Re: Relativity?
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:45 pm
It's amazing how many times we have answered these questions yet you keep asking them. Do you not actually read what others write?
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
It's amazing how many times we have answered these questions yet you keep asking them. Do you not actually read what others write?
Please give an example of how this could occur in a double-blind scenario.ken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:59 pmBut confirmation biases will eliminate that which disposes of what it is that is wanted to be confirmed. This can happen sub-consciously and unconsciously.Noax wrote: Double-blind tests are a great example of this. Bias is recognized and the double-blind procedure eliminates it.
So, if a model predicts that a traveler will take longer to travel over any distance, in any frame, than what the speed of light could travel, then is that useful to science?A model that makes no predictions is useless to science which is about making accurate predictions.Noax wrote:
See above. You tend to ask a lot of questions whose answer is in some adjacent comment that you've quoted.So, what is science in the business of actually?Noax wrote: Science is not in the business of discovering what actually is, however much they might phrase their findings that way.
Just what I said, that science doesn't concern itself with that which cannot be known. If it can't be known, it makes no predictions.
Pretty much, yes.Also, the way 'science' (or the scientific method) is said to be conducted science is more concerned about and in relation to what IS falsifiable rather than what IS verifiable, which is a bit like getting rid of the unknowns until only what IS known is left.
Idealism says I personally experience a flat local environment from which I never leave. The model makes quite accurate predictions and cannot be falsified, but it also predicts nothing new, hence is not even wrong from a scientific standpoint. Being outside methodological naturalism, science need not concern itself with it. There are sciences outside the methodology, but they're considered fringe science.Will you give us an example of this?Noax wrote: I can make a case for it by stepping outside the bounds of methodological naturalism and propose a solipsistic view of what actually is.
Sure, but new models might suggest new tests. If the older model is what IS, then it will pass the tests, falsifying the new model.Sort of, but I am more asking could some thing ever be just an accurate model of what actually IS?Noax wrote:You're asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified'?Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification?
There is no access to this "what actually IS the case". You seem to suggest that we just directly access this, but unless you're privy to the answer book somewhere, this cannot be done.I am, more or less, asking if human beings can ever move past just hypothesis? If so, when is that, and, what do they call that 'thing', which explains what actually IS the case instead of just being a model of what actually IS the case.
That would be a very good model with perfect predictability, but there would still be interpretations of it. QM is a pretty good example of a fantastically successful model (but not perfect), yet having wildly different interpretations.For example if a model is conceived and all of its hypothesized predictions are found to be 100% accurate, then what do we call 'that'? What is the name for that 'thing' which is found to be a 100% accurate description of what IS actually true and real?
Sounds like the Theory of Everything, so named before they have one.When, and if, ALL the conceptualized model's false predictions are found and eliminated and there is just ONE combined left, which forms one whole completely accurate picture of, let us say, Life, Itself, or ALL-THERE-IS, or what IS, then what is the name for that 'model'.
No model can be deemed unfalsifiable. There might always be new information and new models. There is no end to science, despite it having been declared imminent in past times. No way to know if some Theory of Everything is a full description of what can be predicted. There is no access to what IS, being in the realm of interpretation. There will always be interpretation, places where different models make no distinct predictions.I am just asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified' BECAUSE ALL the previous predictions from other models have been falsified, and what is left is a model that has already had ALL predictions demonstrably shown to be accurate with empirical data?
You've asked this exact question of relativity, and you've also stated that you don't believe the Earth is round. Understanding how you remain open to non-round earth might help me understand your stance on the relativity thing. Alternatively, tell me why you suspect the Earth is round, even if you're not willing to accept that as an actual belief. The evidence for it is very similar to the evidence that the twin will come back aged 140 days.Are you actually asking that as a real and true question posed for answer?Noax wrote: Is it possible that Earth will ever be demonstrably flat, and we're all sheep for believing the round model?
That question appears to Me as though you are not really looking for an answer at all, because you already have the answer, is this correct?
Seems like a language quibble.Why would you even think or assume that, based on what I have actually written here?Noax wrote:Why would an absolute fact be beyond dispute?In other words could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed, ever be found, realized, and known through scientific method?
1. I never said 'absolute', although without clarification I do not see it really matters anyway. However,
2. There is NO thing beyond dispute. I used the words " 'can not' be disputed" in a certain context. I NEVER said any thing about being "beyond dispute".
Just an observation.Is that THE Truth or just 'your' interpretation of things?Noax wrote:The more we progress, the more things become matters of interpretation.
You going to say that after every one of my comments now? How useful.Is that an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?Noax wrote: All of them [Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc.] proposed things that are still taught as fact (not just history) today.
Why don't we skip the model and just look at what IS now? Oh right. No access to that. So I don't see how suddenly we'll be able to do that just because we have 20 models all of which make perfect predictions.So if and when new models are proposed which grow more unfalsifiable over time also, is it possible that eventually there will be just one unfalsifiable model that is actually complete? Or, is that impossible?
Seems to be if models are growing more unfalsifiable over time that there might be a time when models "out grow" themselves?
That time might be when human beings STOP just making up predictions and models of what they THINK things are like, and instead just look at and observer what actually IS.
You know what the word means now?In this thread 'I' am just a troll that understands nothing.
You haven't proposed an improvement to the process except to grab a peek at the nonexistent answers at the back of the nonexistent book. It's why we're not listening to you.By the way, that making up models, hypothesis's, and predictions and waiting to do tests, experiments to find so called "empirical data", which supposedly falsifies and/or verifies things is one way of doing things, but it is a very clumsy, complicated, slow, and open to being conflicted and contaminated with and by biases or there is another, much simpler, quicker, and easier way to find the Truth of things. But again, 'I' am certainly NOT worthy of being listened to, correct?
Religion for instance. It is presented as real truth, not just falsifiable theory.What do you mean outside of science?Noax wrote:Outside science I guess.In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?
What is outside of science?
I don't post them for your enjoyment. I need responses from less biased members. You might assert otherwise, but I've seen nothing open about your posts. I need somebody who can take apart my view.
Thought so.In regards to what exactly?Noax wrote:So ken, what is your point?
You seem to have no point. My every attempt at discovering it gets the response that I've missed it. My earnest attempts to reduce the disconnect like this always get the brush-off response.It is ALREADY on record Me emphatically denying belief not just that the world is round but belief AND disbelief of every thing. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.
You have obviously completely missed the point.
Yet Noax, uwot and I have repeatedly and freely acknowledged that scientists do not claim to be absolutely sure of anything. So what's his problem? No one knows. Hume's problem of induction and the doctrine of philosophical skepticism (we cannot know anything) are perfectly compatible with science, as long as science works, which it does. Our theories predict that the sun will come up in the morning, for reasons x, y, and z. If instead a giant tortilla rose in the east, which is perfectly logically possible under the problem of induction, then scientists would shrug and go about trying to develop of theory of tortilla rising.
My reply is pretty much what davidm said above. About the round planet thing, I don't think ken would phrase that as something doubted. Just not a belief. In my book, that's pretty much the same thing, but if ken draws a distinction, then he uses language differently, which many of us do. Spelling out the distinction between the words would be nice of course.
Interesting conclusion. You'd think that if you speed up your clock, the rest of the universe ticks slower, and you see it in slow motion. To get to the future faster (say I'm impatient for opening day of star wars), go downstairs, sort of like time travel via suspended animation or cryonics.Carroll wrote:If you stand on a chair, you’ll move into the future that much faster.
I think I'm on fairly solid ground, but there's always that annoying list of things you never thought to question.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:49 pm Some axioms even provisional ones have to be accepted as the foundation on which knowledge can be acquired
otherwise there is no way of determining how true this knowledge is. The axioms can always be improved upon
if they are found to be faulty. But you have to start with some basic premises no matter how basic they may be
If some thing [a theory or hypothesis] IS verified, through scientific methods, and thus there is NO more potential verification nor potential falsification, then what do you now call that thing?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:53 pmken wrote:
What do you mean by Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed invalid
Without potential falsification there is no way of knowing if a hypothesis is true or false
If hypotheses ( some thing ) are not subject to potential falsification then does that HAVE TO make the hypotheses ( or some thing ) invalid
Yes for the reason already given
Or could some thing that is not subject to potential falsification
The scientific method only deals with that which can be subject to potential falsification and nothing else
also just mean that that thing could be just what IS or an unambiguous fact which may not be disputable instead
Unambiguous indisputable facts have no need to be subject to potential falsification because they cannot be falsified
Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification
No because that is the complete opposite of what the scientific method with regard to hypotheses actually does
could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact which can not be disputed ever be found realized and known through scientific method
See answer above concerning unambiguous indisputable facts
Or does every thing which is a part of a scientific method always remain a fundamental component
Yes because removing any of them would make the scientific method less reliable
and therefore there will always be potential for falsification
Yes there will always be the need for potential falsification
In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and /or real
Anything can be true or real but science is only concerned with what can either be verified or falsified
But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified
If and when it becomes verified does it then remain a fundamental component of the scientific method
Yes because potential verification has to be possible just the same as potential falsification has to be
or does it progress further and past the scientific method
What is past the scientific method has nothing at all to do with science
No, you either a troll or you can't read, or both.ken wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:41 amIf some thing [a theory or hypothesis] IS verified, through scientific methods, and thus there is NO more potential verification nor potential falsification, then what do you now call that thing?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:53 pmken wrote:
What do you mean by Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed invalid
Without potential falsification there is no way of knowing if a hypothesis is true or false
If hypotheses ( some thing ) are not subject to potential falsification then does that HAVE TO make the hypotheses ( or some thing ) invalid
Yes for the reason already given
Or could some thing that is not subject to potential falsification
The scientific method only deals with that which can be subject to potential falsification and nothing else
also just mean that that thing could be just what IS or an unambiguous fact which may not be disputable instead
Unambiguous indisputable facts have no need to be subject to potential falsification because they cannot be falsified
Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification
No because that is the complete opposite of what the scientific method with regard to hypotheses actually does
could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact which can not be disputed ever be found realized and known through scientific method
See answer above concerning unambiguous indisputable facts
Or does every thing which is a part of a scientific method always remain a fundamental component
Yes because removing any of them would make the scientific method less reliable
and therefore there will always be potential for falsification
Yes there will always be the need for potential falsification
In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and /or real
Anything can be true or real but science is only concerned with what can either be verified or falsified
But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified
If and when it becomes verified does it then remain a fundamental component of the scientific method
Yes because potential verification has to be possible just the same as potential falsification has to be
or does it progress further and past the scientific method
What is past the scientific method has nothing at all to do with science
It obviously could NOT be a theory nor a hypothesis, because there is NOW no potential verification nor falsification.
I do NOT care if what is past the scientific method has nothing at all to do with science. I just want to KNOW what do you call 'it' [that thing which was a theory or hypothesis but NOW has been verified?
You people here seem to want to insist that the theory of special relativity HAS ALREADY been verified as being true and correct, but also seem to want to be insisting that it still has potential for falsification. So, which one is it?
Is that solely My fault alone?
Have I denied the "evidence"?
And I have already stated what BELIEVING does to the intelligence of a human being, which is being shown here.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmPlease see the prior post (to gaffo) which addresses this point you seem to make. Your protests of relativity seem to be one of interpretation (what is time, do clocks really slow down or do they just measure less?) All that is beyond relevance. You seem to be completely uneducated in this subject, and unwilling to get one from me. So in my prior post I address more the point of why we might believe something when it has been supposedly "tested".
That is what you say, while others say otherwise.
So, if as you say, "science does not verify", then is 'relativity' right, accurate, true, or correct, or is 'relativity' some thing else?
So, what do the 'empirical tests' show, to you?
If that could be shown, it wouldn't be an interpretation now, would it. For someone with no education and no beliefs, you throw around 'obviously' and WRONG a lot. [/quote]ONCE AGAIN, and obviously, YOUR INTERPRETATION is WRONG.
What is a 'troll', and, what is a 'troll reply'?
That is totally understandable.
Except to you this "traveler" would NOT be the same age to, say, their twin who did NOT "go along for the ride", correct?Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmNo, I didn't say this. The traveler is stationary from his own point of view, and thus no observation of dilation. Everything is normal. He ages normally.A traveling observer begins at a starting event and ends at a finishing event, and according to you there WOULD BE proof of dilation, of which the observer at that final observation point could well observe dilation IF it happens the way you say it does happen.
See this whole thread, which addresses the contrary.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmYour methodology seem to be in direct conflict with this pursuit. See that prior post, which addresses this point.I do NOT do debate, because of the already explained stupidity of debating and what debating can cause. I prefer to look at what IS actually true and real instead.
Please stop making assumptions. Earth is NOT flat until I considered any thing.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmYes. Earth is flat until you consider a large enough scale.Would you like to finish the sentence? As it stands I am unclear as to what you are actually saying. Are you saying 'relativity' was a minor adjustment to the geometry ALSO?Noax wrote: The round earth was a minor adjustment to the geometry, the exact same sort as relativity.
What is a 'normal' scale?
For those who are reading this, THIS is EXACTLY WHY I say to be able see the whole and true picture of things it is much simpler, easier, and quicker if you do NOT assume any thing.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmI base this observation on you having said that you do not believe the world is round. It was said in caps I think.1. I do NOT consider it a virtue to be open to flat earth because of your stupid assumption.Noax wrote:You seem to consider it a virtue to be open to flat Earth because you have all you experience on an apparently flat place.
If there has NEVER been a flat earth, then flat earth has NEVER worked.
Great, we are finally getting down to the wording, you say that there is "younger" twin, who has not lived as long, but aged 'normally'.Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmFrom the viewpoint of the stable (not particularly accelerated) Earth frame, yes, although the wording is that of others. I would have said the younger one had not lived as long but aged normally, but the end effect is the same.As I asked previously, if twins who are born at the same time, and are the same age at the beginning of one of them who takes a journey, then how could they be different ages when they meet again if they aged at the exact same pace? If after they meet again their ages are different, then the pace of ageing must of changed some where, correct?
Is there an actual 'stationary' in the Universe, to you?
IS the 'dilation' that you are talking about here, the one that was according to some tests which supposedly showed some some sort of interpreted particular empirical data on objects other than human bodies?
Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmAnd misses the squirrels? Seems implausible that it would be just humans.And, maybe there is some sort of magic ageing ray that hits human bodies when they travel at speed also, what do you think?Noax wrote: Maybe there's a magic aging ray that hits you out past the Kuiper belt. Have to keep an open mind about that one.
Human beings might be the only animal that wants to live longer, so what do you mean by 'gunning' here. If human beings could just put themselves into ships that can travel at faster speeds, then, to you, they could obviously stay "younger". Therefore, the 'gunning just for us' would NOT be, in the ridiculous case that you keep talking about where dilation does not work on only human beings, The advantages of staying "younger" would be for every thing else and NOT human beings, so again, what is the "gunning just for us" in relation to exactly?
Is the best answer you have in order to NOT answer the actual question and/or NOT look at it.
So what?
Obviously the question was intended with what you call "home".
And one of those measurements was faster while the other was slower, correct?
But what about the answers that I was talking about, that is, the answers you GIVE, I am asking could they be WRONG?
According to you.
Let us just say, you and I.
That would depend on how you think the word 'event' IS defined?
Are you still under the illusion, which you your self have created, that I am in denial of the so called "evidence".Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmI suppose one in denial of evidence that does not support his biases would not care.Who cares?Noax wrote:Newtonian absolute space. It predicted that if you were not stationary, one could measure different times for light to go forward vs. backwards.
...
Who really cares?
Useful for what purpose?
The contradiction in your remark here is blindly obvious. How could a "proposal" dispel what is according to you 'nonsense' anyway?
Your inability, at the moment, to see the obvious observable differences might be some sort of problem, to YOU. But obviously there is NO problem for those of us who can clearly SEE the observable differences.
If that is what you BELIEVE, then that is what it IS, to you.
Are you under the illusion that there are NO unconscious biases at all?Noax wrote: ↑Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pmTwo models, making different predictions. The test is run, they see what actually happens (which might not match either model), and the model that predicts incorrectly has problems. At no point is there bias in that unless the results are falsified to match the model.Because you said people do tests, PREDICTING what will happen.
Another diversionary tactic away from the question at hand, in a philosophical forum.
But the ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that 'time' exists must first be at hand to even begin to suggest that 'time', itself, can slow down OR dilate.
What 'theory' was that, and, what 'piece of evidence' are you talking about here?
So, is this still a theory or not?
This is incorrect.
This is correct.
Again, that is "unproductive" or not progressive, in that I am NOT learning what it is that you want Me to learn from you, and others, correct?
What has that got to do with My question?
Their "success", which is backed by supporters like your self, is that the success that you speak of?
Statements like this are the VERY PROOF of HOW you are being blinded from what IS, actually true and correct in Life.
I do this for the VERY REASONS I have already explained.
The former is far more correct.
Your comment here is one of the REASONS why I say human beings are blinded and distorted from the actual Truth of things.
Thank you for hopefully NOW actually realizing, understanding, and acknowledging that, WITHOUT CLARIFICATION, you have NO access. BUT, just as obvious, WITH CLARIFICATION, you can gain an understanding. And, GAINING understanding is best [most easily, quickly, and simply] done by just being completely OPEN, and asking for clarity.
ALL the others were actual questions also. You just do NOT like to look at and answer those ones.
Obviously you misunderstood My question, once again, but, once again, that is My fault.
Can distant clocks be read in the supposed "new" frame?
All statements were relative to a frame, not an observer or a point of view. Nothing was declared to be 'actually stationary'. Your phrase, not mine.ken wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:56 am Separate viewpoints distorts the Truth and what 'relativity' shows IS EVERY thing is relative to the observer. If, and only IF, a human being observer was silly or stupid enough to believe that while they were traveling, that they were actually stationary, then the sort of things that are being seen here start to arise.
Yes. This is what you appear to be doing.What some people see, say, and/or do is one thing. But what human beings see, say, and/or do may NOT reflect any truth nor reality at all.
Wrong. Flat earth model works great for almost all purposes, even though the earth is not actually flat. The model works. It is useful, even though it is wrong in the end. When I ask directions to the drug store, nobody gives directions in polar coordinates or some other spherical reference. Such instructions would be needlessly complicated and confusing. The sphere model only comes up in a larger picture where the difference matters.but if the earth is NOT flat, then a flat earth does NOT work.
The one aged 140 days when greeting is brother who has aged 8.6 years.Great, we are finally getting down to the wording, you say that there is "younger" twin, who has not lived as long, but aged 'normally'.
Which one is the "younger" twin?
Again, no.Is there an actual 'stationary' in the Universe, to you?
Putting 'actual' on it is what makes it wrong.If not, then why do you use the term 'stationary'?
Sorry this simple concept evades you.Human beings do NOT even know who they, themselves, are yet, let alone knowing what being "stationary relative to themselves" could or would entail.
I cannot guess at the question you had intended.Is the best answer you have in order to NOT answer the actual question and/or NOT look at it.
Or maybe the same. Depends on the specific test you're referencing.
Let me ask plainly. Your comment makes no sense to me. What do you mean when you say there is NO actual thing as two events?
Pretty much, yes.Are you still under the illusion, which you your self have created, that I am in denial of the so called "evidence".
You deleted context here. I don't remember what this was about.Useful for what purpose?Noax wrote:Yes, really. It was a pretty cheap and useful thing to do.
If they're so obvious, please point one out. If there is a different, it would be science, not interpretation. The lack of a difference is what makes it interpretation.Your inability, at the moment, to see the obvious observable differences might be some sort of problem, to YOU. But obviously there is NO problem for those of us who can clearly SEE the observable differences.
Biases should not be able to influence a good test.Are you under the illusion that there are NO unconscious biases at all?Noax wrote:Two models, making different predictions. The test is run, they see what actually happens (which might not match either model), and the model that predicts incorrectly has problems. At no point is there bias in that unless the results are falsified to match the model.Because you said people do tests, PREDICTING what will happen.
And what about 'confirmation biases', are you aware that they exist?
in which you're questioning science findings, not the philosophy of science.Another diversionary tactic away from the question at hand, in a philosophical forum.Noax wrote:All philosophical questions irrelevant to the subject at hand.
No, it's completely irrelevant. Both real or non-real models of time make the same relativistic predictions.But the ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that 'time' exists must first be at hand to even begin to suggest that 'time', itself, can slow down OR dilate.
All theories do. Without evidence, there would be no reason to make any theory to explain it.And, did that 'theory' really come AFTER that 'piece of evidence'?
GR, not SR. Yes, it has become accepted, and everyone knows it is incomplete.If 'it' is the theory of special relativity, and the tests that have falsified "ALL" non-relativistic views, then does that mean the theory of special relativity has BECOME or is still BECOMING accepted?
It will be falsified if we find a better unified theory.And, if it has BECOME accepted to some people, then WHY do they still call 'it' a theory? Is a theory valid if there is NO potential for falsification? If there is now NO potential for falsification, then what is, what was once called 'a theory', now called?
You would disagree with my honest opinion of what I think your content is meant to produce.If not correct, what do you think My content is meant to produce?
My only support is that of a tax payer. Their success is measured in the quality of their predictions. It's why Galileo had so much trouble getting his views accepted. His predictions were never as good as the competing model of flat earth with Gods carrying the sun and stars overhead.Their "success", which is backed by supporters like your self, is that the success that you speak of?Noax wrote:We differ there. I lack the smarts, time and funding to do all these tests myself. The boffins seem pretty suited to the role of doing the testing for me. Their success is what backs their methodology.
Well there's the problem. None of the rest of us have this ability to see what IS. We're stuck with empirical observation from a subjective viewpoint. It sucks.
Actually, I have been wondering loosely what you mean by this statement. Not so much that I've bothered to inquire about it before.Are you capable of understanding that EVERY thing is relative to the observer actually MEANS that EVERY thing is RELATIVE to the observer?
Yet you don't clarify when I ask. I've edited out about a dozen questions that got no clarification, so I assume will not be clarified.For example when YOU use and/or say a word, then that does NOT mean it MEANS the exact same for another observer. ONLY through clarification can another's true perspective be seen AND understood.
Taking a reading of a clock is an event and thus not a frame dependent task, but if said clock is not in the presence of the reader, then it take time for light to travel to the observer reading it, and both the distance separating the two, and where the clock moved since then, are frame dependent. So say at the event of the traveler reaching AC, if the Earth clock can be read, it will read the same thing in any frame, but that is not what time it is at the observation event, but rather what time the clock showed at the event when the light left the clock, from the location that the clock was at the event where the light left it.