Warp Spider Posted October 9, 2003 Author Posted October 9, 2003 Like I said, I'll buy that gravity warps space, but not time. Just because the results show that, it doesn't mean anything, because it's just the clocks being warped, and not the actual time they measure. Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!
sano Posted October 9, 2003 Posted October 9, 2003 why is it when we talk about a simple subject you to start getting a science on us. falcon kick!!!
Warp Spider Posted October 10, 2003 Author Posted October 10, 2003 Well, a person kicking at the speed of light isn't really that simple of a thing. Furthermore, I maintain that there's no proof that time is in any way related to the speed of light, and all the "proof" that is availible is circumstantial at best. I'm not particularly fond of people bandying about notions like that as if they were some kind of concrete fact. Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!
Drunken Monkey Posted October 10, 2003 Posted October 10, 2003 hmm, i never knew that it was taken to be absolute fact... i was always under the impression that they were just accepted as the most likely until a new discovery was made. after all, the sums do add up. isn't it all a bit too coincindental that all of them equations fit together and work together so perfectly? y'know, if it looks like a cake and tastes like a cake... post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
JerryLove Posted October 10, 2003 Posted October 10, 2003 Just because the results show that, it doesn't mean anything, because it's just the clocks being warped, and not the actual time they measure. Just because it can be demonstrated as true doesn't mean that it's true? So, if I gleen your hypothesis correctly, it was predected that faster moving objects would percieve time more slowly, and in fact, clocks moving at the same relative speed but different absolute speeds do show the time differences predicted by relativity, and you have no plausable explanations that can explain the difference which relativity explanes quite will, and you have no conter-indications for relativity, and every other prediction it has made has proven true, but you don't think it's right becuase it doesn't fit your hunch? Sorry, I can't accept that as a useful argument. https://www.clearsilat.com
Warp Spider Posted October 12, 2003 Author Posted October 12, 2003 Just because the results show that, it doesn't mean anything, because it's just the clocks being warped, and not the actual time they measure. Just because it can be demonstrated as true doesn't mean that it's true? So, if I gleen your hypothesis correctly, it was predected that faster moving objects would percieve time more slowly, and in fact, clocks moving at the same relative speed but different absolute speeds do show the time differences predicted by relativity, and you have no plausable explanations that can explain the difference which relativity explanes quite will, and you have no conter-indications for relativity, and every other prediction it has made has proven true, but you don't think it's right becuase it doesn't fit your hunch? Sorry, I can't accept that as a useful argument. Uhh, the fact that it moves faster than light distorts the RESULTS of the experiment, it doesn't distort time itself. That's why it agrees with everything else despite not necessarily being true. It's an indistinguishable facsimile of time being warped, without it actually being warped. Paladin - A holy beat down in the name of God!
Drunken Monkey Posted October 13, 2003 Posted October 13, 2003 but it's not necessarily false either... post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
JerryLove Posted October 13, 2003 Posted October 13, 2003 Uhh, the fact that it moves faster than light distorts the RESULTS of the experiment, it doesn't distort time itself. I don't see how this interacts with the experiemental data at all. Nothing was moving faster than light in the experiement.That's why it agrees with everything else despite not necessarily being true. It's an indistinguishable facsimile of time being warped, without it actually being warped. So it's just a big coincidence that, for reasons you cannot even form an hypothesis over, that clocks moving in opposite directions fall out of sync and do so in the manner and degree that was predicted by relativity before the experiement was performed? And you assert this with absolutely no evidence which offers even a reasonable cause to dispute relativity? https://www.clearsilat.com
Vyvial Posted October 13, 2003 Posted October 13, 2003 (edited) just thought that i would put something into this. Our Ving Tsun "shadowless kick" or as we call it a "kick" is done without movement of the body. We don't give our kick away by tilting our shoulders or drawing it back (snapping) to get more power or anything like that. The foot comes from the ground where it is and goes straight to the attacking point. Very simple, it can have many different angles of attack and shapes of the foot. Also it has nothing to do with speed. Legend of shadowless or invisible kick in Ving Tsun: it was a ladies' martial art and the Ving Tsun kick would be hidden by their skirts, their body wouldn't move in order to kick, it would come from nowhere. Edited October 13, 2003 by Vyvial ---AaronVing Tsun is limitless in it's application.American Ving Tsun Kung Fu Academyhttp://www.moyyat.net
Recommended Posts