Einstein on the train

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 3996
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:50 am

Finishing off the new version of the book. Changed the name to Einstein on the train and other stories. Bit of restructuring and improved graphics and added short essays to introduce the chapters. This is the version I hope to really push, so any comments/criticisms will be gratefully received.

uwot
Posts: 3996
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:47 pm

The new book is now available on Amazon (at least in the UK and US) You can read a lot of it here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com All comments and feedback (especially nice stuff) gratefully received.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1058
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Scott Mayers » Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm

Well so far, I read all you had there and like HOW you expressed science with excellent illustrations, good humor, and connectivity of the material with respect to the historical logic that went into developing significant scientific theories. I definitely recommend this to others here.

I'm guessing what isn't published there is going to lead to Einstein and trains?

I think you need to add a warning about whether any stick animals were actually harmed during your creation, though. :lol:

uwot
Posts: 3996
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:37 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm
Well so far, I read all you had there and like HOW you expressed science with excellent illustrations, good humor, and connectivity of the material with respect to the historical logic that went into developing significant scientific theories. I definitely recommend this to others here.
Thank you.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm
I'm guessing what isn't published there is going to lead to Einstein and trains?
Yeah-why time slows down the faster you go. Why it appears to speed up or slow down, depending on which way round the world you fly. How gravity affects time. Bonkers stuff like that.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm
I think you need to add a warning about whether any stick animals were actually harmed during your creation, though. :lol:
Have no fear-everyone gets out alive.

Age
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am

uwot wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:47 pm
The new book is now available on Amazon (at least in the UK and US) You can read a lot of it here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com All comments and feedback (especially nice stuff) gratefully received.
What you call "facts" are NOT necessarily FACTS, in and of themselves.

You appear to still be searching for how the Universe works the way it does and why. These two things are already known. Any one with REAL curiosity will discover these answers. Reading through countless pieces of literature to arrive at the answers to what you are still looking for is NOT needed. In fact the current literature, when this is written, will only cause more confusion than clarity. Just start reading if you do not believe this. Your book just adds to the list of literature.

Lines like "The Universe is big" does NOT really help anyone in understanding. Unless of course they are of a particular understanding. Who is this repeated literature actually created for?

You write from a very relative, presumptive, and believing perspective, which translates into distorting the actual and real truth of things sometimes. For example words like "mind-boggling big", "scientists think", "started out", could infer concepts which are not true at all. Some might start thinking that the actual size of the Universe is unfathomable and/or even unknowable, let alone already known and understood by some, is just one for example of how words can distort and twist that from what is real and true.

By the way if a writer is going to use words in their writings, which obviously they will, then it is best that the writer is able to fully explain what every word means. What is the 'mind', for example?

How do you know what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? When and if you provide an answer for that, then I will explain what I think is a false, incorrect, or an inaccurate explanation of things. (9 and 12, just for my memory).

By page 14 there is NO wonder why people like yourself are still searching for HOW and WHY the Universe "works" the way it does. The ASSUMPTIONS, and then the BELIEFS, based on and made from those WRONG assumptions, have distorted "your" ability to LOOK clearly AT and SEE what the actual Truth of things IS.

To me, this book is just repeating and relaying the wrong and distorted mixed messages that have been passed down from generation to generation, which is what is causing more distortion along the way.

We will wait and see if what you wrote in the above quote is even true first.

uwot
Posts: 3996
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am

Thank you Age for taking the trouble to provide feedback and giving me the opportunity to clarify.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
What you call "facts" are NOT necessarily FACTS, in and of themselves.
I try to be clear about what I mean by 'facts' in the introduction, where I say:
In the book I wrote:"The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them."
Granted I have skipped some fairly outré metaphysics and assumed that there is a universe, that things happen in it, and that there are people to observe and measure it, but I think that is a reasonable starting point for the type of book I have written.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
You appear to still be searching for how the Universe works the way it does and why.
Well, the how is what physics is primarily interested in-observing and measuring so that we can predict and manipulate our environment. The why goes beyond that-it is metaphysics in that sense. For example:
In the book I wrote:Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which includes a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff. Relativity explains all the known facts that Newton could, and the ones he couldn’t. So does that mean the story is true? Not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories.
And yes, I am still searching.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
These two things are already known. Any one with REAL curiosity will discover these answers.
What do you think is the difference between the sort of curiosity that I have, and "REAL curiosity"?
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
Reading through countless pieces of literature to arrive at the answers to what you are still looking for is NOT needed.
True, but it saves me the trouble of building my own Large Hadron Collider and Hubble Space Telescope.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
In fact the current literature, when this is written, will only cause more confusion than clarity. Just start reading if you do not believe this. Your book just adds to the list of literature. Lines like "The Universe is big" does NOT really help anyone in understanding. Unless of course they are of a particular understanding. Who is this repeated literature actually created for?
Well, the idea was to write the book I wish I could have read when I was 15; a cartoon strip that shows what scientists think, rather than explain the maths.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
You write from a very relative, presumptive, and believing perspective, which translates into distorting the actual and real truth of things sometimes. For example words like "mind-boggling big", "scientists think", "started out", could infer concepts which are not true at all. Some might start thinking that the actual size of the Universe is unfathomable and/or even unknowable, let alone already known and understood by some, is just one for example of how words can distort and twist that from what is real and true.
Fair enough, I do presume and believe that the best way to understand a thing is to start by looking at it, but I accept that some people think that is unnecessary.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
By the way if a writer is going to use words in their writings, which obviously they will, then it is best that the writer is able to fully explain what every word means. What is the 'mind', for example?
That is waaaay beyond the scope of the book, but if you can show me where I used that word, I could perhaps put it into context.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
How do you know what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? When and if you provide an answer for that, then I will explain what I think is a false, incorrect, or an inaccurate explanation of things. (9 and 12, just for my memory).
Well, I accept that the Doppler Effect is an good explanation of the observed red-shift of galaxies. It's in the book.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
By page 14 there is NO wonder why people like yourself are still searching for HOW and WHY the Universe "works" the way it does. The ASSUMPTIONS, and then the BELIEFS, based on and made from those WRONG assumptions, have distorted "your" ability to LOOK clearly AT and SEE what the actual Truth of things IS.
As I conceded, I am still searching, but if you know "the actual Truth", I'd love to hear it.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
To me, this book is just repeating and relaying the wrong and distorted mixed messages that have been passed down from generation to generation, which is what is causing more distortion along the way.
I'm sorry you think so, but if there is one message that has been passed down through the generations, it is that the universe is an amazing and mysterious place, that we are still finding out about.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
We will wait and see if what you wrote in the above quote is even true first.
I'm not sure which quote you are referring to, but the only one you cite is:
uwot wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:47 pm
The new book is now available on Amazon (at least in the UK and US) You can read a lot of it here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com All comments and feedback (especially nice stuff) gratefully received.
Which is true.

Age
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm

uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Thank you Age for taking the trouble to provide feedback and giving me the opportunity to clarify.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
What you call "facts" are NOT necessarily FACTS, in and of themselves.
I try to be clear about what I mean by 'facts' in the introduction, where I say:
In the book I wrote:"The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them."
Granted I have skipped some fairly outré metaphysics and assumed that there is a universe, that things happen in it, and that there are people to observe and measure it, but I think that is a reasonable starting point for the type of book I have written.
Just as long as you are aware that sometimes so called "facts" end up NOT actually being FACTS at all, then we are on the same path.

As for any or all "outre metaphysics" nor what else you said here, they have nothing at all to do with what I am just pointing out.

Human beings do sometimes tend to make assumptions and jump to conclusions based on hearing/seeing "facts", which really were NOT even facts to start out with.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
You appear to still be searching for how the Universe works the way it does and why.
Well, the how is what physics is primarily interested in-observing and measuring so that we can predict and manipulate our environment.
WHY predict, when the answers can already been observed?

And, besides for monetary gain and greed WHY would human beings want to even manipulate the environment?
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
The why goes beyond that-it is metaphysics in that sense. For example:
In the book I wrote:Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which includes a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff. Relativity explains all the known facts that Newton could, and the ones he couldn’t. So does that mean the story is true? Not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories.
Nothing much here to do with the actual WHY to the Universe, but anyway.

The answer to why goes way beyond what you are talking about here. Yet the answer to WHY the Universe is the way it is, is very simple and straight forward. ALL of the truly meaningful answers are extremely simple and easy to discover, see, and understand compared to the presumptions and guesses made about the Universe.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
And yes, I am still searching.
Yes I know. That was evidenced within your book.

uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
These two things are already known. Any one with REAL curiosity will discover these answers.
What do you think is the difference between the sort of curiosity that I have, and "REAL curiosity"?
You make assumptions, jump to conclusions, and believe things, all of which are based on past experiences. REAL curiosity is complete OPENNESS.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
Reading through countless pieces of literature to arrive at the answers to what you are still looking for is NOT needed.
True, but it saves me the trouble of building my own Large Hadron Collider and Hubble Space Telescope.
LOL those silly little human made things will NOT provide the answers to HOW and WHY the Universe works the way It does.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
In fact the current literature, when this is written, will only cause more confusion than clarity. Just start reading if you do not believe this. Your book just adds to the list of literature. Lines like "The Universe is big" does NOT really help anyone in understanding. Unless of course they are of a particular understanding. Who is this repeated literature actually created for?
Well, the idea was to write the book I wish I could have read when I was 15; a cartoon strip that shows what scientists think, rather than explain the maths.
That is fair enough. But NOT all scientists think the way that you are portraying they do here.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
You write from a very relative, presumptive, and believing perspective, which translates into distorting the actual and real truth of things sometimes. For example words like "mind-boggling big", "scientists think", "started out", could infer concepts which are not true at all. Some might start thinking that the actual size of the Universe is unfathomable and/or even unknowable, let alone already known and understood by some, is just one for example of how words can distort and twist that from what is real and true.
Fair enough, I do presume and believe that the best way to understand a thing is to start by looking at it, but I accept that some people think that is unnecessary.
NOT looking at things, is NOT some thing that I have even thought about let alone have written about, so only you would KNOW WHY you went down that path.

My whole point, for quite a while now, which can be evidenced from what I have written in this forum, is to just LOOK AT things EXACTLY how they are, instead of from a presumptive or believing point of view. If, and when, this is done, HOW and WHY the Universe works the way it does can and IS seen and understood just about instantly.

Presuming the Universe does certain things and/or believing those things obstructs a clear vision and observation of what actually happens and of what really takes place.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
By the way if a writer is going to use words in their writings, which obviously they will, then it is best that the writer is able to fully explain what every word means. What is the 'mind', for example?
That is waaaay beyond the scope of the book, but if you can show me where I used that word, I could perhaps put it into context.
'Mind-boggling'. But, although putting a word into context may help readers to gain a better understanding of where you are coming from exactly, that "putting a word into context" does NOT explain what the 'mind' actually IS, which is exactly what I am talking about and referring to.


uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Well, I accept that the Doppler Effect is an good explanation of the observed red-shift of galaxies.
Okay I accept that you accept that the doppler effect is a good explanation of the observed red-shift of galaxies. This could be more or less grasped from in your book. However, I am not after what is a good explanation of the observed red-shift of galaxies. The question I posed here, asked in another way, is; What exactly informs human beings what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? What exact tool distinguishes close galaxies from further away galaxies?

When you answer that, then I will explain what I see in your book regarding these issues.

uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
It's in the book.
I know.

Your book is where I got the information from to reply to you. You where seeking comments and feedback about your book right?

If yes, then I would have had to start reading your book in order to provide the comments and feedback that I have so far. Your writings about the doppler effect and an observed red-shift is what evoked me to ask you the question that I did.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
As I conceded, I am still searching, but if you know "the actual Truth", I'd love to hear it.
As I explained, there is NO wonder WHY you are still searching considering the assumptions you make and the beliefs that you have and hold onto.

The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.

The list could go on for quite a while. If you like more just say so or if you would like to LOOK AT these first, and discuss, then that is fine also.

uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
I'm sorry you think so, but if there is one message that has been passed down through the generations, it is that the universe is an amazing and mysterious place, that we are still finding out about.
When "you" say "we" who/what are you referring to exactly?

As for HOW and WHY the Universe exists the way it does, I, for one, certainly do NOT find anything mysterious anymore.

Although the Universe might be a relatively amazing place, there really are NO mysteries left, for me anyway.

Just LOOK AT what IS, from the right perspective, then all the so called "mysteries", or at least the more well known ones, are just solved and the answers are KNOWN.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
I'm not sure which quote you are referring to, but the only one you cite is:Which is true.
Great.

uwot
Posts: 3996
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm

This, I guess, is the nitty-gritty:
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
What exactly informs human beings what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? What exact tool distinguishes close galaxies from further away galaxies?
Without getting into precise definitions, I will just use the term 'fact' in reference to the observed red shift in galaxies. The tools required to observe this are a telescope and a prism, as detailed in the book. It is a fact that there are points of light in the night sky. It is also a fact that the smaller they appear, on average, the redder they look. Since we can demonstrate, quite simply on Earth, that the further away something is, the smaller it appears, the inference is that the same is true about points of light in the night sky. It is also a fact that can be demonstrated relatively easily, that the longer the wavelength of light, the redder it looks. The movement of sources and recipients of waves can be demonstrated to stretch and compress waves, it's called the Doppler Effect. So all in all, it is a plausible explanation that the smaller, redder points of light are more distant than the larger, bluer ones.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
When you answer that, then I will explain what I see in your book regarding these issues.
I hope I have done that to your satisfaction.
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
As I explained, there is NO wonder WHY you are still searching considering the assumptions you make and the beliefs that you have and hold onto.
While I think that the above explanation is plausible, I don't assume any explanation for the facts is true. If you have a more compelling explanation for any of these claims...
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.
...I am willing to entertain them.

Impenitent
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Impenitent » Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:20 pm

why were the locomotive passengers thirsty?

-Imp

Age
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:55 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm
This, I guess, is the nitty-gritty:
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
What exactly informs human beings what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? What exact tool distinguishes close galaxies from further away galaxies?
Without getting into precise definitions, I will just use the term 'fact' in reference to the observed red shift in galaxies. The tools required to observe this are a telescope and a prism, as detailed in the book. It is a fact that there are points of light in the night sky. It is also a fact that the smaller they appear, on average, the redder they look. Since we can demonstrate, quite simply on Earth, that the further away something is, the smaller it appears, the inference is that the same is true about points of light in the night sky.
Well that is one strange "inference" to be basing 'facts' off and from, from my point of view. The fact is a grain of sand can be much closer to an observer than a rock is, but the grain of sand will appear much smaller than a much larger rock does. By definition what 'appears' to be the case may not be so.

Just because the further away some thing is, the smaller it 'appears', does NOT necessarily translate to and infer any thing, to me, regarding the actual size of stars, especially in distances that are hard for human beings to grasp a true understanding of. Human beings can not even grasp the actual distance when looking up at a cloud or a plane, let alone further afield. Human beings do not even get the length of a fish right if they do not have the fish in their hands. Length and distances are not some thing that human beings can judge very well, ON earth, let alone OUT past earth itself, unless of course they have specific and very precise measuring tools to use.

Are ALL objects, where points of light come from in the night sky, the exact same size? If no, then the size they might 'appear' as might not have any real bearing on the distance that they 'actually' are at, from an observer. 'Appearance' and 'actuality' can be two completely different things. You even used the 'average' word, which then puts another perspective and more variables to consider about this issue.

Anyhow the explanation I was seeking was not given, but this is my fault for not knowing how to ask the question properly.

Now, you say that telescopes, prisms, and the observed "red shift" informs human beings what are relatively close galaxies compared to what are relatively more distant galaxies, and that explanation, by itself, is fair enough. However, on page 9 of your book you write about how "scientists" could clearly see fingerprints of hydrogen, but that fingerprint was not where it was "SUPPOSED" to be. (Besides the fact that the word "supposed" infers that some thing is 'meant' to be, 'should' be, or that some thing was 'expected' or was 'expected' to be some thing different implies that these so called "scientists" were NOT really LOOKING from a Truly OPEN perspective but rather from a presuming point of view, which will inevitably cloud their judgement and/or by clouding what IS the Real and True picture of things. Anyhow I digress.) Why I was asking: How do you know what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? is because here on page 9 you continued that in a few nearby galaxies the fingerprint of hydrogen is shifted to the blue end of the spectrum and conversely the vast "majority" of more distant galaxies, the fingerprint is shifted to the red end. So, How did "you" and/or "scientists" know how to differentiate between the few nearby galaxies from the more distant galaxies BEFORE they realized and come to understand in which way the "shift" was occurring. This is not a real issue but the way it is written it proposes that "people" KNEW what were close and nearby galaxies and what were more distant galaxies BEFORE the red and blue shift became known of.

Now if this 'knowing before' was the case, then again HOW did 'people' KNOW what are nearby galaxies and what are more distant galaxies BEFORE red/blue shift?

Does the knowing of what are nearby and what are more distant galaxies have anything at all to do with red and blue shift?

If no, then does this KNOWING the difference between 'nearby' and 'more distant' come from what 'appears' to be smaller phenomena only?
If yes, to the red and blue shift question, then maybe just make that a bit clearer on page 9 that it IS because OF the red and blue shift that human beings became aware of and therefore know what are nearby galaxies compared to those galaxies which are more distant?

uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm
It is also a fact that can be demonstrated relatively easily, that the longer the wavelength of light, the redder it looks. The movement of sources and recipients of waves can be demonstrated to stretch and compress waves, it's called the Doppler Effect. So all in all, it is a plausible explanation that the smaller, redder points of light are more distant than the larger, bluer ones.
Great time to point out and note that a 'plausible explanation' is still only an assumption and/or guess at best.

Anyway now you are appearing to say that the red/blue shift does inform human beings of what are closer and what are more distant galaxies, to them. Again, and if it is of any real interest, on page 9 it does not exactly read like that, to me anyway.

uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
When you answer that, then I will explain what I see in your book regarding these issues.
I hope I have done that to your satisfaction.
Honestly I am still not really sure on your answer and point of view, but again this is because I do not know how to phrase my question better and clearer.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
As I explained, there is NO wonder WHY you are still searching considering the assumptions you make and the beliefs that you have and hold onto.
While I think that the above explanation is plausible, I don't assume any explanation for the facts is true. If you have a more compelling explanation for any of these claims...
I have yet to understand your claims properly and fully. For example; IF, it is a plausible explanation that the smaller, redder points of light are more distant than the larger, bluer ones, and if redder infers closer while bluer infers more distant, then HOW does this red/blue shift also translate to direction of travel as well? (Yes I have read and seen this in your book.) What I have considered is how can red/blue shift infer two completely different scenarios.

I can very easily see and understand how the red/blue shift can very easily translate to and mean one or the other scenario of distance or direction but I do not very easily see nor understand how the red/blue shift could mean both distance AND direction. Surely, if the red/blue shift explains both the distance and the direction of galaxies, then the confusion that would ensure would be obvious, right? Or, am I completely missing some thing here?

I would like to clear this up before we move onto page 12.

Are you able to elaborate on and/or explain more about how BOTH the distance and the direction of galaxies can be realized, understood, and known by the observable red shift? That is; IF that is actually what you are claiming.

When you clear up and clarify some more, then I will better understand your claims.
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.
...I am willing to entertain them.
Okay great.

uwot
Posts: 3996
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 am

Age wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:55 am
Well that is one strange "inference" to be basing 'facts' off and from, from my point of view.
I think you might have missed the point of the title: Einstein on the train and other stories. In the introduction I try to make clear that any "inference" is essentially a story to explain the 'facts':
In the book I wrote:Richard Feynman, one of the great 20th century physicists, put it like this: “Every theoretical physicist that’s any good, knows six or seven different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics.”

The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them. “Theoretical representations” are stories about why they work, but there are lots of different stories. Some physicists believe one thing, some another, some don’t have any strong opinion and some couldn’t care less.

That in a nutshell is what sometimes makes physics so bewildering, because depending on which theoretical physicist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories. Many of them might seem absurd, but assuming the physicist is ‘any good’, the story will be based on solid facts. This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how physicists think the universe actually works.
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:55 am
Are you able to elaborate on and/or explain more about how BOTH the distance and the direction of galaxies can be realized, understood, and known by the observable red shift? That is; IF that is actually what you are claiming.
The red shift is the evidence that supports the inference that the universe is expanding. By itself, it doesn't tell you the distance. There are a range of techniques used to establish that, which if you are interested, are outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:55 am
When you clear up and clarify some more, then I will better understand your claims.
You are free to make up any story you wish to account for whatever facts are known to you, but this exchange...
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 am
Reading through countless pieces of literature to arrive at the answers to what you are still looking for is NOT needed.
True, but it saves me the trouble of building my own Large Hadron Collider and Hubble Space Telescope.
LOL those silly little human made things will NOT provide the answers to HOW and WHY the Universe works the way It does.
...suggests you think you can discover how everything works without even looking at it. So well in fact, that you assert it as "The actual Truth".
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.
So if my story is wrong, which I accept may be the case, how can you demonstrate that your "actual Truth" is correct?

uwot
Posts: 3996
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:17 am

Impenitent wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:20 pm
why were the locomotive passengers thirsty?

-Imp
I dunno Imp; why were the locomotive passengers thirsty?

uwot
Posts: 3996
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:41 am

Anyway, I have been given permission by the wonderful Professor Derek Leinweber to use the animations he developed, some of which "featured in Professor Wilczek's 2004 Physics Nobel Prize Lecture", in a presentation I am developing to promote the book.
Professor Leinweber wrote:Dear Will
You are certainly welcome to use the animations to promote your book. Best wishes! I hope it is very well received and read.
You can see the animations here: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theo ... index.html
That is a much better illustration of what I have tried to demonstrate on page 22 of the book: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

Age
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:03 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 am
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:55 am
Well that is one strange "inference" to be basing 'facts' off and from, from my point of view.
I think you might have missed the point of the title: Einstein on the train and other stories. In the introduction I try to make clear that any "inference" is essentially a story to explain the 'facts':
In the book I wrote:Richard Feynman, one of the great 20th century physicists, put it like this: “Every theoretical physicist that’s any good, knows six or seven different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics.”

The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them. “Theoretical representations” are stories about why they work, but there are lots of different stories. Some physicists believe one thing, some another, some don’t have any strong opinion and some couldn’t care less.

That in a nutshell is what sometimes makes physics so bewildering, because depending on which theoretical physicist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories. Many of them might seem absurd, but assuming the physicist is ‘any good’, the story will be based on solid facts. This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how physicists think the universe actually works.
Do you remember when I stated: What you call "facts" are NOT necessarily FACTS, in and of themselves.?

If you do, then I said that because I read, from your book, the above.

The "facts" you are talking about have to be SHOWN and KNOWN to be actual FACTS before "stories" will make any REAL sense.

For centuries "facts" within science come and go or change. One "fact" in one period is NOT A "fact" in another period. So what you call "facts" now, may change, or NOT be "facts" at all, sooner or later.
uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 am
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:55 am
Are you able to elaborate on and/or explain more about how BOTH the distance and the direction of galaxies can be realized, understood, and known by the observable red shift? That is; IF that is actually what you are claiming.
The red shift is the evidence that supports the inference that the universe is expanding.
So, when exactly WAS the inference made that the Universe is expanding, was it BEFORE or AFTER observing the red shift? And, what exactly were "they" basing that that theory of expansion, if it was NOT on the red shift?
uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 am
By itself, it doesn't tell you the distance. There are a range of techniques used to establish that, which if you are interested, are outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
The very reason I asked you: How do you know what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? is because from within your book it was not purely clear if red shift confirms distances or not. Even your very response to my question here alluded to the "fact" that it is red shift of galaxies that that is how "you" know what are CLOSE galaxies to what are MORE DISTANT galaxies.

Now your assumptions and beliefs, which can be seen throughout your book, are clouding and distorting the actual and real FACTS.

Age
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:11 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 am
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:55 am
When you clear up and clarify some more, then I will better understand your claims.
You are free to make up any story you wish to account for whatever facts are known to you, but this exchange...
But as I continually ask; WHY make up ANY assumptions, ANY stories, and/or ANY theories, et cetera, about what COULD BE true when all that is needed is, to KNOW what the actual and real Truth IS, is to just LOOK AT what IS actually Real and True?

To me, it seems a rather pointless exercise to make up any thing when the real Truth is HERE and can be SEEN and KNOWN, almost instantly.
uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
uwot wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am
True, but it saves me the trouble of building my own Large Hadron Collider and Hubble Space Telescope.
LOL those silly little human made things will NOT provide the answers to HOW and WHY the Universe works the way It does.
...suggests you think you can discover how everything works without even looking at it. So well in fact, that you assert it as "The actual Truth".
You MUST OF missed what I have been saying, for quite a while now. I also did actually say it to "YOU", in this thread. That is; NOT looking at things, is NOT some thing that I have even thought about let alone have written about, so only you would KNOW WHY you went down that path.

My whole point, for quite a while now, which can be evidenced from what I have written in this forum, is to just LOOK AT things EXACTLY how they are, instead of from a presumptive or believing point of view. If, and when, this is done, HOW and WHY the Universe works the way it does can and IS seen and understood just about instantly.


In case you still do NOT understand this, this means that I state: LOOK AT things, how they ARE, and NOT how one THINKS, HOPES, or BELIEVES they SHOULD BE like.

My VERY POINT IS to LOOK. And, to LOOK from the Truly OPEN perspective.

So, ONLY "you" would know exactly how you arrived and concluded that from what I SAY, suggests that i think you can discover how everything works without even looking at it. The absurdity of HOW "you" arrived at this type of inexcusable and WRONG conclusion speaks for itself.

By the way "your" assumption and words "... you think you CAN discover how 'everything' works..." is also wrong and misleading as I have ALREADY discovered how 'everything', from the perspective of the one Universe, works. This is NOT about me thinking that I CAN discover, this is about what I have ALREADY discovered. What I have uncovered/discovered has come about from LOOKING, from a Truly OPEN and HONEST perspective.
uwot wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 am
Age wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pm
The actual Truth IS:

The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.
So if my story is wrong, which I accept may be the case, how can you demonstrate that your "actual Truth" is correct?
If any of these could be True, to you, then by just LISTENING and LOOKING I could DEMONSTRATE HOW?

By the way a 'story' is NEVER wrong, because, by definition, a 'story' is just that - A story.

Just like a 'fact' is non-fiction, a 'story' is fiction, from one's perspective. If a 'story' coincides with fact, then that is another 'story'. (Yes the obvious contradiction/flaw here was done on purpose.)

(Some may say there can be a 'non-fictional story' but that could be up for question. After all a 'non-fictional story' is really just a 'fact' or the 'facts')

A 'fact' or 'facts' can only be true and right, whereas, a 'story' is just that. A 'story' remains just a story until it is accepted and agreed upon as being FACT.

Now, what I propose to DEMONSTRATE as an 'actual Truth' is also just a story, That is; until it is agreed upon and accepted as 'thee actual and real Truth', if it ever is.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests