9
   

Does anyone know anything about flies seeing time slower?...

 
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 02:12 pm
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
Light is nothing but particles/energy expelled by a body. Period.
I'm not so sure Carl. Some still maintain it's a kind of wave in the "ether"
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 02:20 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Your arithmetic is very shaky, Dale. He gave the speed of light as 165,000 miles a second.
Oops Con, thanks, I've no excuse. Anyhow I had always heard it as 186,283; sometimes 284

186,282 miles, 698 yards, 2 feet, 1 & 9/10 inches (to nearest 1/10")
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 02:23 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:
Some still maintain it's a kind of wave in the "ether"

Not since about 1905 approx, except for cranks.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 02:34 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Not since about 1905 approx, except for cranks.
Do you mean then today, Con, the photon now considered an actual particle moving through space

Forgive laziness but I'm appalled when confronted by 4,620,000 Google hits
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 03:08 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
Not since about 1905 approx, except for cranks.
Do you mean then today, Con, the photon now considered an actual particle moving through space


A particle and/or a wave or both.

dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 03:40 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Not since about 1905 approx, except for cranks.
Ah yes Con, now remember the photon's unusual stance. Still it's hard to entertain the notion of a physical particle
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 04:58 pm
@dalehileman,
Dale, let's be honest. It's already hard to understand why the Universe has a "physical" form, but I'm sure our gaming industry would do great in explaining why in terms of "hit boxes".
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 05:09 pm
This makes no sense.
Flies can't wear watches.
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 05:14 pm
Anyways, the bigger the creature, the smaller the world appears.

The smaller the world, the faster the time. The smaller the creature, the slower the time. This can be proven by understanding the subatomic world's functionality, as electrons exist on gamma waves; bees exist on ultraviolet waves and humans exist on radio waves. The faster the frequency, the slower the time - the slower the frequency, the faster the time. Why? Space dimension is based on a spiral design. The spiral creates a more concentrated pattern the faster the spiral, while the slow spiral creates a less concentrated pattern where subatomic particles do not allocate themselves to as much as a spiral that is more complicated and far more intricate.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2014 05:22 pm
@neologist,
Then, why do they say time flies? Huh? Huh?

Of course, in Mexico, time walks. There might be some wisdom hidden away in there.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2014 10:16 am
@One Eyed Mind,
Quote:
The smaller the creature, the slower the time.
I wonder Mind if you'd agree, then, that the fly senses action as I've described, that is comparatively in "slow motion"


Quote:
hard to understand why the Universe has a "physical" form
Yea Mind you can say that again….

However I surmise it will eventually be discovered that things are the way they are simply because they can't be any other way without entailing contradiction or paradox
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2014 08:31 pm
@contrex,
You are not responding the question. How in the world you think that the speed of light is the same outside the solar system without the influence of the gravity of the Sun?

And, how in the world a particle/energy called light has not passing thru the acceleration process when is expelled from a body. Magic?!

No doubt that your brainwashed head won't be capable to answer those two questions.

If you are right with your position, answer and explain. Simple as that.

0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2014 08:36 pm
@dalehileman,
I really want to hear your explanation about it.
I know that a later scrutiny revealed the Morley Michelson experiment as proving the existence of ether, but I never heard that ether might cause light. I guess ether might be a conductor but not so the source, at least such is what I have perceived .
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2014 08:41 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
So for a tiny meteor time is faster and for a huge planet time is slower... I think that your ideas not only disagree with reality but that they need of lots of coherence.
One Eyed Mind
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2014 09:11 pm
@carloslebaron,
Everyone on here who knows what they are talking about disagree with you. You have no knowledge of anything. The only thing you do is tell people how bad their knowledge is, but you have no knowledge of your own. Nothing you say will amount to anything more than a fart in the wind.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2014 07:30 am
@carloslebaron,
Quote:
I guess ether might be a conductor but not so the source,…. .
I'd certainly not suppose it a source. I had imagined it as a conductor in the same way air is a conductor of sound. Maybe I've been proven wrong in the meantime but still I find it hard to believe that the photon is a physical object….

….whatever that means
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2014 09:24 am
@carloslebaron,
carloslebaron wrote:
I know that a later scrutiny revealed the Morley Michelson experiment as proving the existence of ether

It didn't.


dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2014 09:48 am
@contrex,
However Con, I vaguely remember that in his old age Einstein did admit he might have been wrong about the ether

Yes I Googled it but with no immediate confirmation, I cud be wrong
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:20 am
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

However Con, I vaguely remember that in his old age Einstein did admit he might have been wrong about the ether

Yes I Googled it but with no immediate confirmation, I cud be wrong


Unfortunately, the web is full of people who "vaguely remember" something or other. Believe me, the idea of the "ether" has been obsolete since about 1905.
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:31 am
@contrex,
Quote:
Unfortunately, the web is full of people who "vaguely remember" something
Especially with old guys such as I. But here's something that relates, where he's said to have "resurrected" the ether:


http://books.google.com/books?id=c9BZgVcCFi8C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=einstein+later+reconsiders+ether&source=bl&ots=LyZMWsmew6&sig=kTQFOg7m5yiHwYnFeltUwJ6Ky9c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GE4gVMKiO4-3ogSl9ICoBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=einstein%20later%20reconsiders%20ether&f=false
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/19/2021 at 12:45:49