Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:45 pm

ken wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:47 pm
So, to you, sounds like there is NO inconsistency at all in relativity, and that there is NO point in continuing to falsify relativity, correct?

If yes, then that would imply that relativity is about as solid as some thing could be, right?
It's amazing how many times we have answered these questions yet you keep asking them. Do you not actually read what others write?

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:32 pm

ken wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:59 pm
Noax wrote: Double-blind tests are a great example of this. Bias is recognized and the double-blind procedure eliminates it.
But confirmation biases will eliminate that which disposes of what it is that is wanted to be confirmed. This can happen sub-consciously and unconsciously.
Please give an example of how this could occur in a double-blind scenario.
Noax wrote:
A model that makes no predictions is useless to science which is about making accurate predictions.
So, if a model predicts that a traveler will take longer to travel over any distance, in any frame, than what the speed of light could travel, then is that useful to science?

Is science only about making accurate predictions?[/quote]Yes, it would be useful, and yes, that's pretty much what it is about.
Noax wrote: Science is not in the business of discovering what actually is, however much they might phrase their findings that way.
So, what is science in the business of actually?
See above. You tend to ask a lot of questions whose answer is in some adjacent comment that you've quoted.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
then science doesn't concern itself with what cannot be known.
Are you saying what actually is can not be known?

If not, then what are you saying here?
Just what I said, that science doesn't concern itself with that which cannot be known. If it can't be known, it makes no predictions.
Also, the way 'science' (or the scientific method) is said to be conducted science is more concerned about and in relation to what IS falsifiable rather than what IS verifiable, which is a bit like getting rid of the unknowns until only what IS known is left.
Pretty much, yes.
Noax wrote: I can make a case for it by stepping outside the bounds of methodological naturalism and propose a solipsistic view of what actually is.
Will you give us an example of this?
Idealism says I personally experience a flat local environment from which I never leave. The model makes quite accurate predictions and cannot be falsified, but it also predicts nothing new, hence is not even wrong from a scientific standpoint. Being outside methodological naturalism, science need not concern itself with it. There are sciences outside the methodology, but they're considered fringe science.

There are also conspiracy theories that all the pictures of Earth from space, the moon shot, satilites, etc. are faked by organizations just finding ways to milk money for more research. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as part of the conspiracy, It is essentially a questioning of the integrity of science.
Noax wrote:
Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification?
You're asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified'?
Sort of, but I am more asking could some thing ever be just an accurate model of what actually IS?
Sure, but new models might suggest new tests. If the older model is what IS, then it will pass the tests, falsifying the new model.
I am, more or less, asking if human beings can ever move past just hypothesis? If so, when is that, and, what do they call that 'thing', which explains what actually IS the case instead of just being a model of what actually IS the case.
There is no access to this "what actually IS the case". You seem to suggest that we just directly access this, but unless you're privy to the answer book somewhere, this cannot be done.
For example if a model is conceived and all of its hypothesized predictions are found to be 100% accurate, then what do we call 'that'? What is the name for that 'thing' which is found to be a 100% accurate description of what IS actually true and real?
That would be a very good model with perfect predictability, but there would still be interpretations of it. QM is a pretty good example of a fantastically successful model (but not perfect), yet having wildly different interpretations.
When, and if, ALL the conceptualized model's false predictions are found and eliminated and there is just ONE combined left, which forms one whole completely accurate picture of, let us say, Life, Itself, or ALL-THERE-IS, or what IS, then what is the name for that 'model'.
Sounds like the Theory of Everything, so named before they have one.
I am just asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified' BECAUSE ALL the previous predictions from other models have been falsified, and what is left is a model that has already had ALL predictions demonstrably shown to be accurate with empirical data?
No model can be deemed unfalsifiable. There might always be new information and new models. There is no end to science, despite it having been declared imminent in past times. No way to know if some Theory of Everything is a full description of what can be predicted. There is no access to what IS, being in the realm of interpretation. There will always be interpretation, places where different models make no distinct predictions.
Noax wrote: Is it possible that Earth will ever be demonstrably flat, and we're all sheep for believing the round model?
Are you actually asking that as a real and true question posed for answer?

That question appears to Me as though you are not really looking for an answer at all, because you already have the answer, is this correct?
You've asked this exact question of relativity, and you've also stated that you don't believe the Earth is round. Understanding how you remain open to non-round earth might help me understand your stance on the relativity thing. Alternatively, tell me why you suspect the Earth is round, even if you're not willing to accept that as an actual belief. The evidence for it is very similar to the evidence that the twin will come back aged 140 days.
I understand that you have never been far enough into space to see the Earth as a sphere, so no personal experience, and the conspiracy guys would just say that the window in the ship is just a projected image.
Noax wrote:
In other words could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed, ever be found, realized, and known through scientific method?
Why would an absolute fact be beyond dispute?
Why would you even think or assume that, based on what I have actually written here?

1. I never said 'absolute', although without clarification I do not see it really matters anyway. However,
2. There is NO thing beyond dispute. I used the words " 'can not' be disputed" in a certain context. I NEVER said any thing about being "beyond dispute".
Seems like a language quibble.

What is 'Truth' here? Is it what IS, or is it our knowledge of it? I assume the former since you modify it with 'actual', which is not especially meaningful to 'knowledge'.
What is fact? You use the adjective unambiguous with it, so that can only be knowledge, not what IS, since ambiguous is only a modifier of knowledge.

This is conflicting. One is a reference to what IS, and the other to our knowledge of it. So your wording of 'actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact' just doesn't parse to me.
Knowledge will always be open to interpretation, so it cannot represent actual Truth. Knowledge can always be disputed, and actual Truth is not something to which there is access by anybody to dispute it.

Sorry, but that's the best I can do with what you've written.
Noax wrote:The more we progress, the more things become matters of interpretation.
Is that THE Truth or just 'your' interpretation of things?
Just an observation.
Noax wrote: All of them [Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc.] proposed things that are still taught as fact (not just history) today.
Is that an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?
You going to say that after every one of my comments now? How useful.
Yes, it is fact that the advances of all these people are still taught in schools. It is not unambiguous. Maybe I only dreamed my kids being taught those things.
And no, scientific findings are nowhere taught as unambiguous facts, which would be completely unscientific. Other subjects, yes perhaps.
So if and when new models are proposed which grow more unfalsifiable over time also, is it possible that eventually there will be just one unfalsifiable model that is actually complete? Or, is that impossible?

Seems to be if models are growing more unfalsifiable over time that there might be a time when models "out grow" themselves?

That time might be when human beings STOP just making up predictions and models of what they THINK things are like, and instead just look at and observer what actually IS.
Why don't we skip the model and just look at what IS now? Oh right. No access to that. So I don't see how suddenly we'll be able to do that just because we have 20 models all of which make perfect predictions.
In this thread 'I' am just a troll that understands nothing.
You know what the word means now?
By the way, that making up models, hypothesis's, and predictions and waiting to do tests, experiments to find so called "empirical data", which supposedly falsifies and/or verifies things is one way of doing things, but it is a very clumsy, complicated, slow, and open to being conflicted and contaminated with and by biases or there is another, much simpler, quicker, and easier way to find the Truth of things. But again, 'I' am certainly NOT worthy of being listened to, correct?
You haven't proposed an improvement to the process except to grab a peek at the nonexistent answers at the back of the nonexistent book. It's why we're not listening to you.
Noax wrote:
In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?
Outside science I guess.
What do you mean outside of science?

What is outside of science?
Religion for instance. It is presented as real truth, not just falsifiable theory.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:55 pm

ken wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:47 pm
Noax wrote:I have some pretty controversial views, and I find it unproductive to put them out for discussion here.
I would really enjoy hearing those views.
I don't post them for your enjoyment. I need responses from less biased members. You might assert otherwise, but I've seen nothing open about your posts. I need somebody who can take apart my view.
Noax wrote:So ken, what is your point?
In regards to what exactly?
Thought so.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
You are on record for emphatically denying belief that the world is round. If that is the case, why not defend that position, one where your lack of education is perhaps a little less of a stumbling block.
It is ALREADY on record Me emphatically denying belief not just that the world is round but belief AND disbelief of every thing. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.

You have obviously completely missed the point.
You seem to have no point. My every attempt at discovering it gets the response that I've missed it. My earnest attempts to reduce the disconnect like this always get the brush-off response.

If you cannot engage with something with which you have at least a passing education, there seems to be no point in discussing the subject of this thread, with which you've demonstrated not even an introductory knowledge. What benefit do you derive from not holding a belief in something useful like "fire is hot"?

Belinda
Posts: 1938
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Belinda » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:52 am

Noax, I understand from something Ken wrote that he is concerned about the inductive gap. This can explain Ken's doubt that the planet is sure to be round.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:04 am

Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:52 am
Noax, I understand from something Ken wrote that he is concerned about the inductive gap. This can explain Ken's doubt that the planet is sure to be round.
Yet Noax, uwot and I have repeatedly and freely acknowledged that scientists do not claim to be absolutely sure of anything. So what's his problem? No one knows. Hume's problem of induction and the doctrine of philosophical skepticism (we cannot know anything) are perfectly compatible with science, as long as science works, which it does. Our theories predict that the sun will come up in the morning, for reasons x, y, and z. If instead a giant tortilla rose in the east, which is perfectly logically possible under the problem of induction, then scientists would shrug and go about trying to develop of theory of tortilla rising.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:23 am

Belinda wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:52 am
Noax, I understand from something Ken wrote that he is concerned about the inductive gap. This can explain Ken's doubt that the planet is sure to be round.
My reply is pretty much what davidm said above. About the round planet thing, I don't think ken would phrase that as something doubted. Just not a belief. In my book, that's pretty much the same thing, but if ken draws a distinction, then he uses language differently, which many of us do. Spelling out the distinction between the words would be nice of course.

Maybe he's a half-blown skeptic, claiming to accept only direct phenomenon, but not indirect (knowledge from anyone else), sort of a material solipsist. On the other hand, even first hand experience does not generate belief, so I think it more a case of trying to express a skeptic methodology.

I can respect that. My handle is Noax, short for no-axioms, meaning I try to accept nothing as an unquestionable given. But that doesn't mean I don't believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning (a flat earth concept :wink: ).

surreptitious57
Posts: 1687
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:49 pm

Some axioms even provisional ones have to be accepted as the foundation on which knowledge can be acquired
otherwise there is no way of determining how true this knowledge is. The axioms can always be improved upon
if they are found to be faulty. But you have to start with some basic premises no matter how basic they may be

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:08 am


User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:22 am

davidm wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:08 am
Time Dilation in Your Living Room

Pretty f. cool. :thumbsup:
Carroll wrote:If you stand on a chair, you’ll move into the future that much faster.
Interesting conclusion. You'd think that if you speed up your clock, the rest of the universe ticks slower, and you see it in slow motion. To get to the future faster (say I'm impatient for opening day of star wars), go downstairs, sort of like time travel via suspended animation or cryonics.

Rohan posts the best comment: "After reading this I have now rearranged the contents of my refrigerator accordingly."

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:55 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:49 pm
Some axioms even provisional ones have to be accepted as the foundation on which knowledge can be acquired
otherwise there is no way of determining how true this knowledge is. The axioms can always be improved upon
if they are found to be faulty. But you have to start with some basic premises no matter how basic they may be
I think I'm on fairly solid ground, but there's always that annoying list of things you never thought to question.
My foundation is just that stuff like 2+2=4 is true, and not just a property of our universe.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:41 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:53 pm
ken wrote:
What do you mean by Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed invalid
Without potential falsification there is no way of knowing if a hypothesis is true or false

If hypotheses ( some thing ) are not subject to potential falsification then does that HAVE TO make the hypotheses ( or some thing ) invalid
Yes for the reason already given

Or could some thing that is not subject to potential falsification
The scientific method only deals with that which can be subject to potential falsification and nothing else

also just mean that that thing could be just what IS or an unambiguous fact which may not be disputable instead
Unambiguous indisputable facts have no need to be subject to potential falsification because they cannot be falsified

Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification
No because that is the complete opposite of what the scientific method with regard to hypotheses actually does

could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact which can not be disputed ever be found realized and known through scientific method
See answer above concerning unambiguous indisputable facts

Or does every thing which is a part of a scientific method always remain a fundamental component
Yes because removing any of them would make the scientific method less reliable

and therefore there will always be potential for falsification
Yes there will always be the need for potential falsification

In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and /or real
Anything can be true or real but science is only concerned with what can either be verified or falsified

But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified
If and when it becomes verified does it then remain a fundamental component of the scientific method
Yes because potential verification has to be possible just the same as potential falsification has to be

or does it progress further and past the scientific method
What is past the scientific method has nothing at all to do with science

If some thing [a theory or hypothesis] IS verified, through scientific methods, and thus there is NO more potential verification nor potential falsification, then what do you now call that thing?

It obviously could NOT be a theory nor a hypothesis, because there is NOW no potential verification nor falsification.

I do NOT care if what is past the scientific method has nothing at all to do with science. I just want to KNOW what do you call 'it' [that thing which was a theory or hypothesis but NOW has been verified?

You people here seem to want to insist that the theory of special relativity HAS ALREADY been verified as being true and correct, but also seem to want to be insisting that it still has potential for falsification. So, which one is it?

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:03 am

ken wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:41 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:53 pm
ken wrote:
What do you mean by Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed invalid
Without potential falsification there is no way of knowing if a hypothesis is true or false

If hypotheses ( some thing ) are not subject to potential falsification then does that HAVE TO make the hypotheses ( or some thing ) invalid
Yes for the reason already given

Or could some thing that is not subject to potential falsification
The scientific method only deals with that which can be subject to potential falsification and nothing else

also just mean that that thing could be just what IS or an unambiguous fact which may not be disputable instead
Unambiguous indisputable facts have no need to be subject to potential falsification because they cannot be falsified

Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification
No because that is the complete opposite of what the scientific method with regard to hypotheses actually does

could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact which can not be disputed ever be found realized and known through scientific method
See answer above concerning unambiguous indisputable facts

Or does every thing which is a part of a scientific method always remain a fundamental component
Yes because removing any of them would make the scientific method less reliable

and therefore there will always be potential for falsification
Yes there will always be the need for potential falsification

In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and /or real
Anything can be true or real but science is only concerned with what can either be verified or falsified

But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified
If and when it becomes verified does it then remain a fundamental component of the scientific method
Yes because potential verification has to be possible just the same as potential falsification has to be

or does it progress further and past the scientific method
What is past the scientific method has nothing at all to do with science

If some thing [a theory or hypothesis] IS verified, through scientific methods, and thus there is NO more potential verification nor potential falsification, then what do you now call that thing?

It obviously could NOT be a theory nor a hypothesis, because there is NOW no potential verification nor falsification.

I do NOT care if what is past the scientific method has nothing at all to do with science. I just want to KNOW what do you call 'it' [that thing which was a theory or hypothesis but NOW has been verified?

You people here seem to want to insist that the theory of special relativity HAS ALREADY been verified as being true and correct, but also seem to want to be insisting that it still has potential for falsification. So, which one is it?
No, you either a troll or you can't read, or both.

It has been REPEATEDLY explained to you that theories are NEVER verified, only FALSIFIED. Not ONE PERSON here has claimed "verification" of relativity theory. Understand now, at last, troll?

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:10 am

What people HAVE said, correctly, is that any future theory that supplants general relativity or reconciles it with QM will have to incorporate the FACT of time dilation. But then you don't understand, or affect not to understand, the difference between a FACT and a THEORY.

Fact: populations evolve over time.

Theory: the theory that explains this fact.

But why am I wasting my breath?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:56 am

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:08 pm
Noax wrote: This is what I mean by denial of evidence.
What do you mean by 'denial of evidence'? You have not said anything here to know what you are talking let alone to understand what you mean.
This conversation is indeed making no progress.
Is that solely My fault alone?

What progress are you looking for?

Is 'progress' of this conversation, for you, getting Me to agree and accept all the things you say?

If not, then what does 'progress' in this conversation actually mean or involve?

When My questions are answered, then that is 'progress', well for Me anyway.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
You blatantly state that there has been but one supposedly "tested" example, and then you ask what I mean by denial of evidence. That statement is what I mean. It is why I replied to it.
Have I denied the "evidence"?

Or, are you just once again making up assumptions about what you believe I am saying?

If you have NOT yet recognized, what I blatantly state [write in words] may NOT mean what you "blatantly" think it does.

Surely some one like you would KNOW that by now?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Please see the prior post (to gaffo) which addresses this point you seem to make. Your protests of relativity seem to be one of interpretation (what is time, do clocks really slow down or do they just measure less?) All that is beyond relevance. You seem to be completely uneducated in this subject, and unwilling to get one from me. So in my prior post I address more the point of why we might believe something when it has been supposedly "tested".
And I have already stated what BELIEVING does to the intelligence of a human being, which is being shown here.

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Are you saying there has hardly been one verification for it? Does that mean it is there not been verified?
Science does not verify.
That is what you say, while others say otherwise.

Also, if, as you say, "science does not verify", then what does 'science' do?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
A test of 'what'?
And is a test of EVERY SECOND of EVERY DAY really being performed?
Relativity. And yes.
So, if as you say, "science does not verify", then is 'relativity' right, accurate, true, or correct, or is 'relativity' some thing else?

"And yes", to what?

What were you now making assumptions about that you thought to answer "yes" to?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
And, if that 'example' we have been looking at is NOT presented as evidence, then WHAT IS presented as evidence?
The empirical tests that have been done.
So, what do the 'empirical tests' show, to you?
ONCE AGAIN, and obviously, YOUR INTERPRETATION is WRONG.
If that could be shown, it wouldn't be an interpretation now, would it. For someone with no education and no beliefs, you throw around 'obviously' and WRONG a lot. [/quote]

Obviously.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
This post of yours has a lot of troll replies.
What is a 'troll', and, what is a 'troll reply'?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
I don't feel inclined to answer much other than things not answered before.
That is totally understandable.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
A traveling observer begins at a starting event and ends at a finishing event, and according to you there WOULD BE proof of dilation, of which the observer at that final observation point could well observe dilation IF it happens the way you say it does happen.
No, I didn't say this. The traveler is stationary from his own point of view, and thus no observation of dilation. Everything is normal. He ages normally.
Except to you this "traveler" would NOT be the same age to, say, their twin who did NOT "go along for the ride", correct?

Also, the whole point that is being missed here by human beings is the "from his point of view" remark. Obviously any observer can have a different 'point of view' BUT to be able to find the truth of ALL things it is NOT found from any separate point of view. The Truth is found and KNOWN to be correct only from ALL points of views, as One.

Separate viewpoints distorts the Truth and what 'relativity' shows IS EVERY thing is relative to the observer. If, and only IF, a human being observer was silly or stupid enough to believe that while they were traveling, that they were actually stationary, then the sort of things that are being seen here start to arise.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
I do NOT do debate, because of the already explained stupidity of debating and what debating can cause. I prefer to look at what IS actually true and real instead.
Your methodology seem to be in direct conflict with this pursuit. See that prior post, which addresses this point.
See this whole thread, which addresses the contrary.

You have, so far, missed My point and methodology, that is because of YOUR assumptions and beliefs.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Noax wrote: The round earth was a minor adjustment to the geometry, the exact same sort as relativity.
Would you like to finish the sentence? As it stands I am unclear as to what you are actually saying. Are you saying 'relativity' was a minor adjustment to the geometry ALSO?
Yes. Earth is flat until you consider a large enough scale.
Please stop making assumptions. Earth is NOT flat until I considered any thing.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
You can draw a square on the parking lot and its angles add up to 360. But not if the square gets big enough. Newtonian physics is descriptive at normal scale but needs a more complete description of the geometry at large scale.
What is a 'normal' scale?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Noax wrote:You seem to consider it a virtue to be open to flat Earth because you have all you experience on an apparently flat place.
1. I do NOT consider it a virtue to be open to flat earth because of your stupid assumption.
I base this observation on you having said that you do not believe the world is round. It was said in caps I think.
For those who are reading this, THIS is EXACTLY WHY I say to be able see the whole and true picture of things it is much simpler, easier, and quicker if you do NOT assume any thing.

Just because I said, I do not believe the world is round, does NOT, and I repeat DOES NOT, mean I consider any thing. ALL that statement means is that I am OPEN. Some thing I have said numerous times already but, for some, this is incomprehensible to them.

For those they can NOT see that this is incomprehensible, for obvious reasons.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Flat earth has NEVER worked, has it?
Flat Earth has worked for more of human history than not. It is still used today. My paper maps are flat and don't mark corrections for the curvature. People's everyday experience is one of the sun rising each morning.
If there has NEVER been a flat earth, then flat earth has NEVER worked.
For some thing to 'work', then it has to at least exist.
Does a flat earth exist?
Has a flat earth ever existed?

What some people see, say, and/or do is one thing. But what human beings see, say, and/or do may NOT reflect any truth nor reality at all.

In case you have NOT noticed, just because your maps may be flat that does NOT mean that the earth is, nor was, flat. That is unless of course you BELIEVE that flat maps means that the earth is flat. Flat maps might 'work', in some way, to show and/or describe some things, but if the earth is NOT flat, then a flat earth does NOT work.

The obvious misgivings that has been caused by some people "experiencing" and BELIEVING that the sun rises in the morning should already be an obvious reason WHY not to do some things.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
As I asked previously, if twins who are born at the same time, and are the same age at the beginning of one of them who takes a journey, then how could they be different ages when they meet again if they aged at the exact same pace? If after they meet again their ages are different, then the pace of ageing must of changed some where, correct?
From the viewpoint of the stable (not particularly accelerated) Earth frame, yes, although the wording is that of others. I would have said the younger one had not lived as long but aged normally, but the end effect is the same.
Great, we are finally getting down to the wording, you say that there is "younger" twin, who has not lived as long, but aged 'normally'.

Which one is the "younger" twin?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Noax wrote: They've had people in space for years, and they don't seem to age faster due to being in space.
Although they are traveling at faster speeds, is that right?
Well, they're all stationary relative to themselves, and thus age normally.
Is there an actual 'stationary' in the Universe, to you?

If so, then where do you propose it is?

If not, then why do you use the term 'stationary'?

Human beings do NOT even know who they, themselves, are yet, let alone knowing what being "stationary relative to themselves" could or would entail.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
They're moving a bit in Earth frame, but are also less deep in a gravity well. The effects are pretty trivial and cancel out at a certain altitude. At typical human orbital altitude, their age is dilated down up there.
IS the 'dilation' that you are talking about here, the one that was according to some tests which supposedly showed some some sort of interpreted particular empirical data on objects other than human bodies?

Is there any actual evidence that has actually been shown on actual human bodies yet?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Noax wrote: Maybe there's a magic aging ray that hits you out past the Kuiper belt. Have to keep an open mind about that one.
And, maybe there is some sort of magic ageing ray that hits human bodies when they travel at speed also, what do you think?
And misses the squirrels? Seems implausible that it would be just humans.


Has it been shown on squirrels?

WHY do you think that you keep going back to 'humans only' when I discuss this point?

WHAT do you think it is that might be blocking you from seeing the actual truth of things here?

Also, is 'speed' the absolute reason WHY you BELIEVE that dilation happens for ALL things?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Hate to think something is gunning just for us.
Human beings might be the only animal that wants to live longer, so what do you mean by 'gunning' here. If human beings could just put themselves into ships that can travel at faster speeds, then, to you, they could obviously stay "younger". Therefore, the 'gunning just for us' would NOT be, in the ridiculous case that you keep talking about where dilation does not work on only human beings, The advantages of staying "younger" would be for every thing else and NOT human beings, so again, what is the "gunning just for us" in relation to exactly?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
But now with the "traveler frame" back on earth frame how are they going to work out the differences? Obviously far more than 3 or 70 days has actually past, so what are the clocks actually saying?
In the traveler frame, he doesn't ever return to Earth.
Is the best answer you have in order to NOT answer the actual question and/or NOT look at it.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
He'd have to accelerate to being stationary in a different frame to do that.
So what?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Without coming home, the clock comparison is ambiguous.
Obviously the question was intended with what you call "home".

Every time I ask a question that you do NOT, or can NOT answer, you come up with some sort of reflecting away from it wording.

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Noax wrote:99.5% of lightspeed, and yes, they were looking for a result. The clocks had perhaps a 10% error rate.
What was the result they were looking for?
They were looking for the result of that measurement, whatever it turned out to be.
And one of those measurements was faster while the other was slower, correct?

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Your answers could just be WRONG. Can you accept that?
I know they're wrong. That's why they're not from the theory of everything.
But what about the answers that I was talking about, that is, the answers you GIVE, I am asking could they be WRONG?

Or, to you, is that an impossibility?

Do you really enjoy diverting away from the actual questions being asked?

Is it a habit you do, when you do NOT want to or can not give the answer to, or do you do it unintentionally, or do you just do it with purposeful intent? Or, maybe there is some other reason you do NOT answer the actual question being asked? Will you provide us with an answer to WHY you do it so often?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
How about by saying the "parts" that have supposedly been verified?
Science doesn't verify things.
According to you.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Let Me know if I have this wrong, what you predict will happen is far more likely to happen then what others predict will happen if they do NOT agree with your predictions?
I guess it depends on that which the two of us are basing our predictions.
Let us just say, you and I.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Are you even some what aware that there is NO actual thing as two events?
Is this some redefinition of 'event' or are you making some new assertion?
That would depend on how you think the word 'event' IS defined?

Either way I am probably getting human beings to look at what actually IS, in a new way. Human beings, after all, are still very confused and bewildered about Life and existence, generally
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Noax wrote:Newtonian absolute space. It predicted that if you were not stationary, one could measure different times for light to go forward vs. backwards.
Who cares?
...
Who really cares?
I suppose one in denial of evidence that does not support his biases would not care.
Are you still under the illusion, which you your self have created, that I am in denial of the so called "evidence".

When will you come out of your spell and see what IS actually happening here?

Also, what "evidence" do you think I am actually in denial of, and, what biases do you think I actually have?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Really?
Yes, really. It was a pretty cheap and useful thing to do.
Useful for what purpose?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
WHY interpret any thing? WHY NOT just look at what IS?

What is PERCEIVED as being "vastly different" is easily observed.
A proposal as to how to go about doing that would go some distance towards dispelling the nonsense that is your reply.
The contradiction in your remark here is blindly obvious. How could a "proposal" dispel what is according to you 'nonsense' anyway?

If you under the BELIEF that some thing is already NONSENSE, then you are UNABLE to learn nor understand any thing contrary.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
The lack of observable differences is exactly the problem.
Your inability, at the moment, to see the obvious observable differences might be some sort of problem, to YOU. But obviously there is NO problem for those of us who can clearly SEE the observable differences.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
I take it you're completely uneducated on even how the term 'interpretation' is being used here.


If that is how you take it, then that is how IT IS, to you.

You can TAKE and BELIEVE whatever you want and like to. NO one is forcing you to see and understand any thing.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
You seem totally unaware of the problem, to the point where it is pointless to ask you what 'actually is' on the QM subject.
If that is what you BELIEVE, then that is what it IS, to you.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Because you said people do tests, PREDICTING what will happen.
Two models, making different predictions. The test is run, they see what actually happens (which might not match either model), and the model that predicts incorrectly has problems. At no point is there bias in that unless the results are falsified to match the model.
Are you under the illusion that there are NO unconscious biases at all?

And what about 'confirmation biases', are you aware that they exist?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
All philosophical questions irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Another diversionary tactic away from the question at hand, in a philosophical forum.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
The tests do not demonstrate that time does or doesn't exist since there is no empirical difference to falsify one of those two cases.
But the ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that 'time' exists must first be at hand to even begin to suggest that 'time', itself, can slow down OR dilate.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
The theory came from the one piece of evidence.
What 'theory' was that, and, what 'piece of evidence' are you talking about here?

And, did that 'theory' really come AFTER that 'piece of evidence'?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
It becoming accepted came from the tests that falsified all non-relativistic views. Only then did the books begin to teach it.
So, is this still a theory or not?

What is 'it', which you talk of here?

If 'it' is the theory of special relativity, and the tests that have falsified "ALL" non-relativistic views, then does that mean the theory of special relativity has BECOME or is still BECOMING accepted?

And, if it has BECOME accepted to some people, then WHY do they still call 'it' a theory? Is a theory valid if there is NO potential for falsification? If there is now NO potential for falsification, then what is, what was once called 'a theory', now called?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Left unstated is that even if all humans comply with whatever you're trying to get us to understand, no such TOE will be forthcoming from you.
This is incorrect.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
The language carries an implication that you have one, but that seems to be attributed to your poor language skills rather than actual intent to suggest you would be capable of such a thing.
This is correct.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Good example of a troll comment. Such comments are why I'm ignoring about 70% of your unproductive content.
Again, that is "unproductive" or not progressive, in that I am NOT learning what it is that you want Me to learn from you, and others, correct?

If not correct, what do you think My content is meant to produce?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Fixed light speed is an empirical observation. That data point is the premise (assumption) upon which relativity logically follows.
What has that got to do with My question?

Read the actual question I wrote again and see if you can understand what it is that I am ACTUALLY asking.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
We differ there. I lack the smarts, time and funding to do all these tests myself. The boffins seem pretty suited to the role of doing the testing for me. Their success is what backs their methodology.
Their "success", which is backed by supporters like your self, is that the success that you speak of?

Is 'peer support' really the best way to describe, or of defining, 'success'?

You say, "their success is what backs their methodology", but what is it that actually gives or defines 'their success'?

The truth that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth was based on people's "success" also, which was backed up by the "empirical data" from the "tests", and which was further supported by what was written down in books and BELIEVED to be true, which all this "success" coincided together and what backed their methodology. This way of doing things, although it seems totally outdated and not thorough way of doing things is exactly what the human beings of "today", when this is written, still do things.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
I have no choice.
Statements like this are the VERY PROOF of HOW you are being blinded from what IS, actually true and correct in Life.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
You don't actually say what you see that the rest of us don't.
I do this for the VERY REASONS I have already explained.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
All I get is what you conclude from it. Either you see different facts (due to not being human??), or you see the same things as the rest of us but reject findings you find distasteful.
The former is far more correct.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
You seriously are incapable of looking up a word, or picking out the definition that applies?
Your comment here is one of the REASONS why I say human beings are blinded and distorted from the actual Truth of things.

Are you capable of understanding that EVERY thing is relative to the observer actually MEANS that EVERY thing is RELATIVE to the observer?

For example when YOU use and/or say a word, then that does NOT mean it MEANS the exact same for another observer. ONLY through clarification can another's true perspective be seen AND understood.

One of the VERY REASONS why human beings are still looking for answers is because they believe that what they see and interpret is true and real. ONLY through clarification can, and will, things be fully and truly understood.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Given the question above, pretty dang low, but I was speaking of my perception of your knowledge, not your perception of your own knowledge, to which I have no access.
Thank you for hopefully NOW actually realizing, understanding, and acknowledging that, WITHOUT CLARIFICATION, you have NO access. BUT, just as obvious, WITH CLARIFICATION, you can gain an understanding. And, GAINING understanding is best [most easily, quickly, and simply] done by just being completely OPEN, and asking for clarity.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Wow, an actual question.
ALL the others were actual questions also. You just do NOT like to look at and answer those ones.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Acceleration causes the accelerated thing to be stationary in a different frame where events are ordered differently.
Obviously you misunderstood My question, once again, but, once again, that is My fault.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Things true in the old frame (that distant clock reads such-and-such now) are different in the new frame.
Can distant clocks be read in the supposed "new" frame?

If so, then what "such-and-such reading" is now, could be KNOWN.

If not, then HOW do YOU KNOW that distant clocks read different?

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:15 am

ken wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:56 am
Separate viewpoints distorts the Truth and what 'relativity' shows IS EVERY thing is relative to the observer. If, and only IF, a human being observer was silly or stupid enough to believe that while they were traveling, that they were actually stationary, then the sort of things that are being seen here start to arise.
All statements were relative to a frame, not an observer or a point of view. Nothing was declared to be 'actually stationary'. Your phrase, not mine.
From a point-of-view perspective, the twins see quite a different story. Each sees his brother age slower as they separate, or see his brother age faster as they approach each other. That's the point-of-view of some observer story, instead of a description from various frames.
What some people see, say, and/or do is one thing. But what human beings see, say, and/or do may NOT reflect any truth nor reality at all.
Yes. This is what you appear to be doing.
but if the earth is NOT flat, then a flat earth does NOT work.
Wrong. Flat earth model works great for almost all purposes, even though the earth is not actually flat. The model works. It is useful, even though it is wrong in the end. When I ask directions to the drug store, nobody gives directions in polar coordinates or some other spherical reference. Such instructions would be needlessly complicated and confusing. The sphere model only comes up in a larger picture where the difference matters.

The obvious misgivings that has been caused by some people "experiencing" and BELIEVING that the sun rises in the morning should already be an obvious reason WHY not to do some things.
Great, we are finally getting down to the wording, you say that there is "younger" twin, who has not lived as long, but aged 'normally'.

Which one is the "younger" twin?
The one aged 140 days when greeting is brother who has aged 8.6 years.
Is there an actual 'stationary' in the Universe, to you?
Again, no.
If not, then why do you use the term 'stationary'?
Putting 'actual' on it is what makes it wrong.
Human beings do NOT even know who they, themselves, are yet, let alone knowing what being "stationary relative to themselves" could or would entail.
Sorry this simple concept evades you.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
But now with the "traveler frame" back on earth frame how are they going to work out the differences? Obviously far more than 3 or 70 days has actually past, so what are the clocks actually saying?
In the traveler frame, he doesn't ever return to Earth.
Is the best answer you have in order to NOT answer the actual question and/or NOT look at it.
I cannot guess at the question you had intended.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
What was the result they were looking for?
They were looking for the result of that measurement, whatever it turned out to be.
And one of those measurements was faster while the other was slower, correct?
Or maybe the same. Depends on the specific test you're referencing.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Are you even some what aware that there is NO actual thing as two events?
Is this some redefinition of 'event' or are you making some new assertion?
That would depend on how you think the word 'event' IS defined?
Let me ask plainly. Your comment makes no sense to me. What do you mean when you say there is NO actual thing as two events?
Are you still under the illusion, which you your self have created, that I am in denial of the so called "evidence".
Pretty much, yes.
Noax wrote:Yes, really. It was a pretty cheap and useful thing to do.
Useful for what purpose?
You deleted context here. I don't remember what this was about.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
The lack of observable differences is exactly the problem.
Your inability, at the moment, to see the obvious observable differences might be some sort of problem, to YOU. But obviously there is NO problem for those of us who can clearly SEE the observable differences.
If they're so obvious, please point one out. If there is a different, it would be science, not interpretation. The lack of a difference is what makes it interpretation.
Noax wrote:
Because you said people do tests, PREDICTING what will happen.
Two models, making different predictions. The test is run, they see what actually happens (which might not match either model), and the model that predicts incorrectly has problems. At no point is there bias in that unless the results are falsified to match the model.
Are you under the illusion that there are NO unconscious biases at all?

And what about 'confirmation biases', are you aware that they exist?
Biases should not be able to influence a good test.
Noax wrote:All philosophical questions irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Another diversionary tactic away from the question at hand, in a philosophical forum.
in which you're questioning science findings, not the philosophy of science.
But the ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that 'time' exists must first be at hand to even begin to suggest that 'time', itself, can slow down OR dilate.
No, it's completely irrelevant. Both real or non-real models of time make the same relativistic predictions.
And, did that 'theory' really come AFTER that 'piece of evidence'?
All theories do. Without evidence, there would be no reason to make any theory to explain it.
If 'it' is the theory of special relativity, and the tests that have falsified "ALL" non-relativistic views, then does that mean the theory of special relativity has BECOME or is still BECOMING accepted?
GR, not SR. Yes, it has become accepted, and everyone knows it is incomplete.
And, if it has BECOME accepted to some people, then WHY do they still call 'it' a theory? Is a theory valid if there is NO potential for falsification? If there is now NO potential for falsification, then what is, what was once called 'a theory', now called?
It will be falsified if we find a better unified theory.
If not correct, what do you think My content is meant to produce?
You would disagree with my honest opinion of what I think your content is meant to produce.
Noax wrote:We differ there. I lack the smarts, time and funding to do all these tests myself. The boffins seem pretty suited to the role of doing the testing for me. Their success is what backs their methodology.
Their "success", which is backed by supporters like your self, is that the success that you speak of?
My only support is that of a tax payer. Their success is measured in the quality of their predictions. It's why Galileo had so much trouble getting his views accepted. His predictions were never as good as the competing model of flat earth with Gods carrying the sun and stars overhead.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
All I get is what you conclude from it. Either you see different facts (due to not being human??), or you see the same things as the rest of us but reject findings you find distasteful.
The former is far more correct.
Well there's the problem. None of the rest of us have this ability to see what IS. We're stuck with empirical observation from a subjective viewpoint. It sucks.
Are you capable of understanding that EVERY thing is relative to the observer actually MEANS that EVERY thing is RELATIVE to the observer?
Actually, I have been wondering loosely what you mean by this statement. Not so much that I've bothered to inquire about it before.
For example when YOU use and/or say a word, then that does NOT mean it MEANS the exact same for another observer. ONLY through clarification can another's true perspective be seen AND understood.
Yet you don't clarify when I ask. I've edited out about a dozen questions that got no clarification, so I assume will not be clarified.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:49 pm
Things true in the old frame (that distant clock reads such-and-such now) are different in the new frame.
Can distant clocks be read in the supposed "new" frame?
Taking a reading of a clock is an event and thus not a frame dependent task, but if said clock is not in the presence of the reader, then it take time for light to travel to the observer reading it, and both the distance separating the two, and where the clock moved since then, are frame dependent. So say at the event of the traveler reaching AC, if the Earth clock can be read, it will read the same thing in any frame, but that is not what time it is at the observation event, but rather what time the clock showed at the event when the light left the clock, from the location that the clock was at the event where the light left it.
So at the AC event, with Earth/AC clocks synced, the AC clock says 4.3 years, and the Earth clock appears to say 38 hours because light emitted by the clock 38 hours after traveler departure gets to AC at the same time as the traveler who is going .999c relative to Earth. This is an example of a point-of-view observation, and not so much about relativity.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests