The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[Toddsterpatriot]

No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?

Once? Lol. Tell me, what impedes planet earth to keep producing new life?

Why you look at the past? Do you think that only primitive planets can produce life? How can you have obtained such weird conclusion?

You take for granted that because we see life on earth we already know how life was produced.

Then, write here your statement how life was produced on earth, evidence backing up the procedure you presented and explain why earth can't produce life anymore.

They think they can see how life was produced, by observing conditions that might be similar to how it was when life first occurred here. So far, no other life has been observed. Sorry.

"They think". Then hell with what they think. How are they going to observe the production of life from the moons of Jupiter or Saturn from earth? Look, with our current telescopes there is a claim that the US flag planted on the Moon by astronauts can't be seen from earth and will they be capable to see living things in those moons? Oh, come on! give me a break.

That's why they're still looking.​

Sure. It is time for you to wake up.

Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a black hole.Sure, you believe their lies. How in the world they can see gravitational waves from an imaginary body in space (black holes really don't exist) and same waves can't be observed from earth using our satellites? or from the Sun?

Can't you see that scientists look at far away bodies in the cosmos to discover evidence which backs up their theories, but they can't find same evidence right here or just around the corner? Lol

They are pulling your legs.

I will suggest you and encourage you the same I do with Indi: think.

Tell me, what impedes planet earth to keep producing new life?

How many times has life started on Earth?
Once?
Twice?
Hundreds of times?

You take for granted that because we see life on earth we already know how life was produced.​

Who knows how it was produced? Link?
​

"They think". Then hell with what they think.​

They shouldn't think? How's that working for you?​

​

Look, with our current telescopes there is a claim that the US flag planted on the Moon by astronauts can't be seen from earth and will they be capable to see living things in those moons? ​

Who said we are capable of seeing living things in those moons....from Earth? You?
​

Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a black hole.​

How did they "see" them?
​

(black holes really don't exist)​

Why not?
​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The rover that will look for fossil life on Mars, unveiled today:

 

[luchitociencia]

How many times has life started on Earth?
Once?
Twice?
Hundreds of times?

That will be known the day is discovered how life is produced.

Who knows how it was produced? Link? ​

That is the point, nobody knows, and this is why looking for the answer in afar away moon is nuts.

They shouldn't think? How's that working for you?

Their thinking is based on debunked theories.

Who said we are capable of seeing living things in those moons....from Earth? You?

Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?

Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a black hole.

How did they "see" them?

That is the point, they claim the saw them.

Why not?

A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it. The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, such can't produce light. The particles in that collapsed star are assumed to have lost any independent motion. The black hole is also assumed to be extremely cold.

The obsolete idea that "density" is main rule for gravity to happen, was first idealized by Newton, and was exaggerate by the inventors of the black hole.

Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.

All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.

Bad news for believers in black holes is that the universe is not subjected to those dumb pieces of paper.

If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.

This is why the existence of black holes pulling galaxies is just a fantasy.

This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity. The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes.

​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is the point, nobody knows, and this is why looking for the answer in afar away moon is nuts.

If nobody knows, then where should we look?

Obviously, on a not-far-away moon, like Europa. Or a not-far-away planet, like Mars.

 

[FA_Q2]

How many times has life started on Earth?
Once?
Twice?
Hundreds of times?

That will be known the day is discovered how life is produced.

Who knows how it was produced? Link? ​

That is the point, nobody knows, and this is why looking for the answer in afar away moon is nuts.

They shouldn't think? How's that working for you?

Their thinking is based on debunked theories.

Who said we are capable of seeing living things in those moons....from Earth? You?

Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?

Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a black hole.

How did they "see" them?

That is the point, they claim the saw them.

Why not?

A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it. The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, such can't produce light. The particles in that collapsed star are assumed to have lost any independent motion. The black hole is also assumed to be extremely cold.

The obsolete idea that "density" is main rule for gravity to happen, was first idealized by Newton, and was exaggerate by the inventors of the black hole.

Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.

All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.

Bad news for believers in black holes is that the universe is not subjected to those dumb pieces of paper.

If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.

This is why the existence of black holes pulling galaxies is just a fantasy.

This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity. The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes.

​

The dead theory of relativity LOL. The very same math that runs the cell phone in your hand and the GPS that enables a thousand other technological advances a reality.

 

[james bond]

No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?

Because that is what is claimed. We do not see abiogenesis happen today. Before that, the evolutionist claim was spontaneous combustion, but Pasteur showed that it does not happen. Thus, the predecessor to abiogenesis did not happen.

No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right. Thus, you have to learn about creation. I googled days of creation and aig (answers in genesis) and got:
Life from Life...or Not?. Once we learn about the days of creation, then we ask when was it? If we google that, then we get...
The World: Born in 4004 BC?.

Next, would be to compare evolution on creation of Adam and Eve and also when the evolution story is correct.

I'll continue the next time I visit USMB.

 

[luchitociencia]

​

The dead theory of relativity LOL. The very same math that runs the cell phone in your hand and the GPS that enables a thousand other technological advances a reality.

Evidently you are just repeating propaganda made to resuscitate the dead and good for nothing theory of relativity.

Show me exactly how that theory is used for the purposes mentioned by you.

Explain with details each one of your reasons.

One more thing, dilatation of time doesn't happen, simply because time doesn't exist. You can't call dilatation of time when clocks malfunction when exposed to environments different to the one those were calibrated.

So, go ahead,make my day.

 

[ding]

Show me exactly how that theory is used

Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life

“...Built at a cost of over $10 billion mainly for military navigation, GPS has rapidly transformed itself into a thriving commercial industry. The system is based on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the earth, each carrying a precise atomic clock. Using a hand-held GPS receiver which detects radio emissions from any of the satellites which happen to be overhead, users of even moderately priced devices can determine latitude, longitude and altitude to an accuracy which can currently reach 15 meters, and local time to 50 billionths of a second. Apart from the obvious military uses, GPS is finding applications in airplane navigation, oil exploration, wilderness recreation, bridge construction, sailing, and interstate trucking, to name just a few. Even Hollywood has met GPS, recently pitting James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" against an evil genius who was inserting deliberate errors into the GPS system and sending British ships into harm's way.

But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.

But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.

So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing.”

 

[luchitociencia]

Show me exactly how that theory is used

Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life

“...Built at a cost of over $10 billion mainly for military navigation, GPS has rapidly transformed itself into a thriving commercial industry. The system is based on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the earth, each carrying a precise atomic clock. Using a hand-held GPS receiver which detects radio emissions from any of the satellites which happen to be overhead, users of even moderately priced devices can determine latitude, longitude and altitude to an accuracy which can currently reach 15 meters, and local time to 50 billionths of a second. Apart from the obvious military uses, GPS is finding applications in airplane navigation, oil exploration, wilderness recreation, bridge construction, sailing, and interstate trucking, to name just a few. Even Hollywood has met GPS, recently pitting James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" against an evil genius who was inserting deliberate errors into the GPS system and sending British ships into harm's way.

But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.

But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.

So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing.”

Then, show first how time dilatation was detected.

1)-Show the detection of time before its dilatation,

2)-later the detection of its dilatation when the body is in fast motion,

3)- and third make the body to slow down and show how time returns back to its original status.

If you don't show what is required by the scientific method, then everything you just posted above is pure garbage.

The theory of relativity is dead and was a good for nothing theory since its very beginning.

 

[ding]

Show me exactly how that theory is used

Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life

“...Built at a cost of over $10 billion mainly for military navigation, GPS has rapidly transformed itself into a thriving commercial industry. The system is based on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the earth, each carrying a precise atomic clock. Using a hand-held GPS receiver which detects radio emissions from any of the satellites which happen to be overhead, users of even moderately priced devices can determine latitude, longitude and altitude to an accuracy which can currently reach 15 meters, and local time to 50 billionths of a second. Apart from the obvious military uses, GPS is finding applications in airplane navigation, oil exploration, wilderness recreation, bridge construction, sailing, and interstate trucking, to name just a few. Even Hollywood has met GPS, recently pitting James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" against an evil genius who was inserting deliberate errors into the GPS system and sending British ships into harm's way.

But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.

But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.

So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing.”

Then, show first how time dilatation was detected.

1)-Show the detection of time before its dilatation,

2)-later the detection of its dilatation when the body is in fast motion,

3)- and third make the body to slow down and show how time returns back to its original status.

If you don't show what is required by the scientific method, then everything you just posted above is pure garbage.

The theory of relativity is dead and was a good for nothing theory since its very beginning.

Relativity has been proven in a myriad of ways.

I just provided you with an example. Take it or leave it. It is of no concern to me what you do.

 

[luchitociencia]

Relativity has been proven in a myriad of ways.
.

Oh yeah?

Then, show first how time dilatation was detected.

1)-Show the detection of time before its dilatation,

2)-later the detection of its dilatation when the body is in fast motion,

3)- and third make the body to slow down and show how time returns back to its original status.

If you don't show what is required by the scientific method, then everything you just posted above is pure garbage.

 

[ding]

Relativity has been proven in a myriad of ways.
.

Oh yeah?

Then, show first how time dilatation was detected.

1)-Show the detection of time before its dilatation,

2)-later the detection of its dilatation when the body is in fast motion,

3)- and third make the body to slow down and show how time returns back to its original status.

If you don't show what is required by the scientific method, then everything you just posted above is pure garbage.

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

The work is the most stringent test yet of this ‘time-dilation’ effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.

Few scientists doubt that Einstein was right. But the mathematics describing the time-dilation effect are “fundamental to all physical theories”, says Thomas Udem, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the research. “It is of utmost importance to verify it with the best possible accuracy.”

 

[luchitociencia]

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

The work is the most stringent test yet of this ‘time-dilation’ effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.

Few scientists doubt that Einstein was right. But the mathematics describing the time-dilation effect are “fundamental to all physical theories”, says Thomas Udem, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the research. “It is of utmost importance to verify it with the best possible accuracy.”

Lets use your link.


1)-The scientists made the moving clock by accelerating lithium ions to one-third the speed of light.

2)-Then they measured a set of transitions within the lithium as electrons hopped between various energy levels.

3)-The frequency of the transitions served as the ‘ticking’ of the clock.

4)-Transitions within lithium ions that were not moving served as the stationary clock.

5)-The researchers measured the time-dilation effect more precisely than in any previous study, including one published in 2007 by the same research group.

What the hell was that?

You cause some particles to run and use them as ... a clock?

You use similar particles at stationary motion and that was used as ... another clock?

OK, you believe that sh*t, and I will open your eyes right away.

I will use the "same experiment" at a different scale and using other bodies for the test.

Read and understand, my test is valid to be used as a variant of the test made by those idiots at the CERN.

You have your twin brother who has the same health status and same heart beat like yours.

1)- You are at stationary status and I will use your heat beats as a clock

2)- Your brother is exposed to hundreds of miles speed per hour "outside a vehicle" and I will use his heart beats as a clock as well.

After comparing both heart beats and find a difference, tell me with a clear explanation:

What caused the difference between your heat beats between you were at stationary status against your twin brother exposed to high speeds: "time dilatation"? ... ha ha ha ha

Come on, lets see how you will use reasoning in this case. Tell me what caused the difference in the heart beats rate between you and your brother.

Think.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many times has life started on Earth?
Once?
Twice?
Hundreds of times?

That will be known the day is discovered how life is produced.

Who knows how it was produced? Link? ​

That is the point, nobody knows, and this is why looking for the answer in afar away moon is nuts.

They shouldn't think? How's that working for you?

Their thinking is based on debunked theories.

Who said we are capable of seeing living things in those moons....from Earth? You?

Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?

Those deceiver scientists swear they saw "gravitational waves" coming from a black hole.

How did they "see" them?

That is the point, they claim the saw them.

Why not?

A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it. The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, such can't produce light. The particles in that collapsed star are assumed to have lost any independent motion. The black hole is also assumed to be extremely cold.

The obsolete idea that "density" is main rule for gravity to happen, was first idealized by Newton, and was exaggerate by the inventors of the black hole.

Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.

All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.

Bad news for believers in black holes is that the universe is not subjected to those dumb pieces of paper.

If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.

This is why the existence of black holes pulling galaxies is just a fantasy.

This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity. The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes.

​

Their thinking is based on debunked theories.

Well, if you never think, how can you ever debunk a theory?

​

Then why they "observe" those moons "looking for life" in them?​

You think they're looking at those moons hoping to see a tree or a whale?​

​

That is the point, they claim the saw them.​

Post their claim, so we can discuss.​

​

A star produces light because the collision of its particles causes it.​

Collisions "cause" light? Particles in our atmosphere collide, does that cause light?​

​

The idea of a collapsed star which lost the collision of particles and ended with the particles compressed to themselves into the center of the body, ​

Stars don't "lose the collision of particles", but they can shrink if the outgoing energy isn't enough to counteract the gravity pulling the star toward its core.
​

Their silly idea is that because such body is compressed to an extraordinary density, then that body is capable to pull with its formidable "gravity" deforming an imaginary space-time, everything around.​

​

​

​

All of this never observed but solely invented with formulas in a piece of paper.​

You don't think black holes have been observed?
​

If the case that a collapsed star can happen that way, compressing its particles and "gluing them" until they lost their motion, then such star becomes just a dead body, like a corpse in the middle of space.​

Like a white dwarf or a neutron star.
​

This theory of black holes was invented in order to resurrect the dead theory of relativity.​

Why is relativity a dead theory?
​

The same fraudulent man who validated relativity in 1919 doing make ups to the plates taken in the expeditions, this same man, Eddington, is also behind the theory of the black holes. ​

Eddington committed fraud? Show me.
​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No you didn't. If life was produced here, once, billions of years ago, why do we need to see new life being produced, today, under different conditions, to prove that it was produced billions of years ago?

Because that is what is claimed. We do not see abiogenesis happen today. Before that, the evolutionist claim was spontaneous combustion, but Pasteur showed that it does not happen. Thus, the predecessor to abiogenesis did not happen.

No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right. Thus, you have to learn about creation. I googled days of creation and aig (answers in genesis) and got:
Life from Life...or Not?. Once we learn about the days of creation, then we ask when was it? If we google that, then we get...
The World: Born in 4004 BC?.

Next, would be to compare evolution on creation of Adam and Eve and also when the evolution story is correct.

I'll continue the next time I visit USMB.

We do not see abiogenesis happen today.

Maybe it doesn't happen very often?

No, you can't just assert that what you know about evolution is right.​

What about planetary orbits?​

 

[ding]

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified

Physicists have verified a key prediction of Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity with unprecedented accuracy. Experiments at a particle accelerator in Germany confirm that time moves slower for a moving clock than for a stationary one.

The work is the most stringent test yet of this ‘time-dilation’ effect, which Einstein predicted. One of the consequences of this effect is that a person travelling in a high-speed rocket would age more slowly than people back on Earth.

Few scientists doubt that Einstein was right. But the mathematics describing the time-dilation effect are “fundamental to all physical theories”, says Thomas Udem, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, who was not involved in the research. “It is of utmost importance to verify it with the best possible accuracy.”

Lets use your link.


1)-The scientists made the moving clock by accelerating lithium ions to one-third the speed of light.

2)-Then they measured a set of transitions within the lithium as electrons hopped between various energy levels.

3)-The frequency of the transitions served as the ‘ticking’ of the clock.

4)-Transitions within lithium ions that were not moving served as the stationary clock.

5)-The researchers measured the time-dilation effect more precisely than in any previous study, including one published in 2007 by the same research group.

What the hell was that?

You cause some particles to run and use them as ... a clock?

You use similar particles at stationary motion and that was used as ... another clock?

OK, you believe that sh*t, and I will open your eyes right away.

I will use the "same experiment" at a different scale and using other bodies for the test.

Read and understand, my test is valid to be used as a variant of the test made by those idiots at the CERN.

You have your twin brother who has the same health status and same heart beat like yours.

1)- You are at stationary status and I will use your heat beats as a clock

2)- Your brother is exposed to hundreds of miles speed per hour "outside a vehicle" and I will use his heart beats as a clock as well.

After comparing both heart beats and find a difference, tell me with a clear explanation:

What caused the difference between your heat beats between you were at stationary status against your twin brother exposed to high speeds: "time dilatation"? ... ha ha ha ha

Come on, lets see how you will use reasoning in this case. Tell me what caused the difference in the heart beats rate between you and your brother.

Think.

Yes, let’s use my link.

The paper was published on September 16 in Physical Review Letters. It is the culmination of 15 years of work by an international group of collaborators including Nobel laureate Theodor Hänsch, director of the Max Planck optics institute.

To test the time-dilation effect, physicists need to compare two clocks — one that is stationary and one that moves. To do this, the researchers used the Experimental Storage Ring, where high-speed particles are stored and studied at the GSI Helmholtz Centre for heavy-ion research in Darmstadt, Germany.

The scientists made the moving clock by accelerating lithium ions to one-third the speed of light. Then they measured a set of transitions within the lithium as electrons hopped between various energy levels. The frequency of the transitions served as the ‘ticking’ of the clock. Transitions within lithium ions that were not moving served as the stationary clock.

The researchers measured the time-dilation effect more precisely than in any previous study, including one published in 2007 by the same research group. “It’s nearly five times better than our old result, and 50 to 100 times better than any other method used by other people to measure relativistic time dilation,” says co-author Gerald Gwinner, a physicist at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada.

Where’s you link?

 

[FA_Q2]

​

The dead theory of relativity LOL. The very same math that runs the cell phone in your hand and the GPS that enables a thousand other technological advances a reality.

Evidently you are just repeating propaganda made to resuscitate the dead and good for nothing theory of relativity.

Show me exactly how that theory is used for the purposes mentioned by you.

Explain with details each one of your reasons.

One more thing, dilatation of time doesn't happen, simply because time doesn't exist. You can't call dilatation of time when clocks malfunction when exposed to environments different to the one those were calibrated.

So, go ahead,make my day.

Ha, why would I do that? You already think that you are more insightful and knowledgeable than Einstein himself while using technology (such as the computer you are reading this on) that relies on his discoveries yet not understanding anything whatsoever about them.

It is pretty idiotic to demand that you know these scientific findings are untrue yet be perfectly comfortable using technology directly based on said theories. Such hubris is staggering.

 

[RWS]

As this is a thread in the science section, we will proceed without any deference to the voodoo incantations being vomited by Shaman Bond.

Signs of Life on Europa May Be Just beneath the Surface

Signs of Life on Europa May Be Just beneath the Surface
New maps suggest evidence of alien life in the icy moon’s buried ocean could be surprisingly easy to find

Lol! How would shaman Bond respond (rhymes) if life is discovered on Mars or elsewhere?

 

[RWS]

Lame and you did not come close to answer the question.

What is your question?

Ask the OP.

I am asking you.

The OP basically asked with an octillion of planets in the Universe, how many can support intelligent life?

Zillions.

 

[RWS]

The Goldilocks Zone does not guarantee Intelligent Life

Nobody said it does.

The chicken or egg question is dumb. Eggs were around for 100s of millions of years before chickens ever appeared on Earth.

The chicken or egg question is the Creation of the Universe. The chicken is God and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event.

The egg came first. I don't get it... The chicken was a mutation that created more chickens by laying more eggs. But it was borne from a previous species' egg.