Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:33 pm

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:40 am
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:04 pm
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?
Relativity has been well established. The guy going to AC and back will age 140 days, assuming quite unreasonably that he survives the sort of acceleration the scenario entailed.
Although it has NOT yet been proven true, correct?

Or, to you, has it ALREADY been proven true?

Also, the truths in 3D and the truths in relativity and unifying them are WHAT helps leading to finding and seeing Everything UNIFIED or as some might say and call the (unified) theory of Everything.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:40 am
In the 3D model, the guy not actually stationary is incorrect in his assessment of two events being simultaneous. So the guy on the platform is basing his simutaneity assessment on the false fact that the two marks on the ground are where the lightning struck. Since the ground is moving, this is clearly not true. The marks are not the point in space where the strikes took place. The endpoints of the train (wherever it has gone off to) are the actual spot, assuming it is the train that is stationary.
WHY can most older human beings imagine a scenario like this that would be just about, if not, impossible to perform to find out the actual results, but are unable to imagine a scenario where a human being travels at the speed of light, when it is said that this is impossible?

Would it be possible to perform the experiments that you two are talking about here?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:44 pm

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:23 am
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:42 am
I did NOT say that, and I would probably never say any thing like that.
...
No I do NOT accept that, for reasons that you could NOT even begin to fathom, yet.
...
They are NOT conflicting. They may, however, APPEAR conflicting, to you.
...
I would NOT use the wording you use here, and would probably never say any thing like that.
You've made no corrections or clarifications on the perceptions I apparently get continuously wrong.
Excepting the rhetorical, you seem to ask no questions. Was the post above intended to gather some specific response?
YES, and the exact response I was seeking, I got.

I ask you a fair few questions and some times you just reply with things like, "I did not say that", with no correction, no further explanation, nor asking any further clarifying questions also, so I was just returning the same.

HOW many times have I asked ALL posters here, which I reply to, specific questions for clarification, but clarifying answers are NEVER given? And now when I respond the same and ask NO questions at all, it is pointed out.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:49 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:53 am
Ken wrote:
The difference between you and I is I do NOT, as you would put it, 'make up my own "mind" about the metaphysics', like you do. I just observe what IS, instead. Whereas, you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", and have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is. I, however, do NOT this. I just remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.
Good for you! Do you also admit that your observation can on occasion be your optical illusion?
VERY, VERY, VERY MUCH SO.

I HAVE BEEN trying to find out if some of My observations are optical illusions, which I very much think some are, but I can NOT even get past the first part of getting people to JUST IMAGINE some thing with Me. I am continually told that that is impossible, and for these older human beings, who say this, they are then unable to IMAGINE any thing further with Me.

Thanks for the great clarifying question, by the way.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:24 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am
The difference between you and I is I do NOT, as you would put it, 'make up my own "mind" about the metaphysics', like you do.
You have completely missed the point, ken. Have another go.
These are the key elements of a theory in physics:
1. The empirical data.
2. The mathematical analysis.
3. The metaphysical hypothesis.
So what?

How does this relate to what I wrote?

What do you mean by have "another go", I had NOT even seen these points BEFORE you wrote this reply. So, I could NOT have already possibly had a 'first go'.

Are you sure it is Me who has completely missed the point?
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am
I just observe what IS, instead.
Unless by 'observe' you mean something that does not include visual contact, "what IS" is 1. The empirical data.
EXACTLY.

Maybe you have missed some point here.

By the way, by just assuming some thing and NOT asking for clarification like you have done here, then you WILL continue to miss MANY more points.
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am
Whereas, you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", and have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is.
That is 3. The metaphysical hypothesis. If your claim to "just observe what IS" is true, you cannot have failed to notice that davidm and Noax are having a discussion about whether the universe is 3D or 4D, right under your nose.
If you were observing, then you would have noticed, by My replies, I was NOT YET up to that discussion when you wrote this reply.

And, by the way I did NOT fail to notice that.
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am
They, at least, demonstrably have not "already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is."
Yes I DID notice this.

If you had been observing and noticing, I NEVER said any thing in relation to the 3 dimensional and 4 dimensional discussion regarding about just observing BECAUSE I OBVIOUSLY had NOT read that when I wrote what I did.
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am
Your hypothesis, "you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", has been falsified; it is wrong.
When and where has, what you are implying here, been falsified, and thus wrong?

If you had just been observing, and NOT jumping to conclusions, then you would have already KNOWN that I was not even up to this discussion, when you wrote this.

Also, are you trying to tell Me that you have NEVER tried to tell your self "Why that should be so"?

If you are going to try to use the Universe is 3 dimensional or 4 dimensional as your so called "proof" for falsification of My so called alleged "hypothesis", then as I only just now explained I have NEVER said what I said in relation to this discussion. I said what I said in relation to the discussion that was taking place BEFORE, WHEN I WROTE THAT.
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am
You can either accept that and ditch your hypothesis, or you can patch it up with some extra hypothesis to explain why the original hypothesis failed.
Already done it, and it is and was NOT a hypothesis, by the way.

If you cared to ask some clarifying questions, BEFORE you jump to conclusions, then I could and would show WHY it was NOT a hypothesis and how it is correct.
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am
You can add a few such patches, but ultimately if you refuse to accept that any test could undermine your original hypothesis, you "have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is." You are, in short, a crank.
And, if you believe that that was a valid and/or sound argument, with a successful and accurate conclusion, then I think you might be mistaken.

What do you propose is the conclusion that I might have already jumped to? And, what do you propose is the cause that you say I very much believe?
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:52 am
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:26 am
I, however, do NOT this. I just remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.
Great. So you accept that 'we', davidm and Noax at least, remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.
YES. Of course you do that, some times.

Are you trying to suggest that you, davidm and noax do NOT believe some things, some times?

If so, then are you really ABLE to speak for the others regarding this?
If not, then can you even begin to imagine that when you, or any person, is 'believing' some thing, then you or they are truly NOT fully open to some thing other than what you or they already believe is true?

If you are able to at least imagine that, then great.
If not, then so be it.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:12 pm

ken wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:27 am
And what is even a more stupid thing to do is to BELIEVE any thing.
This theme (no belief) comes up repeatedly and is functionally unreasonable. Suppose you wish to cross a highway. The idea is to choose a time between the vehicles, but without belief that one time is better than another, there is a better than even shot that you will die in the attempt.

Sure you see a bus coming, but being completely open to it being an illusion, you would see no point in waiting a little longer since you don't believe in the bus. Somebody else who does believe that there is actually a bus waits. The one that doesn't BELIEVE there is a bus dies, and thus seems the more stupid of the two.

Now you talk about seeing what IS all the time, and the bus is supposedly what IS. All we have is empirical evidence that suggests (does not prove) that the current time is not a good one for crossing. If you accept the empirical evidence of danger, then you hold a belief, at least in the way that most of us define the word. Perhaps you have a different definition, but the sort of belief that scientists have in relativity is the same sort of belief that make one wait until the bus passes. They are looking at what happens in the same way that you would look at the bus and choose a different time to cross.
Last edited by Noax on Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Belinda » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:22 pm

Noax, reasonable people act upon beliefs that are well founded. That there is a bus coming is a well founded belief if the sensory organs work, if the subject has experienced environments with buses, and if the subject is not hallucinating or otherwise deranged.

Buses on a road are common experiences which are not prone to being misconstrued. The sort of beliefs that sometimes tend not to be well -founded are those beliefs which are nice to think about and which make one feel better.

I suppose that the relative status of beliefs is something do with relativity. It would be nice if there were some absolute but empirical truths that we could depend upon.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:04 pm

Belinda wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:22 pm
Noax, reasonable people act upon beliefs that are well founded. That there is a bus coming is a well founded belief if the sensory organs work, if the subject has experienced environments with buses, and if the subject is not hallucinating or otherwise deranged.
Ken claims no belief in anything, including the well-founded bus.

I claim that relativity is a well founded belief.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:45 am

ken wrote:
HOW many times have I asked ALL posters here which I reply to specific questions for clarification but clarifying answers are NEVER given
I do not always want to give clarifying answers to all your questions to me which is the reason why they go unanswered so now you know

surreptitious57
Posts: 3105
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:36 am

ken wrote:
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
Some things are unknowable because there are mathematical proofs demonstrating this
The most famous example of this is Godels Incompleteness Theorem but there be others

I always look at and ponder the questions of ken from my own limited knowledge / experience / imagination which is all I can do
Who is this My / Me that you constantly keep referring to in your posts and is it the same as ken or is it someone / something else

Is not every question you ask from your own perspective [ the one of ken not the one of My / Me ]
How then do you know that it is from the biggest perspective when it may not be from that at all

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:58 am

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:32 am
Noax wrote:So even if somebody managed to pull off the twins scenario, would you not accept the second-hand results because you are not personally both of the twins?
No, of course NOT. I obviously would have had first hand experience. You seem to still be missing the mark by a tremendous amount.
I seem to be unaware of what you consider to be first hand experience.
If you say so.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
EVERY person who has beliefs thinks that their beliefs, on any subject, are reasonably justified. Obviously they would not have those beliefs, otherwise.
Disagree. There are plenty of beliefs that are not reasonably justified. I have some myself.
Would you like to share any of yours? So that I can at least see an example of this seemingly, to Me, very bizarre behavior.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Is there an actual 'stationary', which one could ever actually be in?
There can be if you want one. Nothing suggests itself. Many people use the ground under them, but that reference is different for every person. Perhaps some object, but I cannot think of one that is not accelerating. The mean velocity of the CMB is often used, but that defines a different inertial frame at every point in space, so again, it is an arbitrary choice.
So, are you saying that 'stationary' is more or less just a reference to some thing, which is solely dependent upon an observer, and what they want or choose it to be?

If that is not what you are saying, then could there be an actual 'stationary' anywhere?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:25 pm
At current times do human beings have the technology to take the trip in just 70 days, from ANY frame?
If I can choose ANY frame, I can go to where A-C is now in 70 seconds with no technology at all.
And without technology I can even do it in much less than 70 seconds. In fact I just did a round trip in a fraction of second. Sadly though most human beings in this thread are unable to imagine being able to do it this quickly.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
But, unfortunately, you are unable to choose THE frame where you can go to where alpha centauri is now in no seconds, with no technology at all, is this right?
Not in zero time, no.
Why do you think or believe that you can not do it in zero time but you say you can do it in 70 seconds?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Do you mean human beings lack the technology to make such a trip forever more, or human beings lack the technology to make such a trip in those times of when this is written?
I think we'll be extinct before we invent that one, but given time, some sort of technology might be able to achieve such acceleration without fatality or destruction of the planet.
Why do you think 'we' will be extinct before 'we' invent that?

And, who is the 'we' you are referring to here?

Also, when do you think the 'we' will become extinct, and what do you mean by 'extinct'?

Do you mean by 'extinct' that 'we', (whoever that may be), will just completely stop existing BEFORE they have had a chance to evolve into some thing else, or, that there will be no more 'we' just because they have already evolved into some thing else?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
And perhaps that is NOT how I feel at all.
Your every post seems to suggest otherwise.
If that is how My EVERY post seems to you, then just to clarify and make it clear, that is NOT what I am nor have been suggesting at all.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Are the figures that others came up with, and which you accept as being true, and which you say are frame dependent, based upon a frame that is actually real and/or possible, or are they based upon a frame that does not even exist in reality?
My statements do not rely on the ontological status of the frames.
What do you mean by 'ontological status of the frames'?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Is it possible to have these different frames separating, and then meeting up again?
Unclear. They describe the same spacetime, so I don't know what you mean by separating.
Are you saying ALL frames describe the same spacetime?

If so, then what is 'spacetime' to you?

There is only one Universe, so there is really only one frame that EVERY thing exists, behaves, and/or reacts with-and-in.

If, however, human beings want to choose to look at and from separate, individual, and different "frames", then that is certainly their prerogative. They have the solely exclusive right to do so. But, unfortunately, they will never see, discover, learn, and understand about the unifying of Everything, from those narrow, separated, and minuscule points of views.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
If a person BELIEVES some thing, then they have already verified, and accepted that, to them self. That is how. If that thing has actually been "verified" is another matter.
I was talking about belief based on scientific verification, not just on uniformed assumption.
'Belief' can have the exact same detrimental effect on human beings, no matter what source it has supposedly been gained from.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Nobody thought a flat Earth needed proving until another choice appeared on the list of options.
EXACTLY, the power of BELIEF does NOT need proving.

Also, how do you think ANOTHER choice appeared?

If EVERY person BELIEVED (wholeheartedly) that the earth was flat, then nothing opposing that would have ever appeared.

Only from NOT believing some thing, and thus from being OPEN, that new/er things are imagined, dreamed of, contemplated, devised, invented, created, and thus LEARNED.

Do human beings LEARN MORE by; believing some things and by NOT being open to other things, or, by just being open?

Is it easier to learn ALL things by being open to ALL things, or only open to just some things while being closed to others?

Are new born human beings able to learn customs, values, language, far quicker than adult human beings can because the younger ones are more closed or more open compared to the older ones?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
If you believe My example is meaningless for reasons given, then so be it.
Finally.
WHY did you state finally?

It was and has been always up to you to express what you believe is true. As soon as you express your beliefs, then I KNOW where you are closed and what you are NOT open to. Once I know how closed off you are, then I know, so be it.

I am NEVER going to try to show you any thing other than what you believe is true, because I KNOW how much of a fruitless task that is.

If you really do NOT want to hear what I have to say, then surely you would know to just stop reading, finally?

Whatever you BELIEVE, for whatever reasons you BELIEVE it, then I, for One, am certainly NOT here to show you otherwise.

You can BELIEVE whatever you want, whenever you want. You can only see and learn when you are OPEN, and NOT when you are closed.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
WHY do you still BELIEVE some of the lies that you are told?
They seem to be part of my core programming and not subject to alteration.
Do you really think or believe that 'you' are some how different from other people and that 'your' core programming is different than others?

The reason you BELIEVE any thing is because of the exact same reason that ALL human beings LEARN to BELIEVE some things.

It is because of your past experiences you have learned and know what you know now. There is NO core programming of what any human being learns and knows. ONLY previous experiences influences that. ANY human being born and brought up in ANY place, culture, country, at any point in the past or future is CAPABLE of learning about the environment that they are living in. In fact it is the actual ENVIRONMENT that one is born into and lives in that "programs" what that one actually learns and KNOWS.

BELIEVING in some of the lies, that one is told and given, is just a natural progression, because it is the actual amount of BELIEF in, and from, the one telling the lie that influences just how much the other one will BELIEVE it also. Unfortunately, because the younger the human being is the more open they are, and because most see their parents as, dare I say it, A God, then the more things the parents believe, and the more belief they have, then the more the child sadly becomes to possess also. Thus, the very reason for how religious and cultural knowledge gets so easily past on, even though some of it is completely and utterly WRONG, to others who were NOT brought up in that way.

And, because human beings, up to the days of when this is being written, BELIEVE things, then just that "natural" continuation keeps teaching children to BELIEVE things, and so they NEVER experience being always open so they NEVER learn HOW to remain always open.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Are you aware of, and know, ALL of the biases?
Nope. Always looking for new ones.
Okay.

They are much easier to notice and recognize when you are completely OPEN. In fact it is only when BELIEVING and/or assuming, et cetera when biases actually exist.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
What is that one definition you so speak of?
"A lie is a misrepresentation of one's beliefs".
So, could a 'lie' like that exist if one did not have a belief at all?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
What is the difference to you between 'actual time' and 'absolute time'?
I used the terms interchangeably. What has been falsified is the non-relativistic view that temporal separation between events is not frame dependent.
I am not sure how a 'non-relativistic' view could even exist. Absolutely every thing is 'relative' to the observer. So, every view has to be 'relativistic', in a sense.

Could a 'non-relativistic' view even exist?

Also, are you suggesting that 'temporal separation between events' is frame dependent?

If so, then another way this could be expressed is that the one 'temporal continual flow of the One event' is dependent upon the One and ONLY frame some times known and called by 'Life', 'Existence', 'spacetime', or the 'Universe'.

The only separation between events are the ones human beings conceive of or perceive, from the different separate frames that they, themselves, want to choose and look from?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
The philosophical position that there is a time that it actually is (presentism) has not been falsified, lacking an empirical difference.
Well depending on exactly what you are actually proposing here, then it could very easily be falsified.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
If the theory of relativity has some thing to do with 'time dilation', and some people want to insist that "time" dilates, then I would have thought a discussion about if 'time', itself, is an actual thing or not would arise in this type of discussion.
But unfortunately most of My questioning is usually NOT wanted to be looked at, discussed, nor answered when the questioning gets deeper and/or into looking into the subject far more thoroughly. People, for obvious reasons, tend to WANT TO STOP at a level of answering, of which they are only capable of.
So answer the question yourself. Say it is real or not.

You say, "So answer the question yourself." Then you write, "Say it is real or not."

What EXACTLY is the question? And,
What EXACTLY is the 'it' that you want Me to say is real or not?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
This is philosophy of science section after all. Unless it makes a difference, I find it irrelevant to this topic.
As I more or less said, people tend to WANT TO STOP when things get past their comfort level. When things start becoming unknown to them or uncomfortable to them, then most people tend to quit and/or walk away.

By the way, to you, what is the difference between a 'philosophy' section, a 'philosophy of science' section, and a 'science' section?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
By the way if you are unaware, EVERY thing, including the theory of relativity, leads to ontological issues, that is if any one is prepared enough to go that deep, and to look that thoroughly. ONLY from doing these things is WHERE ALL the meaningful answers LIE.
Agree, but we were looking for scientific answers, not meaningful ones. The twin aging 140 days is not a philosophically deep quesiton.
I find it that way because it has NEVER been tested, yet.

By the way I do NOT recall looking, specifically, for scientific answers. In fact I am NOT sure how we could find "scientific" answers to questions that some people say are impossible or not yet even possible. That is partly why I am here, in a philosophy forum, and NOT in a scientific forum.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Is a frame presumed, or is the frame in the answer?
Presumed.
Thank you.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Do you presume a frame when I ask you how long does light actually take light to get from the sun to earth?
Normally, I probably would, but not not in the context of this topic.
So, in "normal" circumstances if a human being walked up to you and asked, "How long does it actually take light to get from the sun to earth?" what is the "frame" that you would "normally presume"? And, what is the answer you would give from that frame? Also, would you "normally" explain that the answer you are giving is "frame dependent"?

Also, why would you 'presume a frame' "normally" but not in the context of this topic? Or, did you actually mean the other way around?
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
Noax wrote: If the question concerns a different frame, then it needs to be called out.
Do some questions concern a different frame?
If so, which ones?
Any discussion of relativity.
I was just about to ask, How would a 'lay one' like Me KNOW when I am asking a question about relativity, but then I just remembered we are in a discussion labelled 'relativity?' (with a question mark).

Now, if 'relativity' is, as some people here suggest, being backed up and supported continually with "empirical data", then that would suggest that the Universe works in 'relativistic way', for lack of better terminology, which would then suggest that it would be much better for clarity and understanding in just about every thing that gets discussed that we ALL come to an agreement on in which 'frame' are we actually talking about, is that about right?

Or, if some people here think it better that we only clarify the differing frames in any discussion of relativity, then how do 'lay ones' like Me exactly when a discussion actually starts and/or ends about 'relativity'? Some might suggest that when we are in a thread labeled 'relativity' then that might be a good clue, but surely this whole thread has not be just a discussion of relativity. Just so I am absolutely clear what does 'relativity' mean, to you?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6133
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Relativity?

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:56 pm

Noax wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:04 pm
Belinda wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:22 pm
Noax, reasonable people act upon beliefs that are well founded. That there is a bus coming is a well founded belief if the sensory organs work, if the subject has experienced environments with buses, and if the subject is not hallucinating or otherwise deranged.
Ken claims no belief in anything, including the well-founded bus.

I claim that relativity is a well founded belief.
Real knowing is not claimed. It's unclaimed.

There is no need to believe there is a bus on the road, there is only knowing there is a bus on the road. Knowing is automatic, you know when or when not to cross the road-knowing what to do is automatic in the moment, it is not claimed, it's an automatic natural instinct happening in the instantaneous now...claiming I know is after the event, not before.

Now, if there was a zebra crossing facility available...you might be standing there believing that the bus would stop, but you could only know this via memory as remembered, you cannot possibly know the bus will stop for certainty until it happens, proving your belief that it would stop to be true. Beliefs are past tense..false, whereas ''knowing'' is in the instant...namely here now nowhere, the only place you ever happen.

.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:50 pm

ken wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:58 am
Noax wrote:
ken wrote:Is there an actual 'stationary', which one could ever actually be in?
There can be if you want one. Nothing suggests itself. Many people use the ground under them, but that reference is different for every person. Perhaps some object, but I cannot think of one that is not accelerating. The mean velocity of the CMB is often used, but that defines a different inertial frame at every point in space, so again, it is an arbitrary choice.
So, are you saying that 'stationary' is more or less just a reference to some thing, which is solely dependent upon an observer, and what they want or choose it to be?

If that is not what you are saying, then could there be an actual 'stationary' anywhere?
I thought about this more, wanting to give what I felt was a correct answer. For one, the universe would need to be 3D Newtonian space, not 4D Minkowski spacetime. In the sense of an inertial reference frame, there cannot be one that is actually stationary since no inertial frame covers ('foliates' is the better term) all of the universe. A non-inertial answer would be required, and that means there is no actual stationary frame, and multiple objects could be stationary and still changing the distance between them. The answer does not depend on either the existence of an object that is actually stationary, or on an observer at all.
So I'm not saying that stationary is a reference to a thing, but the specification of it does indeed require a reference to a thing. By "if you want one", I mean that you may choose a model that defines an actual-stationary, and it cannot be proven wrong. Several physicists seem to disagree with this statement, but I like to defend it.
And without technology I can even do it in much less than 70 seconds. In fact I just did a round trip in a fraction of second.
No you didn't.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
But, unfortunately, you are unable to choose THE frame where you can go to where alpha centauri is now in no seconds, with no technology at all, is this right?
Not in zero time, no.
Why do you think or believe that you can not do it in zero time but you say you can do it in 70 seconds?
Why do you think 'we' will be extinct before 'we' invent that?

And, who is the 'we' you are referring to here?

Also, when do you think the 'we' will become extinct, and what do you mean by 'extinct'?
Humans. 'When' is before we get technology to travel to AC at .999c, and extinct means there are no humans anymore, nor any descendants evolved into something else.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
... based upon a frame that is actually real and/or possible, or are they based upon a frame that does not even exist in reality?
My statements do not rely on the ontological status of the frames.
What do you mean by 'ontological status of the frames'?[/quote]I mean the part about frames being real or not. It's what you asked.
There is only one Universe, so there is really only one frame that EVERY thing exists, behaves, and/or reacts with-and-in.
There is no inertial frame that covers all the universe. It is a local SR concept and doesn't apply to large scales that describe the entire universe.

Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
WHY do you still BELIEVE some of the lies that you are told
They seem to be part of my core programming and not subject to alteration.
Do you really think or believe that 'you' are some how different from other people and that 'your' core programming is different than others?

The reason you BELIEVE any thing is because of the exact same reason that ALL human beings LEARN to BELIEVE some things.
No, I don't think I'm different. Core programming is not learned. A salmon knows to swim upstream to its birthplace to reproduce. Nobody teaches the salmon to do that.
Noax wrote:There are plenty of beliefs that are not reasonably justified. I have some myself.
Would you like to share any of yours? So that I can at least see an example of this seemingly, to Me, very bizarre behavior.
There was one just above, and your reply is why I'm not really wanting to share the details further. You're not open at all, but insist that I must have learned these things.
Noax wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:33 pm
What is that one definition you so speak of?
"A lie is a misrepresentation of one's beliefs".
So, could a 'lie' like that exist if one did not have a belief at all?
I guess not, but it would not preclude somebody who merely asserted the lack of beliefs.
So, in "normal" circumstances if a human being walked up to you and asked, "How long does it actually take light to get from the sun to earth?" what is the "frame" that you would "normally presume"? And, what is the answer you would give from that frame? Also, would you "normally" explain that the answer you are giving is "frame dependent"?
8-9 minutes, and frame of the solar system is presumed, so not stated.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6133
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Relativity?

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:11 am

Noax wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:50 pm

''So, could a 'lie' like that exist if one did not have a belief at all?''

I guess not, but it would not preclude somebody who merely asserted the lack of beliefs.
The Absolute and the Relative are the Same ONE

One does not need to believe there is a bus coming down the road, One KNOWS there is a bus coming down the road.

One doesn't need to believe ONE IS...ONE simply IS...it's experientially self-evident in the moment.

Belief is being uncertain about something. There is never any uncertainty in the immediate moment, the only place you happen, happening is only ever NOW- one with the knowing.

.

Belinda
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Belinda » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:16 am

Noax wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:04 pm
Belinda wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:22 pm
Noax, reasonable people act upon beliefs that are well founded. That there is a bus coming is a well founded belief if the sensory organs work, if the subject has experienced environments with buses, and if the subject is not hallucinating or otherwise deranged.
Ken claims no belief in anything, including the well-founded bus.

I claim that relativity is a well founded belief.
If Ken claims no belief in anything he must be devoted not to relativity but to absolutes. I myself prefer relativity for purely pragmatic reasons.It would be nice if there were a supernatural realm where we all may meet on absolutely level ground. However the path to such a happy field is not by way of denying relative probability which is the most feasible means we have to stay alive.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:48 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:55 pm
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pm
Even after thousands upon thousands of years I find it hilarious that some human beings still TRY TO argue for some things, like God creates things or that time dilates YET still have NO clue as to what 'IT' is that they are actually talking about. What is even more funny and humorous is to sit back and observe some people even try to insist that KNOWING what the actual thing is that they say does certain things does NOT even matter to the discussion. Observing some of human being practices is hysterical to watch some times.
Agreed all this is hilarious. Unfortunately, the joke's on you.
What joke exactly?

And, why do you say that that joke is on Me?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests