Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 667
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:42 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:19 am
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.
You are in them all, and thus trivial to observe from any frame, and thus not a guess.
ken wrote:I wish to see your understanding.
Every post you've made suggests otherwise. You seem to wish to not understand.
ken wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:49 am
Noax wrote:So Newton's Theory of Gravitation predicted that if twins with identical weight (when in each other's presence) were to separate and one climb to the top of a 500 mile high tower, the one on the tower would weight less there. The theory was eventually falsified, but the prediction of that weight difference never changed, despite nobody actually performing that specific scenario. We seem not to claim that Newton's or Einstein's theory is definitive truth, but that is truth that the twin on the tower will weigh less, despite nobody actually ever having tried specifically that.
Have human beings never taken scales and done experiments at differing distances from the surface of the earth?
Yes, but not specifically with human twins. By your reasoning, we should remain open to getting a different result if human twins are used.
If that dilation is fact, then I am not sure WHY any person here would think that whatever theory replaces it would make that dilation not true.
Maybe because they cannot accept anything as fact, or more likely that they do, but they refuse to admit it.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Fri Feb 02, 2018 4:08 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:30 am
thedoc wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:52 pm
A 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.
WHY bring those human beings called "creationists" into this?
Because everything you post is what a Creationist would post, therefore you are a Creationist.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:00 am

davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:06 am
Look at Einstein’s original train thought experiment.

An observer sits on a train equidistant between the front and back of the moving train.

An observer is on the ground.

When the train moves in such a way that the observer on the train and the observer on the ground are able to look at each other in the the eye, lightning flashes go off.

For the ground observer, the lightning strikes the front and back of the train simultaneously.

For the train observer, the lighting hits the front of the train first, and the back later.
Is the 'ground observer' the one observing the ground, or, the observer on the ground?

And, why do you say lightening strikes in two different places?

When i see lightening flash, then that is what i see. i do not necessarily see exactly where it strikes, and i do not recall ever seeing the same lightening flash striking two places. Also, especially being in a train would it be even possible to see lightening hitting the front of the train and later somewhere else on the train. For in fact the lightening might come from the back of the train and strike their. Lightening can travel faster than a train, right?
davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:06 am
This means there is no universal quantification, only existential quantification in differing planes of simultaneity. The two observers have different presents.
Do they really?

Are you suggesting that a 'slower moving' observer is "in the future" relative to a 'faster moving' observer?
davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:06 am
The key point is that for the train observer, even though she does not know it, the future is set in stone.
Why would she NOT KNOW that the future is set in stone?

If you were on a train, observing, would you KNOW that the future is set in stone, or do you suddenly forget or NOT KNOW this when you are a moving observer?
davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:06 am
There will be a lightning flash at the rear of the train, sometime soon in her future.
Do you really think or believe that she would be able to notice this?

If yes, then how much time between the front one and the back one do you envision?

Could a human being's head even turn that quick to actually see this?
davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:06 am
This is guaranteed by the fact that the rear train flash already occurred for the ground observer.
Do you really believe that just because one observer outside of the train supposedly sees a lightening flash AND presumes that the lightening hit the front of the train and the back of the train at the exact same time that that "guaranteed" an observer within the train will see some thing completely different, which then this by itself proves that a traveling observer will see the same lightening strike the back of the train, sometime soon in the "future", to them?

Could it be possible, to the observer on the train (if that is what you mean by 'train observer'), that it just APPEARS as though there is a lightening flash at the rear of the train, "sometime soon in the future"? If this is possible, then could this APPARENT sight just be the result of the speed that they are traveling at?

Is it possible that things might just APPEAR to be different to a moving observer, compared to a relatively stationary observer? And, the faster the speed at which one is traveling might be the reason for the bigger the differences in what APPEARS, to be the case. For example, could the faster one is traveling have a bigger influence on the difference of what just APPEARS to be happening?

Lightening, like lots of other physical things, really only do ONE thing. There is NOT really two actually different things happening, is there? But, obviously, two observers can see things differently. There are many examples of different observers looking at the same one thing, like a dress for example, but actually see different things from each other. This is generally just called 'optical illusions'. Could traveling at speed have an effect on optical illusions?
davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:06 am
Conclusion: the future exists, along with the present and past.
This conclusion could well be an actual fact, which I see could be the truth anyway, but your argument to arrive at such a conclusion just does NOT work for Me, yet. Further clarification from you would be needed first.

There must be a much more succinct, sound, and valid way to express the truthfulness of your conclusion here. For one example might be for some; what is happening at present, in what is some times called the 'now', does not happen in separate periods but in one continual flow. So, what APPEARED to be happening in the "past" and what will APPEAR to be happening in the "future" can really only happen NOW. There are NOT different NOW's. There is only the one and only eternal NOW, which however can very easily APPEAR to different, but this can only happen IF one mentally breaks NOW into separated, fragmented periods of now. The human devised measurement called 'time', used in conjunction with the human invented and built measuring tool called a 'clock', is a very useful tool used into tricking human beings that there is an actual separation of the one and only event, some times known as 'existence'.
Last edited by ken on Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:03 am

Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:43 am
I can, but at most one of the inertial frames can be the correct one, and the entire experiment must be conveyed from that frame. Light speed is not constant, but the moving observer can't tell because his clock is not accurately measuring time.
How do you propose 'time' is accurately measured?

Can 'time' even actually be measured?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:27 am

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:36 am
I expect a 3D view from a layman, but I think it is pretty pathetic that physicists understand spacetime but don't actually think it is a thing.
Why do think it is pretty pathetic to think that 'spacetime' is not an actual thing?

What do think those human beings labelled "physicists" understand 'spacetime' to actually be?

What do you think 'spacetime' actually is?

To Me, 'space' is, literally, not a thing, or no thing. And, 'time' is also not an actual thing but rather just a measurement devised by human beings to breakdown the continuum of existence, for the help in the separation, memory, and expression of the one event. 'Spacetime' is just a word devised and used to describe some thing which most human beings are, at present (in the days of when this is written), still having trouble understanding.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:43 am

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:44 am
davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:20 pm
Also, with respect to your interpretation of Einstein's train thought experiment, I'm not sure how or why you are saying (if you are saying) that this differs from the standard interpretation?
OK, I can go over it in that light.
davidm wrote:When the train moves in such a way that the observer on the train and the observer on the ground are able to look at each other in the the eye, lightning flashes go off.
Nowhere in the experiment are words used that indicate simultaneity like this. "When one event occurs, such and such occurs elsewhere". Can't do that. Einstein just said there were two lightning strikes, the timing of the strikes left unspecified.
This makes much more sense.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:44 am
For the ground observer, the lightning strikes the front and back of the train simultaneously.
The ground observer detects both strikes at the same time, and later concludes their simultaneity by measuring the distance from the measurement to the marks left on the platform by the strikes. The train is not mentioned in what the ground observer measures since the observer doesn't really know where the train was at the time.
Again far more sense.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 5:44 am
For the train observer, the lighting hits the front of the train first, and the back later.
Yes, as similarly measured by marks at each end of the train,
This means there is no universal quantification, only existential quantification in differing planes of simultaneity. The two observers have different presents.
The way I had it explained is that what was simultaneous in one frame is not in another. Event ordering is frame dependent. What you say here is pretty much the same thing, so OK.
The key point is that for the train observer, even though she does not know it, the future is set in stone. There will be a lightning flash at the rear of the train, sometime soon in her future. This is guaranteed by the fact that the rear train flash already occurred for the ground observer.
I think this goes too far. I understand what you're saying. The 4D view seems necessarily deterministic because of this effect (exemplified by the Andromeda paradox). The future is not set in stone because of this. The rear strike has occurred in the past for both observers by the time the ground observer detects it. Train observer is further away and not yet detected it, but it is still a past event, not a future one.
I see lightning, but it is not determinism, but simply slow sound speed that makes the thunder guaranteed in my future.
Conclusion: the future exists, along with the present and past.
I understand, and disagree with the example given. So we need to rid ourselves of the observation. One observer considered in two different frames, and one event at some distant happens, in the past of the observer in one frame and the future of the other. Essentially two events outside each other's light cones. Does the ambiguous ordering imply a deterministic outcome? It just seems to be 'news not yet known' to both events, but how is that distinct from determinism? Interesting to explore this. Perhaps 'the past/future' means what's in your past/future light cone, and thus this example is not one of a determined future. The other definition (of 'future' say) would be events occurring in the frame-dependent future of some third event which is simultaneous with the observer but in the past of the (eventually) observed event. Since it is frame dependent, we can't call that 'the future', but only 'my future' which might be 'your past' if 'you' are considering a different frame. I think the hard determinism we want here requires 'the future' and not merely 'my future'.

Not asserting correctness there. Just thinking out loud. Thoughts?
WHY do older human beings generally tend to look at things as either being one or the other? For example, either determinsm or free will, either 3D or 4D, either creation or evolution, et cetera, et cetera, when the actual fact is the truth and the falsehoods are in both. Being able to quickly and easily find and see both the truth and the falsehoods in ALL things, then allows being able to unify ALL things into the ONE Everything. To some this is when the theory of Everything could be made, but to those I would ask WHY make up a theory of Everything, Everything, when it is far easy to just look at and see and understand Everything as just what It IS?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:00 am

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:13 am
davidm wrote:Conclusion: the future exists, along with the present and past.
Let my try again, and simplify. I had to sit down a bit and see I had made it too complicated.

Under the 4D model, the model is eternalism, and thus already completely deterministic since there is not a division between that which has happened and not yet happened. So all the funny simultaneity games are unnecessary to show that.

Under the 3D model, two events are not ambiguously ordered. If one frame orders them differently, that frame is not the preferred one and it orders events incorrectly. Two events simultaneous in that frame are not in fact simultaneous, and thus there are no future events that exists. The frames that put you simultaneous with those future events are simply wrong about their designation of simultaneity.

So the 3D model is not necessarily deterministic, and perhaps a bias against determinism is why the 3D belief persists. I think ken is correct at least about that part. There is bias in the scientific community, at least concerning interpretational differences such as this one. This I suppose is acceptable since lacking an empirical difference, it isn't really science that is biased.
Making these differing models of what COULD be is WHY I continually question WHY do it? I found by just looking at what IS, instead, makes much more sense, and how far more sense, or understanding, of things, is actually found. The Universe, and how It actually works, is very easy to see and understand, but this is only on the very simplest and fundamentalist level. As for all the intricacies and minute details within that, well that is way to far from my ability to understand

Also, 'science' itself is NEVER biased because 'science', quickly explained, is just the study of things. It is only human beings who study things, and it is only human beings who are biased. If there is a human being who is not biased, in some way, then really would they be a human being. Part of being a human being is having thoughts and emotions, which are both generally biased in, and by, nature.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:15 am

davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:41 pm
I have some questions about your latest posts but since you brought up hard determinism I wanted to segue briefly into that.

Soft determinism is a species of determinism also known as compatiblism (free will is not just consistent with determinism, it actually requires it).

Hard determinism, roughly, is the thesis that compatibilism fails.

Libertarianism is the thesis that decisions are agent-causal or self-caused — entirely outside of determinism.

In my opinion, if the eternalist view of reality is true — also known as the block universe — nothing about this implies hard determinism or invalidates free will.

To say that the future is “set in stone” or “fixed” is not the same thing as saying that it is pre-determined or that our choices don’t matter. What it means is that I can’t change the future. But — note —I also can’t change the past or the present. If anyone thinks he or she can change even the present, try it and let me know what you find.

Try it, done it, and found it very easy.

Also, can you provide the 'right' answer to the question, Who am 'I'?

If not, then how do you KNOW what I can or can not do?
However, if you can provide the 'right' answer, then what is that answer?

Having free will does not require changing the past, present or future, but merely making, in some small part by our own acts, the past, present and future be what they were, are, and will be. On this account, the block world is perfectly in accord with free will since what “fixes” the future, in the same way that the past and present are fixed, are in part free choices that we make (or more precisely that our past, present and future temporal parts make).
Just maybe the reason most human beings, in the days when this is written, are still having a lot of trouble trying to 'work things out' is because they are trying to fit human made different "models", of what IS, with human made different conceptions, of what IS.

Every human being is created AND evolves.
Every human being is born, for the sake of this, with no thoughts (nor emotions).
Every human being is gaining a set of thoughts, every waking moment, from what the body experiences.
Every human being is able to freely choose from whatever thoughts are within the body BUT they can only choose from the predetermined gained set of thoughts.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:21 am

davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:04 pm
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:13 am
Under the 3D model, two events are not ambiguously ordered. If one frame orders them differently, that frame is not the preferred one and it orders events incorrectly. Two events simultaneous in that frame are not in fact simultaneous, and thus there are no future events that exists. The frames that put you simultaneous with those future events are simply wrong about their designation of simultaneity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying here seems to be perfectly aligned with Petkov's argument: That if 3D is true relativity is false and if relativity is true 3D is false. Have I misunderstood?
WHY can there NOT be truth and falsehoods in all of these things?

WHY do human beings seem to want to only want to see one or the other?

There is still a FAR way to go than just those old out-dated models before you are even close to be able to dismiss one completely as being false. Being able to unify things instead of separating them is HOW you can and will unify them so that they ALL fit together as One, perfectly.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:35 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:21 am
ken wrote:
Can you show how some things can not ever be known
Knowledge can only be acquired in life as nothing can be known after death
Again, another annoying trait of human beings, looking at things from only their own personal perspective, or a select few. When will human beings finally grow up and stop thinking that ALL things revolve around them, personally?

How long do you think 'Life' will go for?

As long as there is Life, and things able to learn, understand, and reason, then knowledge will continue to be acquired. So, with enough time, ALL things could be known.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:21 am
because that is the specific point at which consciousness ceases to function
For a singular human being. But I thought there was far more to Life, then just one human being.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:21 am


From a provisional perspective it means that what is unknown now could possibly be known at some future point in time
Only that which is forever unknowable such as knowledge that can only be known after death can be said to be absolute


How do you KNOW that there are things forever unknowable such as knowledge? AFTER the body you are in stops experiencing you will NOT know if that is the case.

Do you always look at and ponder My questions from you, and your perspective, only?

Just about EVERY question I ask is about and comes from the biggest picture or perspective. Very rarely am I ever talking about or thinking about one human being nor one period of human beings.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:57 am

Belinda wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:00 am
Ken wrote:
An absolute truth is that even if every thing is accepting of and in agreement on some thing, which is the closest to knowing the Truth (or Universal Truth), then it is still better to NOT believe that as being true, because if you were doing that, then you are NOT open to being able to see, and thus find, the real and absolute Truth.

For now that is the best example of a statement that I know is absolute truth.
An absolute truth is true even if nobody is thinking it or acting upon it.
Is it even possible that an 'absolute truth' could be false or not true?

Do you have any examples of a true absolute truth, even if nobody is thinking it or acting upon it?

Could a true absolute truth even exist, or be known, if there was no thinking body thinking it or acting upon it?

'Truth', absolute or not, is only a mental conception or construct is it, not?

Some things can happen even if there is no human body thinking it or acting upon it, but for 'truth' itself it would need a thinking body because 'truth' itself is dependent upon a body thinking about it, right?

If some thing is a truth or true, then it could only exist or be known by a thinking body, correct? If this is not true, then what is 'absolute truth'?
Belinda wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:00 am
Absolute truth is unknowable.
Is this a known truth? Or, just some thing which you think? Do you think that statement might be true?
Belinda wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:00 am
The nearest we can approach absolute truth is mathematics or formal logic.
How is it possible to nearly approach some thing, which is unknowable?
Belinda wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:00 am
However maths and formal logic are closed (deductive) systems. Inductive knowledge such as that the Earth going round the Sun is always probabilistic and inductive.
Why is it ALWAYS probabilistic?
Belinda wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:00 am
Inductive explanations (including that gained from the most rigorous scientific experiments)always include the possibility of error (i.e. falsifiability).
Is the knowledge 'absolute truth is unknowable' an inductive explanation?

If so, then is that knowledge also falsifiable?

If yes, then great.

If no, then WHY not?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:27 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
...are you really that stupid or ignorant enough NOT to be able to recognize that I am NOT yet able to communicate properly?
I have noticed. It's not the communication that is an issue, it is that you are not able or willing to learn.
Maybe I am learning. I am just NOT learning what you want Me to learn. Just because I am NOT copying what you want Me to does NOT mean that I am not able to nor not willing to learn.

If you were to tell Me that what you have to "teach" fits together as a puzzle to form a perfect picture of ALL-THERE-IS, then I will start learning what it is that you want to teach. But until then you have only shown that there are some things that still puzzle you a lot, AND those pieces of what you do know now do NOT fit together to form one unifying picture.
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
You do not understand that there are different elements to a theory in physics.
Are you absolutely sure of this?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
As a result, you keep mixing them up and making a fool of yourself. Here again are the different components:
1. The empirical data.
2. The mathematical analysis.
3. The metaphysical hypothesis.
Would you like to share those alleged "examples" of where I KEEP mixing them up?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
A standard example is swans.
1. A bunch of scientists see a swan. It is white. They see another. It too is white. A third white swan is spotted and the scientists suspect there is a pattern. So:
2. They start counting white swans. A simple mathematical analysis shows that x swans are white; non-white swans=0. So:
3. The scientists hypothesise that all swans are white.
To Me, it is a highly stupid thing to assume that ALL swans are white, just like to ASSUME any thing is a really stupid thing to do. And what is even a more stupid thing to do is to BELIEVE any thing.
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
And that is the VERY reason WHY I ask the question, WHY make a hypothesis, or theory, when it COULD BE WRONG?
I also ask, WHY not just look at what IS, instead?

WHY not just remain open always?

To hypothesis is just to presume or assume some thing, which may or may NOT even be true in the beginning.

Science is meant to be about studying, what IS. Making up theories or hypothesize about what COULD BE is just a form of making up assumptions, of which only certain human beings do.
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
A standard explanation of which is:
1. The observations are just the observations. They are not 'true' beyond any doubt. As Descartes pointed out, we could be dreaming, hallucinating or being deceived by an evil daemon. Which is why large numbers of observations are needed, by different observers.
Did you, and/or others, REALLY need another human being to tell you this BEFORE you KNEW it?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
2. The mathematical analysis either is commensurate with the observations or it isn't.
3. The main objection is the 'problem of induction'. No amount of white swans will ever prove that all swans are white.
SO, WHY would some one hypothesize or ASSUME that ALL swans are white? That IS a rather ridiculous and stupid thing to do, is it not?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
I am the least educated one, 'educated' from your definition of 'educate', and I obviously NOT worthy of being listened to.
I don't personally like the term 'educated', because of the elitist connotations, but I have read, been taught and examined a lot and there's a bunch of letters I am entitled to put after my name. One thing an 'education' gives you is a sense of humility,
When you use the term 'you' here, are you referring to Me, to you, to other people, or to ALL people?

Is this sense of "humility", which is supposedly given, given to ALL people, with and through 'education'? And, how much 'education' does a person need before they are supposedly given this "humility"? At what age is this "humility" received?

Also, remember we are using the word 'educated', from your definition of the word here, and NOT from My definition of the word.

I have also observed an "education system" where humility is NOT instilled at all and where praise is given to some while ridicule, disillusionment, and discouragement is given to others.
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
because what you discover is that the ideas you have, which you are convinced could only occur to a genius,
Were you convinced that the ideas you had could only occur to a genius?

If so, I find that extremely funny that ANY human being could even begin to think that they are some sort of genius, more so than another. The very reason why EVERY human being has all the thoughts and ideas that they have is the exact same for ALL of them.
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
are old hat and have probably been soundly refuted; as Cicero said: "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it."
Is that what 'YOU' discovered?

Did you NEED to learn that from an "education system"?

Are you saying that really nothing new will ever be discovered, found, learned, nor understood.

I find it extremely hilarious what so called "teachers", "teach" their "students". When ever "students" stump their "teachers" with wonderful clarifying questions, the "students" are usually fed absolute rubbish like, "There are some things we are not meant to know", "That has been thought of before AND refuted". About the only thing that is being taught is, "I have NO idea, leave me alone".

By the way who was the so called "philosopher" who said that before that person did?

Also, I see that what you learned, was, that your ideas are old hat and have probably already been soundly refuted, and not 'humility' at all. You discovering that you are NOT the genius that you once thought you were is not really you being given humility, but a lesson in truth instead.
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
The chances are that if we ever hear what your big idea is, one or other of us will be able to tell you who thought it first, and what the objections are.
What are you basing this insightful knowledge on? Is it solely because you heard or read what ONE person said or wrote previously? Was it because your ideas were soundly refuted? Is it because of both, and/or more?

What 'chances' are you giving?

Can you, and/or others, name the philosopher/s who have said that 'the Mind is God'?
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
Are you, ONCE AGAIN, only finding, and only looking for, the so called "evidence" of what you BELIEVE is already true?
It's called confirmation bias. Not only am I not guilty of it now, there is nothing I have said in 65 pages that implies I ever have been.[/quote]

Are you absolutely sure of this?

Do you believe some things are true, but which have NOT yet been proven true?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
The irony is that by making such unfounded assertions, you are demonstrating your own confirmation bias.
And what do you propose My confirmation bias is, exactly?

By the way why do you say they are "unfounded assertions"?

What do you propose are the assertions I have made and are yet unfounded?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
You already have your suspicions of what the actual facts and truths are, so you will naturally ONLY LOOK FOR that which will support your already held view of things.
QED.
Any examples?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
People here do NOT want to look for and find Universal Truths, that is because from what they propose, they already KNOW what the truth is.
No. They just know the difference between 1,2 and 3.
1. Some people in this thread do NOT want to look for and find Universal Truths,
2. Because they already KNOW that human beings age at a slower rate the faster they travel compared to a faster moving human being.
3. Even though this have NEVER been proven as FACT.
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
To some people an object traveling at a fraction below the speed of light takes roughly 70 days to travel a distance of over four light years, and THAT IS TRUE, they propose.
A day is simply the Earth spinning once on its axis. That period is divided up into hours, minutes and seconds; the last of which is defined as "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".
If you think that is a FIXED figure, then you have a lot to learn.

Do you really think or believe that a human made clock accurately measures 'time' or some thing else?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
To someone travelling 4 light years, "70 days" has no meaning, because they are not on a spinning planet. But if they happen to have a clock which had been synchronised with one on Earth when they left, they will discover on their return that there will have been fewer "periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" recorded by their clock, than the one that remained on Earth. Physicists are confident of this because:
1. That is exactly what has been observed in clocks that are moving relative to the Earth.
That is NOT exactly what has been observed to some one traveling four light years. That is ONLY what has been observed on a minuscule plane flight around earth.
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
2. The amount they do so is commensurate with the mathematical analysis.
The "mathematical analysis" also agreed that there were also no non-white swans.

Are ALL swans white?
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:27 pm
3. Both the above are exactly what the hypothesis predicts.
Just some times the "results" are exactly what the hypothesis predicted, BECAUSE of unconscious biases AND confirmation bias.

Also, just because the "results" exactly match the prediction, that in of itself does NOT mean that that is the end of it. For your information some new OR newer knowledge might just be forth coming which will show and highlight the before not noticed nor seen discrepancies and inconsistencies.

Because one or two clocks APPEAR to have shown slower readings than another, under some circumstances, that does NOT mean that the exact same readings or results will be found under ALL circumstances.

Also, your 1, 2, and 3, examples of theories in physics are in differing sequences between your swan example and your relativity example. So, is it really Me who is mixing them, and, making a fool of My self here?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:51 am

davidm wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:38 pm
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am

You already have your suspicions of what the actual facts and truths are, so you will naturally ONLY LOOK FOR that which will support your already held view of things.
Just more of your preposterous trolling, unless you have some kind of learning disability. It has been explained to you again and again that this is just what scientists DO NOT DO.
Did you SEE the first word I wrote? In case you missed it, or overlooked it, which appears to be what you do a fair bit of, I wrote the word 'you'. Just to make it absolutely clear I did NOT write nor use the word 'scientists'. So, I was talking about YOU, specifically, and not SCIENTISTS, generally.
davidm wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:38 pm
They emphatically DO NOT look for that which will support their alleged "view of things"; they look for evidence that will FALSIFY what they believe to be true.
1. WHY are you wanting to look at what so called "scientists" do, when it was 'you' I was talking about?
2. If you BELIEVE some thing to be true, would you have at least some conscious biases? (You would be unable to recognize the unconscious biases for now.)

The very FACT that if a person BELIEVES some thing to be true indicates how and in what way they will be looking at things.
davidm wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:38 pm
How is it possible that after all this time you are unable to grasp this?
I could just as easily ask the exact same question.
davidm wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:38 pm
Why do you think science is successful as opposed to the dogmatic assertions of some stupid holy book?
What do you mean by 'successful', and relative to what exactly?

What 'stupid holy book' are you referring to?

What do you propose is a "dogmatic assertion", which you BELIEVE is not true?

Also, have you EVER considered that it is just the way you look at, or how you have been taught to look at, the so called "dogmatic assertion" that has and/or is influencing the way you see if it is true or not?
davidm wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:38 pm
How do you think that you, Ken, are able to use a computer to post your nonsense on a message board?
What do you propose is 'nonsense'?

And the answer to your question is because of the Mind and the brain. How do you think you are able to use any thing? And, how do you think EVERY human made thing, which you use, was created?
davidm wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:38 pm
Do you think it's because scientists blindly followed what other scientists said without checking for themselves?
No.

What would your answer be if I asked you to consider WHY would you even think and ask such a question, especially considering My quote that you are replying to?
davidm wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:38 pm
What is the matter with you?
In regards to WHAT exactly, what you are assuming or some thing else?

Would you like to clarify?

You have made a pretty huge leap here, from Me saying YOU have your suspicions of what is actually true and so you will naturally look from that perspective to thinking that so called "scientists" blindly follow each other without checking. Seems to Me that you blindly followed your own thinking, which you naturally look from, instead of looking from the actual words that has been written down in front of you and are here for all to see.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:54 am

thedoc wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:44 pm
It is amusing that science deniers will use the products that science has provided to preach their message that science is wrong.
Are you alluding to any one in particular who is supposedly a science denier?

And if so, who is that, and where and when have they ever said that "science is wrong"?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:24 pm

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:16 am
Our choices very much affect the future. If not, evolution of the tools to make a better choice would have been pointless. But few define free will as the ability to make a choice.
Does only a 'few' defining, 'some thing', in a certain way lesson that definition?

I have found that some of the few known, or lessor used, definitions actually have a much greater significance in revealing the actual truth of things.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:16 am
Like I said, few would agree to a definition of free will like that.
Did you actually say "few would agree to ...", or did you say a "few define free will ..." like that?

Also would some people some times NOT agree to a definition if it did NOT fit in with their already gained view and belief of things?

If a definition does NOT fit in with or suit ones already held view, then would they really accept and/or agree with that definition? Even if a definition is clearly stated in a dictionary some people some times are NOT open to agreeing with it.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:16 am
The ability to choose is not the same as the ability to freely choose.
What do you think is the difference?

If you have 'the ability to choose', then how is that different from having 'the ability to freely choose'?

Just having 'the ability' to choose implies a sense of real freedom.

BUT understanding or learning how and why one is NOT able to completely freely choose does show HOW determinism plays its part. Are you able to see the difference and make the distinction yet?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:16 am
Trick is to identify the distinction between those two cases.
There is NO trick to it.

The fact that identifying the distinction between those two cases can be very easily done, in turn, then leads to discovering or learning HOW both free will AND determinism both equally play a part is rather straightforward and uncomplicated, and NOT really tricky at all.

There is NO 'this one' or 'the other' in truly meaningful discussions. There is only truth, to be found AND seen, and from this truth UNITY of ALL (EVERY) things is clearly able to be seen AND understood.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests