How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?
Theories are not facts even though they are comprised of them and the reason they are not is because they can be subject to potential
falsification at any time. But whether they can be actually falsified is irrelevant because it is the possibility of falsification that matters
falsification at any time. But whether they can be actually falsified is irrelevant because it is the possibility of falsification that matters
They are theories not facts for the reason I have already given aboveken wrote:
explain what general relativity and what quantum mechanics is to you and also let us know if you think or believe they are facts or theories
I agree they are not separated in reality but only in theory and the reason for that is because gravity cannot currently be quantisedken wrote:And until you explain where you think or believe they are separated then I really have no idea why you would even think they are separatesurreptitious57 wrote:No because you have made the claim that they are easy to unite and that is not conditional on anything elseken wrote:
Would you care to explain what parts if any you think are not united between general relativity and quantum mechanics
If you did then I would know what parts you are very interested to see how I try to or could actually unite
I just want to see what you are going to offer because until you show it I really have no idea what you have
NO thing is separate in the Universe. Only human beings look at and see separation. Human beings distort what is real and true when they
do this thus the reason WHY human beings are still trying to figure out things
Human beings are trying to figure out things because they are curious but are not omniscient and so do not know all of the answers
Would like to comment briefly on this:
The theory made the predictions, not the author, who may or may not have been involved in the particular experiment. Secondly, the theory says it depends on the gravitational field each clock is in, and which clock moves more, not on which way they travel.
Neither the person nor the theory says this. The faster clock 'ticks slower', and it is relative to a given frame, not to a direction of travel.Did the person who produced the theory of relativity predict that some clocks would actually "tick faster" (for lack of better wording) the faster that clock went, relative to direction of travel?
The predictions were computed by application of the theories once the exact parameters of the experiment were known. The competing theories essentially said that two clocks that are in sync will stay in sync (to the precision of the clock) regardless of motion or altitude.Also, what was the actual prediction in the actual words of the actual person who made the prediction?
There is nothing stopping you from explaining your Theory Of Everything as best as you can and so why not do it so we can actually see what it isken wrote:
You have just said that I already know that a theory of everything does not exist yet the truth is I already do know that a theory of every
thing already does exist. But unfortunately for some people they are NOT yet able to explain things clearly so that they can be easily understood
Whether it will be understood is an entirely separate issue. You have been asked this multiple times now and have yet to produce any thing at all
And I have already shown how your example of jumping into the sun to prove some thing, which has already been proven with first hand experience by the way, is ridiculous at best. But you might have missed where I have shown this already.davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:37 pmIt HAS been shown through tests and experiments -- as has been shown to you. See above.
If you're asking for an experiment in which a human subject accelerates to a relativistic speed, this obviously has not been done, but it's not necessary to do this to know that the theory is correct -- anymore than it is necessary for a human to jump into the sun to prove that he would burn up. But all of this has been explained to you, again and again and again .... in one ear and out the other.
You are again wrong here.davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:10 pmHere again you demonstrate your obdurate ignorance of science, no matter how many times people have tried to educate you.
That all depends on what you want to BELIEVE.
How many times must an experiment be conducted, in how many different locations, before we should accept it? A millions times in a million different places? A trillion times in a trillion different places? An infinite number of times in an infinite number of different places?[/quote]
If you want to BELIEVE that human bodies age differently because of the speed that they travel at, based on an experiment being done on a human body being involved, then so be it.
If you have noticed, some say otherwise.
It’s about falsification. We gain confidence in theories that survive all falsification checks — as relativity has for more than a hundred years (not just your ignorant “once or twice,” lol). [/quote]
Again, you can BELIEVE whatever you like.
But could 'relativity' ever be falsified. The very nature of it would suggest otherwise.
If that happens, we would not throw out relativity. We would check to see if the experiment had a flaw in it. If we found no flaw, we would run the experiment again and if it falsified relativity, then we would try to find some other reason for the result. If indeed we begin to think that the experiment falsified relativity, we would then begin to explore other potential theories that would encompass all the successful tests of relativity theory, while ALSO explaining why relativity theory came up short in this particular experiment. A new theory that embraced both the successes while explaining the failure with a slightly different model would be tentatively held to be a better modeling theory than relativity was. This is exactly what happened with general relativity vs. Newtonian mechanics.[/quote]
WHY make up theories about what might be? WHY not just look at what IS, instead?
Once again a human being looking up to and putting another on a pedestal.davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:10 pmSomething very like this also happened just a few years ago. An experiment showed that neutrinos were traveling faster than light! If this were true, relativity would be overthrown. It created quite a stir, until the experimental setup was checked. Sure enough, it had a flaw in it. When the flaw was corrected neutrino velocity was not found to exceed c, once again in total conformance with Einstein.
There is only breath in words, not in writing.
Everything is knowable.davidm wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:10 pmAs an aside, I would say that Popperian falsificationism is not the be-all and end-all that some might seem to think. String theory proceeds along yet it is unfalsifiable. And false theories can still be useful. I’d say, contra what I believe Noax said, that Newtonian mechanics is strictly false but it’s still useful so who cares? This is because science is not and cannot be about what is “true” but merely about what is instrumentally useful: modeling the world and making successful and useful predictions based on those models. In this sense I’d say science adheres to the Kantian noumenal/phenomenal distinction. A good example of this is quantum mechanics, wherein phenomenal QM is strikingly successful but noumenal QM is unknown and perhaps unknowable.
WHY bring those human beings called "creationists" into this?thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:52 pmA typical Creationist will demand that all possible scenarios be tested and verified before they will consider any scientific theory to be true, as long as it doesn't contradict their particular interpretation of the Bible. But the Bible is accepted as true without any verification or testing because the Bible says it is true, their interpretation, others are suspect. Presenting evidence to a Creationist is like banging your head against a brick wall, but there are probably thousands of lurkers reading the thread, and for them we persist, some more than others.
There is no thing heavy nor hard there.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:20 amSeriously heavy questions there but still an excellent opportunity to try and understand some really hard physics and from a very good site toodavid wrote:
For any who might be interested in discussing the philosophy of relativity theory and of spacetime here might be a springboard for that discussion
All of which are just a part of the one actual event, which some times is referred to as spacetime. There are NO actual periodic events. There are only human beings who break down the one actual event into periodic events. As for 'people who believe (in any thing)' well that has already been discussed.uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 am
To be able to count "periodic" events one has to first break one thing down into periods, or only look at one thing.uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 am
As above, we don't know whether we are actually measuring any such thing as 'time'; all we can do is count periodic events such as the ones listed above.
Obviously.uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 amWell, it all hinges on what you mean by see. If two observers are watching the pendulum in a grandfather clock swing side to side, it is entirely up to the individual to choose to 'see' the whole sequence as a single event, or to break it down into the individual swings. But in the most literal sense, both observers will see the pendulum swinging.
I am not sure if any person would interpret a pendulum swinging as the truth of all things, and, I am not sure WHY you would bring such a suggestion into this discussion.uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 amSame thing. What they will see is a pendulum swinging. If they wish to interpret that as the truth of all things, that is entirely their business. Some of us are less impressed by pendulums.
Well, of course, that would be relative to the observer.
Also, how many sorts of 'relativity' do you observe, and what are they?
How many actual frames of reference do you propose there are in the one and only Universe?uwot wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:25 amAh, well; that is the point about the sort of relativity we have been discussing over 60 pages: it is only when you look at another frame of reference that you can observe the difference.ken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:11 amWhat do you mean by 'periodic events', 'demonstrably', 'without any exceptions', have 'always' been observed to take longer?
I have NOT observed what you are proposing here.
Of course you, and some others, can look at, and see from, only a part of ALL-THERE-IS, or you can look at, and see from, ALL perspectives, or ALL frames of references. The choice is yours.
The two different ways of looking, and seeing from, will, obviously, give two very different observations or distinct points of views. One provides a much larger, overall, and thus truer, picture of things, while the other provides only a very narrow, small, and thus distorted, glimpse of things. I hope I do not have to explain which obviously provides a much clearer and better view, and in far more clearer detail also.
By the way is it actually possible to look at another frame of reference without making assumptions? Either you are in one frame of reference or you are not, and if you are not in a particular frame, then you would only be guessing what would be observed from that particular frame.
Besides the fact that a thread usually does not exist without posts, there was a "time" when there were less posts in this thread.
Yes very true we can SEE each new post as a periodic event, just like with just about any thing we can break them down to periodic events.
Yes, as I have explained the same. 'Clocks' were invented to measure changes. The period of change, or changes, is defined by the change of a clock. A clock measures in periods.Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:00 pmWe could measure other changes against the changes in this thread. For example that the time I was having my breakfast was the time uwots latest post appeared. If we did that, then we would be using the thread like we use a clock. My breakfast was at 'uwots post-time'. It wouldn't be a very good clock, but it would still serve the purpose of measuring changes relative to each other.
Yes I know. That is more or less what I have been saying.
Did you think I was saying some thing different? If so, then what did you think I have been saying?
When, and if, human beings show how they define the words 'time' and 'space' for example, or even 'spacetime' then we can look at if those things actually exist or not.Noax wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:02 pmThank you for that link. All kinds of good fodder for discussion.
I picked a bit at this question since it comes up in this thread: What exactly is space-time? Is it something we can touch? How does it bend and interact with mass?
In it there is a reference to Minkowski's arguments http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/MinkowskiProof.html for the reality of 4-D spacetime, a wonderful short piece (author unspecified) summarizing the issue. I'll quote a bit from it:
"What is presently adopted is only Minkowski's four-dimensional mathematical formalism of spacetime, but not the reality of what this formalism represents."
I am interested in the necessity of the reality of something beyond just a mathematical model. It seems that this would be a philosophical point yet Minkowski says that experiments would be impossible if spacetime where not really 4D.
But the proof goes on to demonstrate that a 3D world would not work. That seems to be no proof that the world is 4D, but merely proof that it is not 3D. The mathematical model the physicists use, not being one of a 3D world, works. What if there was no real space at all? Then spacetime would be unreal with it, the model would be 4D, and experimentation would work. Maybe I'm not getting some critical piece of the argument.
Quite interestingly, the page I link above references the thing I mentioned way back that a relativistic experiment is performed every second. I would not have been able to produce a link if asked, but here I stumble on something that makes the same claim I did.
Thank you.Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:33 pmThey describe phenomena, our experiences. The description is considered 'true' if it matches other peoples' experiences.
My understanding of 'definitive truths' is not some thing more than that. Did you think otherwise?Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:33 pmIt is not a claim of truth in any metaphysical sense. It is not a claim that this must be the case or a claim to know why it is the case.
We assume certain things, for example that 'like causes produce like effects' i.e. there appears to be a regularity in phenomena. But again this arises simply from shared observation of correlations in phenomena, it is not a suggestion of some separate entity, 'the cause', that controls phenomena. There might be such a thing, but since we can only deal with phenomena we can never know it. All we note is the observed correlation.
Science is restricted to the observable and the measurable. If your understanding of 'definitive truths' is of something more than this, you are mistaken to think relativity etc. is such a claim.
'Belief' is also a psychological state. One can believe any thing also.Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:36 pm'Doubt' is a psychological state. One can doubt anything.ken wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:47 pm
Does believing that some thing is what happens, which to you has already been demonstrated, beyond ANY doubt, mean that you are at all open to the fact that this maybe is NOT what actually happens?
If so, then great.
If not, then great also.
Your honest answer is all I am seeking.
Yes, the thoughts within this head.
Is there any thing else that can be surely known?
My position is NOT one of skepticism, so I do NOT feel the same about every claim to knowledge. Did you think My position was of skepticism? If so, WHY did you think that?
By the way I have already expressed how, and when, some thing is truly known, or known for sure.
I thought 'ad hominem' was more like a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.davidm wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:39 pmYes, Ken, that's really an ad hom. That specifically is what an ad hom is -- that some argument is wrong because of a personal characteristic of one making the argument.
In 'your' argument you are NOT attacking any person making the argument, 'you' are just trying to label a human being, who was named hitler, a 'bad man'. You have NOT attacked any person associated with the argument. You have just tried to to attack some person by calling them some thing, which they are not. You have NOT, yet, proven nor made an argument to support your attempt at an "attack". Either what you said is a true representation of the character of a person, and therefore not an "attack" of the character, or it is not.
To Me, 'your' argument is just wrong because it is not valid, nor sound.
Also, 'you' are the one making the argument, and, you say that some argument is wrong because of a personal characteristic of one making the argument, and that that is what 'ad hom' is. Are you trying to suggest that 'your' argument is wrong because you have a 'personal characteristic'?
You make Me laugh out loud some times.
Some human beings can try to insult others. Some human beings may also feel, or be, 'insulted' by some thing said, which is somewhat or completely untrue. But I do NOT call some thing, which is at all untrue, an insult. I can NOT be insulted, nor by the way be complimented either, although plenty of human beings try, very hard, to insult Me.
If you believe what you wrote was an insult, then who do you think you are insulting when you write the words "hitler was a bad man"?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests