Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

davidm
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by davidm » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:38 am

ken wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:19 am
davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:50 am
OK, let's start with this:
ken wrote:
Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:02 am
If you were to travel east around earth faster than the speed of light, then you go back in time, and, if you go west faster than the speed of light, then you go into the future.
Where did you ever get this idea? From the 1979 Superman movie? :?
That is a good place to begin.

The answer to your two questions are No and No, however, that movie, I am completely honest, may have had some indirect bearing on what I see and understand.

As I said, "To Me, what WILL BE discovered and found is...". So, what I said will, in the future, either be proved false, true, or partly true and false. We will have to wait and see. But you however have clarified that every single thing I wrote is false. I then asked you if you could elaborate at all, or provide any evidence at all for what you say? You answered Sure.

You began by asking two questions to Me. Now that is NOT elaborating at all on nor providing any evidence at all on your absolute statement that every single thing I said is false.

Now that you have had some time to think about where you would like to begin, would you like to start now elaborating on exactly how every thing I said is false and/or provide some evidence for what you see is the actual truth.

Prove what I said is false, do not just say it is false.
First, I am not at your beck and call to teach you the errors of your ways. I will disentangle your misconceptions as I find time. Right now I am enjoying a beer and watching the Yanks battle the Indians. That is my priority.

You actually admit that your understanding of relativity theory was at least indirectly influenced by the1979 Superman movie. And you expect anyone to take you seriously? Why should I waste time with you?

ken
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by ken » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:43 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:08 am
For anything to travel beyond light speed time would simply stop but this is academic as nothing can travel beyond light speed
anyway.
Is that an absolute fixed fact, that forever more can never change?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:08 am
As the energy required to do so would have to be infinite which is greater than the total energy of the entire Universe
Is this a proven fact that could never be disputed nor challenged?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:08 am
And also atoms would become so unstable at light speed that electrons could not exist and all matter would simply deteriorate
Is this a known fact? Has this also been tested and proven to be an absolute truth that will last forever more?

Also, if the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, then what does that mean in regards to what you are saying here?

ken
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by ken » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:59 am

davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:38 am
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:19 am
davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:50 am
OK, let's start with this:



Where did you ever get this idea? From the 1979 Superman movie? :?
That is a good place to begin.

The answer to your two questions are No and No, however, that movie, I am completely honest, may have had some indirect bearing on what I see and understand.

As I said, "To Me, what WILL BE discovered and found is...". So, what I said will, in the future, either be proved false, true, or partly true and false. We will have to wait and see. But you however have clarified that every single thing I wrote is false. I then asked you if you could elaborate at all, or provide any evidence at all for what you say? You answered Sure.

You began by asking two questions to Me. Now that is NOT elaborating at all on nor providing any evidence at all on your absolute statement that every single thing I said is false.

Now that you have had some time to think about where you would like to begin, would you like to start now elaborating on exactly how every thing I said is false and/or provide some evidence for what you see is the actual truth.

Prove what I said is false, do not just say it is false.
First, I am not at your beck and call to teach you the errors of your ways. I will disentangle your misconceptions as I find time. Right now I am enjoying a beer and watching the Yanks battle the Indians. That is my priority.

You actually admit that your understanding of relativity theory was at least indirectly influenced by the1979 Superman movie. And you expect anyone to take you seriously? Why should I waste time with you?
First, you are just another person who can ONLY see and understand things that you already BELIEVE are true. You are very quick to say that every thing I say is false, yet it takes you some time to "disentangle" My supposed "misconceptions". Some one of your caliber should be able to very quickly show the truth. Enjoy your priority, but it seems like your priority before what to act out like you were so smart and clever but unfortunately now your priority is NOT to back that up in any way shape nor form.

I NEVER actually admitted that My understanding of relativity theory was at least indirectly influenced by the 1979 superman movie. If you read what I actually wrote, then you would KNOW what I actually admitted to.

I do NOT expect any thing from any one. You can either take what I say, you can question and/or challenge Me, or you can leave it. But if you are going to propose some thing as an absolute truth, then I will question and/or challenge you about it. If you are not able to accept this and partake, then that just shows more about you than it does Me.

It is funny how you wanted to waste time with Me before, but as soon as I question or challenge you, then you suddenly question why should you waste your time with Me. That is only an answer you can provide.

However the answer I would give is because I can learn some thing from you, and you could learn some thing from Me but I doubt you could learn any thing from Me, anyhow, and in more cases than not what I will learn from you will NOT be what you expecting anyway.

If you want to stand by what you claim is true, then back it up. Otherwise, do nothing. But what ever you do, or do not do, the truth is going to be revealed anyway.

By the way you are NOT here to specifically teach Me the error of My ways, but if you want to act like you know what you are talking about, then it is much better for you that you can elaborate on and provide evidence for what you say is true. You are NOT at My beck and call but you may well be if you are going to insist that what I say is false.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:11 am

Nothing can be regarded as an absolute fact that shall remain true for ever and so something can only be regarded as being true now
It could very well be that something is an absolute fact but it is not something that can be known since knowledge is only provisional

surreptitious57
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:32 am

ken wrote:
Also if the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light then what does that mean in regards to what you are saying here
Nothing travelling faster than the speed of light only applies to objects within the Universe not to the Universe
itself so therefore it can expand beyond the speed of light and there will be no violation of the laws of physics

ken
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by ken » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:45 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:11 am
Nothing can be regarded as an absolute fact that shall remain true for ever and so something can only be regarded as being true now
You do mean 'as far as you know for now' no thing can be regarded as an absolute fact ...., right?

Otherwise, your statement here is, once again, proposed as an absolute fact, which as proposed means it shall remain true forever.

So, the actual truth is As far as you know, for now, whenever you some thing that is being proposed as truth, is only regarded as true, to you, for now? Is this true and right?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:11 am
It could very well be that something is an absolute fact but it is not something that can be known since knowledge is only provisional
Again, you are proposing some thing as an absolute fact. When the truth is, It could very well be that some thing is an absolute fact but, TO YOU, it is not some thing that can be known since knowledge is only provisional.

What if I told you I see some thing different than this, which, to Me, has more truth to it? Because "my (for now) truth" does NOT fit in with "your (for now) truth", then does that mean "my truth" is wrong and "your truth" is true and right?

One absolute fact could well be, Some thing could very well be an absolute fact, but, for now, to surreptitious57, an absolute fact is some thing that can not be known since knowledge is only provisional?

Is there some thing that could dispute that? If not, then would that make that an absolute fact?

ken
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by ken » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:57 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:32 am
ken wrote:
Also if the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light then what does that mean in regards to what you are saying here
Nothing travelling faster than the speed of light only applies to objects within the Universe not to the Universe
itself so therefore it can expand beyond the speed of light and there will be no violation of the laws of physics
Very convenient.

Sounds like the 'convenient' responses priests and preachers give when they are questioned or challenged about what they already see is the truth. When the "laws" that scientific and religious people want to follow and accept are challenged, then some quite "convenient" so called "explanation" is given, which in truth really does not make any sense at all.

For example,
IF the Universe is infinite in what is generally known as "space" and "time", then there is NO within the Universe.
IF the Universe is infinite in what is generally known as "space" and "time", then there is NO expansion.

There is NO evidence to suggest that the Universe is not infinite in what is generally known as "space" and "time".

But, if we want to go down your path of logic. If the Universe is made up of objects and the Universe, Itself, is supposedly expanding faster than the speed of light, then it would be the objects, which are a part of the Universe, which must be moving faster than the speed of light, is this correct?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:00 am

Everything I know or think I know is limited knowledge and therefore cannot be regarded as absolute fact even if I think it is
This is precisely why I said knowledge is provisional and also why one avoids absolute statements based upon any knowledge

surreptitious57
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:09 am

The Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light but objects within it are not so its not right to say they are
Since the space outside galaxies is expanding faster than the space inside them and so the expansion is not uniform

ken
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by ken » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:32 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:00 am
Everything I know or think I know is limited knowledge and therefore cannot be regarded as absolute fact even if I think it is
This is precisely why I said knowledge is provisional and also why one avoids absolute statements based upon any knowledge
Most times I comment is when absolute statements are made.

ken
Posts: 1784
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by ken » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:44 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:09 am
The Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light but objects within it are not so its not right to say they are
Another absolute statement.

Has any person seen ALL the objects of the Universe? If not, then how do you KNOW what is right or what is not right to say about what is happening in ALL parts of the Universe?

How can any person KNOW what is happening past the visible part of the Universe? Has any person seen past the visible part of the Universe?

If the Universe is infinite, then obviously It can NOT expand.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:09 am
Since the space outside galaxies is expanding faster than the space inside them and so the expansion is not uniform
The so called "expansion" is not uniform to the extent that some galaxies are even becoming closer together, instead of receding away from each other so some are advancing towards each other, is this correct?

Londoner
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by Londoner » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:00 am

ken wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:45 am

What if I told you I see some thing different than this, which, to Me, has more truth to it? Because "my (for now) truth" does NOT fit in with "your (for now) truth", then does that mean "my truth" is wrong and "your truth" is true and right?
What would 'truth' mean in this context?

If we are trying to describe the universe, then we would think of any description as true if it fully corresponded with our observations of that universe. If it said something was the case, when it wasn't, we would say that part of the description was untrue.

But on the other hand, if we are describing 'the universe' then we are doing more than describing it one bit at a time. By calling it 'the universe' we are also saying it is all one thing. So it isn't enough that we describe each bit accurately; the terms in which we describe each bit have to be able to describe every other bit. So any words we use as descriptions have to be related to each other. In other words, if I describe X in terms of atoms, then 'atoms' cannot just be a description only of X; 'atoms' must be part of a more general theory that describes everything.

So, what we mean by 'atoms' must be consistent with what we mean by 'mass' and 'light' and 'time' etc. Ultimately, all these descriptions take their meaning from each other. So when you write: So, when you say 'my (for now) truth" does NOT fit in with "your (for now) truth", then does that mean "my truth" is wrong and "your truth" is true and right', the answer is 'Yes', the reason being that the words you use take their meaning from a system as a whole. It is like saying '2 = 2 might equal 6' To which we would reply 'No it can't, not if you correctly understand the meaning of those symbols'. Similarly, when you question the speed of light, say, you are questioning not a fact but what we mean by 'light'.

You could do this, you could have a completely different explanation of the universe, in which a word like 'light' meant something different. But it would necessarily be a complete alternative; because if 'light' meant something different, then so would 'time', 'space', 'mass' and all the rest. Then we would then judge its truth in the way described above, for example 'Does it correspond with our observations? Does it have an internal consistency?'

So, pending such a general explanation, we could say that 'your truth' about 'light' (say) is wrong because it does not fit into any system (that you have yet explained), so we cannot know what you are saying.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:41 pm

ken wrote:
Most times I comment is when absolute statements are made
Can these so called absolute statements be regarded as absolute when the one making them [ me ] cannot know for certain if they are absolute
For are not all statements I make based upon my knowledge which is always going to be limited because I cannot store all existing knowledge in
my memory and after I die I will not be able to acquire any new knowledge. I only know very little which is nothing at all in mathematical terms
Now I think what I say is true but I cannot be certain if it is absolutely true and so less I can live forever then how would I actually know if it was

surreptitious57
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:19 pm

ken wrote:
Has any person seen ALL the objects of the Universe
If not then how do you KNOW what is right or what is not right to say about what is happening in ALL parts of the Universe
No one has seen everything in the Universe but is it actually necessary to see everything in it to know what is happening in
it or cannot other methods of knowledge be used instead

surreptitious57
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:40 pm

ken wrote:
If the Universe is infinite then obviously It can NOT expand
Are you absolutely certain of this absolute statement you have made because actually the Universe
could be infinite in two different ways and so if it was only infinite in one way then it could not be
infinite in the other way and so then that would be the way in which it could still become infinite

The Universe could be spatially infinite while expanding temporally
The Universe could be temporally infinite while expanding spatially

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest