[MOVED] The speed of light is the only constant, and "is" "time", etc...

[Neogaia777]

And I propose that, the only time it might not be relative (maybe) is if you were moving at exactly 1 times the speed of light, etc...

But that part is just a theory.

God Bless!

And I know, I know, then relative to what, right...? Well, then I would say relative to 1 times the speed of light, etc...

But like I said, that part at least, is just a theory, etc...

God Bless!

 

[VirOptimus]

I add that so I don't have to get into long winded explanations, "etc"...

Got a lot of ground to cover here, and a short amount of writing or time to do it in, etc...

God Bless!

Your posts is a muddled unclear mess.

Write like an adult if you want response.

 

[Neogaia777]

Your posts is a muddled unclear mess.

Write like an adult if you want response.

Only to those who lack the understanding to comprehend them, "ect"...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Your posts is a muddled unclear mess.

Write like an adult if you want response.

Typical response, "ect"...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Your posts is a muddled unclear mess.

Write like an adult if you want response.

Typical response, "ect"...

God Bless!

So I ask you, who really is the "adult" here, "ect"...?

God Bless!

 

[VirOptimus]

So I ask you, who really is the "adult" here, "ect"...?

God Bless!

That is obvious to all that read this thread.

Also, your ”theories” is not at all like scientific theories. Your ”theories” is muddled, unsupported assertion withour data to support.

A scientific theory is something that explains all the data and scientific findings. Its also worked out through peer-review not through half-baked posts on some internet forum.

 

[Neogaia777]

That is obvious to all that read this thread.

Also, your ”theories” is not at all like scientific theories. Your ”theories” is muddled, unsupported assertion withour data to support.

A scientific theory is something that explains all the data and scientific findings. Its also worked out through peer-review not through half-baked posts on some internet forum.

All you need is a "picture", etc...

God Bless!

 

[VirOptimus]

All you need is a "picture", etc...

God Bless!

No, that is not how science (or indeed, communication) works.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And I propose that, the only time it might not be relative (maybe) is if you were moving at exactly 1 times the speed of light, etc...

But that part is just a theory.

It's not a theory; it's a thought experiment, and it just paraphrases the basic principle of Special Relativity - that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

As it happens, only massless particles can move at the speed of light, so it's unrealistic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
It has to be said that I find his criticisms broadly accurate. Your posts show both a general lack of understanding of the basic principles and a lack of realisation of that lack.

Speculation uninformed by any understanding of the basic principles is a waste of time. The time would be better spent gaining an understanding of the basic principles and the logical thought behind them.

Just sayin'.

 

[Neogaia777]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
It has to be said that I find his criticisms broadly accurate. Your posts show both a general lack of understanding of the basic principles and a lack of realisation of that lack.

Speculation uninformed by any understanding of the basic principles is a waste of time. The time would be better spent gaining an understanding of the basic principles and the logical thought behind them.

Just sayin'.

Are you saying that what I said or had to say or propose is not accurate...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
It has to be said that I find his criticisms broadly accurate. Your posts show both a general lack of understanding of the basic principles and a lack of realisation of that lack.

Speculation uninformed by any understanding of the basic principles is a waste of time. The time would be better spent gaining an understanding of the basic principles and the logical thought behind them.

Just sayin'.

In my opinion you guys are being kinda petty, k, so lets just stick to what I've said, OK, the ideas or theories themselves, K...?

If we can, etc, OK...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying that what I said or had to say or propose is not accurate...?

In general, yes. You were correct that space is expanding everywhere (after I had previously spent some time explaining that), and you seem to realise that 'it's all relative', but your use of those basics has been far from accurate; e.g. space doesn't expand at the speed of light.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In my opinion you guys are being kinda petty, k, so lets just stick to what I've said, OK, the ideas or theories themselves, K...?

If we can, etc, OK...?

It's not petty to point out basic misunderstandings of facts and approach. A certain amount of rigour (precision & clarity) is expected in the sciences.

 

[Neogaia777]

In general, yes. You were correct that space is expanding everywhere (after I had previously spent some time explaining that), and you seem to realise that 'it's all relative', but your use of those basics has been far from accurate; e.g. space doesn't expand at the speed of light.

I told you the speed of light is a theory, now what have you got to say about the rest please...?

Cause I don't consider that part a theory...

The honeycomb example, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It's not petty to point out basic misunderstandings of facts and approach. A certain amount of rigour (precision & clarity) is expected in the sciences.

Well, I think some of what @VirOptimus was saying was pretty "petty"...

And I think he was even clearly getting very "defensive", etc, "upset", etc, and in my opinion, there is only one very clearly and plainly obvious reason for that, that I already told him (and you) about, etc...

Anyway, what about the rest, etc...?

Leave the speed of light, or at what rate it is all happening (equally everywhere) out of it for a bit...

What do you think about the rest...?

What about how I explained what is happening, etc...?

And leave the "rate" out it for a bit, K...

We can argue that later or another time, OK...?

What about how I explained what is happening, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Oh and, I would just like to add, that I think the "rate" (whatever it is) within the cells (and everything else) is a "constant"... and both is, does, and has, and has always been, and has stayed, etc, and always will be, etc, a "constant", etc... A constant rate of some kind that has always been, and will always remain and be a "constant", etc...

It only has the appearance of acceleration, but what were seeing is not how it really is, etc, or is actually happening, etc, cause it is all based on a very "relativistic" perspective and point of view, etc... and/or because (as I've already said) it would appear that way anywhere, and with us (or wherever you were at) as the center of it, etc, which just isn't, and is 100%, cannot be true, etc...

If you were able to look at it, from outside of it or above it, etc, then look at one place in it, but then shift your focus or look and look at another place in it, etc, then another, then another, etc, wherever you looked, wherever and whenever you looked, and when you, or as you changed where you looked, it would always appear that from wherever you were looking at or from in it, when you changed it, (where you were looking, etc) it would always look like, that, wherever you were looking at or from, and as you changed it, etc, it would all appear always that where you were looking at the time, at the time you were looking at it (or as you changed it, etc) it would always appear that where you were looking at or from, etc, was always the exact stable, not moving, stationary center, with everything around it moving away from that point or spot or it, etc, and moving faster away from that point or spot, the further all the "stuff" was away from that spot, etc, (or point of looking or focus, etc), but if you try to shift or change it or change your view, etc, (point of view or focus, or look, etc), in that instant, it would all change to wherever you were looking at or from always appearing that way (just as I just described) from anywhere that you were looking at in it, always, etc...

So, what is "actually going on or happening" is the question...? (which I am trying to explain, etc)...

Anyway,

Anyway, and the really interesting part is that as your changing you view, as your moving your eyes or view from one place to another, to look at another, etc, as that is happening, etc, it has a kind of almost "bubble effect", etc, as your view is moving through it, etc...

Anyway, so what is the explanation for this...? And for all of this, etc...?

Well, I think I have already told you, or have tried to tell you anyway, so far in this thread...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I told you the speed of light is a theory, now what have you got to say about the rest please...?

And I told you your idea wasn't a theory - a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

The honeycomb example, etc...?

It really doesn't say anything useful - I've no idea why you picked a hexagonal structure (why?) and your vague description is less than coherent - what I can make of it doesn't seem to represent anything like what our observations and models tell us is going on.

I have already explained our best description of what is happening. That description is based on mathematical models that are themselves based on our observations and have been experimentally verified to an extremely high degree of precision. Vague handwaving was not involved.

For all I know, you may have a clear idea of what you mean but are simply unable to articulate it - but judging from your posting history I seriously doubt that; the rule of thumb is that if you can't explain what you mean clearly to someone more familiar with the subject, you don't really understand what you're talking about.

 

[Neogaia777]

And I told you your idea wasn't a theory - a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.


It really doesn't say anything useful - I've no idea why you picked a hexagonal structure (why?) and your vague description is less than coherent - what I can make of it doesn't seem to represent anything like what our observations and models tell us is going on.

I have already explained our best description of what is happening. That description is based on mathematical models that are themselves based on our observations and have been experimentally verified to an extremely high degree of precision. Vague handwaving was not involved.

For all I know, you may have a clear idea of what you mean but are simply unable to articulate it - but judging from your posting history I seriously doubt that; the rule of thumb is that if you can't explain what you mean clearly to someone more familiar with the subject, you don't really understand what you're talking about.

Well, I know what I am talking about, and I feel I did or tired my best to explain it in some of the simplest ways possible...

Just imagine looking at it for a minute, then changing that look or as that look moves through it, etc, and just consider what is happening, and I mean really happening, etc, then go back to what I have already stated or said in some my previous posts (# 59 and after that)...

I do not know how to put it any simpler or in another way...

The dark areas or pockets are pushing out equally on everything everwhere, equally from everywhere, etc, and gravity is pulling everything together or back in around them, etc...

And the effect of the dark pockets pushing out equally on everything equally from everywhere is cumulative over distances away from where you are at in it, etc, (or where your looking at it from in it, etc) giving the "appearance or illusion" that we are always the center no matter where we are at or are looking at it from in it, giving the appearance or illusion that the further out away from us things are (or where we are looking at it from) anyway, giving the appearance or illusion that the further away or out from us things are, the faster they are moving out away from us as the center, etc, but that is not really or actually the way it actually is, or is actually happening, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And I told you your idea wasn't a theory - a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.


It really doesn't say anything useful - I've no idea why you picked a hexagonal structure (why?) and your vague description is less than coherent - what I can make of it doesn't seem to represent anything like what our observations and models tell us is going on.

I have already explained our best description of what is happening. That description is based on mathematical models that are themselves based on our observations and have been experimentally verified to an extremely high degree of precision. Vague handwaving was not involved.

For all I know, you may have a clear idea of what you mean but are simply unable to articulate it - but judging from your posting history I seriously doubt that; the rule of thumb is that if you can't explain what you mean clearly to someone more familiar with the subject, you don't really understand what you're talking about.

And, telling me I can't "articulate" it, don't make me laugh, I "articulate" it just fine thank you very much...

And if by "articulating" it, you mean making it much much more complicated or complex than it actually is or should be, or needs to be, etc, in order to understand it, etc, sorry, I'm not doing that, etc...

This should be very simple, and the fact that you or others like you feel the need to be condescending or insulting just because your not getting it or understanding it, speaks volumes about you and your kind and people like you BTW...

In my opinion, and I think I am very right about this as well, etc, your guys feeling the need to be or act that way, etc, just further confirms that I am, or am 100% right about this or am telling the exact truth, etc...

That has been my experience with "this or these kinds of experiences" with people like you and when they feel the need to resort to it, or do "this", etc, or be this way, etc... Anyway...

Anyway, and I really don't need that kind of "confirmation", OK, as I already know I am right, just trying to get you guys to "see it", etc...

And two people "agreed with you", but didn't comment or say anything? How quaint, and only further proves this point, etc...

Anyway,

Anyway let's just discuss the ideas themselves, OK...?

No need for this other "garbage" OK...

God Bless!