And you have the audacity to tell me I am a liar!


You are a liar proven by your words.  It does not take audacity to say so, only honesty--which you lack.  You are all stripes of a liar from simply being disingenuous to bald-faced lying' not an honest bone in your body.  And you lie to everybody, but mostly to yourself.  And seemingly, you are too stupid to notice or care.  Audacity?  No, just saying it like it is. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #143 on: September 07, 2018, 02:26:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, but you did say that between you and I you are the only one who read Kant's Natural history.
Pull your head out of your ass. I was clearly talking about the Bible, not Kant, when I said I never read "it" cover to cover, which should have been clear from "in that respect, I'm not much different from most Christians." Last time I looked, it's the BIBLE that Christians claim to follow, not the works of Immanuel Kant. I read all of the Kant's Allgemeine.

Quote
Did you forget?
Let me show you your exact words!

And you have the audacity to tell me I am a liar!
Yes, I am calling you a liar, and it's only audacity if it's not true. I already copped to forgetting that Kant mentioned the Flood. Haven't you ever read something and then forgotten it three weeks later? Of course not. Moustrap is the perfect superman, incapable of forgetting. Nuts to that! I'm not accepting being called a liar because some internet goober thinks that reading Kant causes spontaneous photographic memory retention.

However, I call you a liar because —among many other things you have lied about— you are saying that there are "many" references to the Bible in Kant's Allgemeine, but at the time of my reading I had found only one mention of the Bible or the Flood —yes, that entire passage only counts as one reference, because Kant's talking about one thing— and interestingly, it's the exact same reference you cite. If there were "many" references as you claim, you would have likely picked one of the others. But you picked the only one that I have even a vague memory reading. What a coincidence. No, it's not a coincidence, you are lying by way of gross exaggeration. There are not "many" references to the bible; there's only one, rather easily-forgetable mention.

But even your cited passage does not demonstrate that Kant is drawing inspiration from the Bible. All I see is Kant doing exactly what you're doing: trying to make the science fit the Biblical account. He was trying to explain the Flood by way of inspiration from seeing or reading about the rings of Saturn. Saturn was his actual inspiration here.

As stated before, science need not explain what is not observed. There was no Flood that drowned the whole of the Earth, at any point, let alone a geologically recent one. No observation of geology supports one. So, this is just another point on which Kant is wrong. But being wrong doesn't make you a bad person. You're just wrong. When one gets better information, one tends to throw out old ideas, and indeed, one should reexamine their old ideas and throw them out if they prove inadequate in the face of better information. Kant isn't a bad person or even a bad Christian because he happened to be wrong in saying that Earth had a Saturn-like ring that caused the Flood; he's just not correct.

Anyway, we're done with Kant. We've been done with Kant since you abandoned your Cosmology thread. Kant has nothing to do with time dilation, length contraction, or anything this thread's about.

Quote
I am leaving for Ghana tonight for 3 weeks.
When I return, I am going to take you up on the Mickelson Morley experiment, and Lorenz transformation.
But this time I hope you will be more liberal in your approach on what I will show you, and will not just post pages of arguments.
If you want to demolish one of the foundational pillars of modern physics, then you have a big task ahead of you. It essentially means that you have to explain what is observed in our experiments better than when using SR, and there is a lot to explain.

Quote
If we can dissect with minimalism, every fact on what I will work on, It will be possible that either I will show you what I found and understand what SR and GR, and you can perhaps show me exactly where I went wrong in my understanding.
Or, I will be able to show you something you never thought about.
I think such a proposition is reasonable, and I hope you will agree to such a brain linking.
Take my advice: Stick with SR. GR is even more mind-warping than SR because SR can be conducted in flat geometries where the coordinate systems are nice and calm, while GR involves space itself warping by the presence and motion of mass-energy. GR is highly nonlinear, which is basically mathematics-talk for "get a computer to do that bullshit, because that's really nasty-ass brain-fuckage."

Given that I've never seen you use the Lorentz transformation even once, much less successfully, I'm going to have to demand you pass a test of skill. If you don't even grasp that basic concept, then you're not in a position to argue about SR. The following exercise should be easy if you understand the Lorentz transformation:

Show that, for any two points P and Q with arbitrary coordinates in S and for any arbitrary boost v < c, that the Lorentz transformation Λ(v) from S into S' leaves the quantity ∆s² = ∆t²c² - (∆x² + ∆y² + ∆z²) unchanged.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Cavebear

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #144 on: September 08, 2018, 06:36:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Oh, Hahurei Reimu.
It seems as if the 2 evidences for SR and GR, actually proves SR and GR is one big error!

Planes flying around the world with Cesium clocks, as well as Global positioning systems does not prove Relativity at all.
On the contrary, when there are scientists who would like to get the calculations correct, they realized....
Einstein was wrong, and he fed us BS!!!

Thanks for helping me make up my mind about your long arguments.  When you denied the cesium clocks as proving relativity, all your arguments went out the window.

:)
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #145 on: September 08, 2018, 08:56:11 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for helping me make up my mind about your long arguments.  When you denied the cesium clocks as proving relativity, all your arguments went out the window.

:)

Unfortunately, science deniers, find they have more and more to deny, once they go down that road.  If they would stick to what is currently speculative (superstrings) then they wouldn't drive into a ditch.
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #146 on: September 08, 2018, 06:32:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for helping me make up my mind about your long arguments.  When you denied the cesium clocks as proving relativity, all your arguments went out the window.

:)

All Mousie proves in showcasing Hatch is that a crank is a crank, even if he works for the government. It's still argument from irrelevant authority, not argument from his own understanding. That, right there, is a severe problem. You can find anyone with a degree and credentials who disagrees with any subject matter under the sun, but if there were really a problem to turn up with SR and GR, it's not going to be found by Ronald Hatch, whose own papers show a criminal misunderstanding of both. It's going to come from people like Steve Weinberg, or Kip Thorne, or any one of a thousand experts on GR and/or SR, as they know the subject better than anyone. They know where to look for the cracks in the foundation. So far, none has turned up.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline trdsf

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #147 on: September 09, 2018, 02:01:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All Mousie proves in showcasing Hatch is that a crank is a crank, even if he works for the government.
And Hatch is far from the first, even at NASA.  If you want some real crankery, look up Jack Parsons: founder of JPL, responsible for many aspects of both liquid- and solid-fueled rocketry including the principles behind the Shuttle's SRBs which are based fundamentally on Parson's work... and also enthusiastic occultist, Thelemite, and follower of Alaister Crowley.

We'll all have a nice cup of coffee waiting for our little church mouse to extol the virtues of the Ordo Templi Orientis because one scientist believed in it, since he's set that as his standard for demonstrating something.

(crickets chirp)

(crickets continue chirping)

(crickets' legs fall off from all the incessant chirping)
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #148 on: September 09, 2018, 02:23:55 PM »
Face on Mars fooled quite a few in the 1980s.  I knew engineers quite enthused about it, because scifi has to be true, right?
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #149 on: September 09, 2018, 02:39:45 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Face on Mars fooled quite a few in the 1980s.  I knew engineers quite enthused about it, because scifi has to be true, right?
And what of the canals?  They fooled many for many years.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk