Page 56 of 75

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:09 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:59 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:12 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:43 pm What is quoted above in the weird multicolors by yet another troll is EXACTLY what I have been saying!

Our newest troll doesn't seem to grasp the point -- that no one will find his OWN clock ticking slow! Which is what the quoted material is ALSO SAYING!
Sure, but that still doesn't mean that time is being slowed, only that the process is being slowed. Understand??
The process is what time is -- if the process slows, time slows!
No it's not, prove it!

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:11 pm
by davidm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:07 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:57 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:28 pm What davidm seems to not be capable of understanding is that in the experiment of time dilation, speed and gravity cannot be isolated as the only variables in the experiment. So the Scientific Method cannot be said to have been observed during the so called experiments on time dilation.

If in fact, in any experiment, there are more that one variable, any conclusion cannot be certain, PERIOD!

I mean did they account for the relative position within the earths magnetosphere? Did they account for the direction of flight within the magnetosphere? How about Dark energy and dark matter? Relative cosmic radiation? How about eddy currents? Clearly motion and gravity were not the only variables! Then there might even be variables that no one might be capable of considering, considering that man has only gotten to his planets moon. Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!
All of these things can be accounted for mathematically, in principle, in relativity theory. In practice it might be very difficult, but it doesn't matter. We can get useful answers, for all practical purposes, by idealizing certain situations and ignoring marginal influences. In the exact same way, we can ignore relativity theory and employ standard Newtonian mechanics to compute spacecraft trajectories to other planets, because the velocities are so low that relativistic influences are negligible.

"Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!" is a sure tipoff that you don't understand what a theory is in science. No theories are definitive, and science is not about what is "definitive."
I understand EXACTLY what THEORIES are! That was my reference to YOU and others that "ACT" AS THOUGH THEY KNOW AS IF CERTAINLY AND COMPLETELY, YOU IDIOT!

You Don't! So stop acting like you do, instead admitting that you don't!!! FOOL!

God you're a brain dead fuck! So full of yourself, GROW THE FUCK UP, BOY!

If you don't or can't, then everyone in this threat is both correct and incorrect. Man are you slow!!! I gotta pull you along by the ring in your nose, sheesh!!!
You should calm down. You're making a total fool of yourself, and it isn't pretty.

Since you claim that the stuff you quoted contradicts what I've argued, it should be very easy for you to point out the specific contradiction/s. You can't of course, and you actually know that, which is why you are losing your shit.

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:02 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:46 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:41 pm

:lol:

And "peace be with you too," lol, you ignorant troll.

How does ANYTHING you quoted above contradict ANYTHING that I wrote, idiot?

It doesn't!
Everything idiot! As you can't show me it doesn't, as it's obviously above your head, you parrot of a moron!
Oh, really? Show me where ANYTHING that you quoted contradicts ANYTHING I wrote.

It doesn't. I agree with it!
Peace be with you my friend!

Happy Holidays!
:lol:
Seriously, you take things too seriously! ;-)
Try education, it'll allow you to finally think for yourself.
No u, dummy.
No you're dummy, that read my original and was too stupid to understand it's implications!

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pm
by uwot
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pmI'm simply saying that as to the true nature of time, if it even exists, no one can say they necessarily know.
That's been dealt with on this thread. Whatever the "true nature of time, if it even exists", the only thing that we can measure, or count, is periodic events. For all practical purposes, that is time. Periodic events demonstrably, without any exceptions, have always been observed to 'take longer' the faster the arena they happen in is moving, and/or the stronger the gravitational field in which they occur.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pmThings within the universe can be directly influenced by other things in the universe. Before anyone can say with certainly, all things within the universe must be considered and eliminated as possible influences, before any single influence can be said to be a causal.
We can manipulate things like electromagnetic fields with ease, and there is absolutely no evidence that even huge differences make any difference. Whereas even minute differences in gravitational fields are shown to affect the rate of processes.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pmHow much does humankind actually know? I'm not talking of what we believe we know? What do we actually know with certainty? Can we ever know the answer to that question?
What we know is that processes happen less frequently the greater the speed, and/or the stronger the gravitational field. We know that, because we can see it. What we don't know, is the mechanism that causes it.

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:13 pm
by davidm
No one here -- not I, not noax, not uwot, not thedoc -- claims "certain and complete knowledge," nor do any of us claim that a theory is anything but a defeasible model. In this very thread, I believe I've discussed the pessimistic meta-induction -- the idea that we ought to expect that all our current theories are false theories.

Take a sedative.

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:25 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:11 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:07 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:57 pm

All of these things can be accounted for mathematically, in principle, in relativity theory. In practice it might be very difficult, but it doesn't matter. We can get useful answers, for all practical purposes, by idealizing certain situations and ignoring marginal influences. In the exact same way, we can ignore relativity theory and employ standard Newtonian mechanics to compute spacecraft trajectories to other planets, because the velocities are so low that relativistic influences are negligible.

"Definitive, my ass! Theory, of course, that and nothing more!" is a sure tipoff that you don't understand what a theory is in science. No theories are definitive, and science is not about what is "definitive."
I understand EXACTLY what THEORIES are! That was my reference to YOU and others that "ACT" AS THOUGH THEY KNOW AS IF CERTAINLY AND COMPLETELY, YOU IDIOT!

You Don't! So stop acting like you do, instead admitting that you don't!!! FOOL!

God you're a brain dead fuck! So full of yourself, GROW THE FUCK UP, BOY!

If you don't or can't, then everyone in this threat is both correct and incorrect. Man are you slow!!! I gotta pull you along by the ring in your nose, sheesh!!!
You should calm down. You're making a total fool of yourself, and it isn't pretty.
What are you talking about? Whatever I am is none of your business, and is simply your programming talking, they tell you to jump and so you do!

Since you claim that the stuff you quoted contradicts what I've argued, it should be very easy for you to point out the specific contradiction/s. You can't of course, and you actually know that, which is why you are losing your shit.
Losing my shit??? My shit is still in my colon and rectum, though your's seems to ooze from your mouth. Do you see what you believe you see, or am I a magician only showing you what your programming allows you to see?

I bet you that ones got you going! Oblivious is what you seem to be, that is, when it comes to you understanding you! Seeing only that which you believe you see! :lol: :lol:

'Despite all your rage you are still just a rat in a cage.' All that you are and all that you shall ever be shall die one day, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. All that you truly knew or you believed you knew will be all for naught. You can choose to be a clone or an original, it's up to you! And a clone you surely seem to be!


Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:31 pm
by Noax
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:49 pmLook at my message count and my join date, idiot! You newbie troll!!!
Argument from seniority fallacy.

Will I also become the target of the ad-hom storm that seems to be going on? I've come to expect that from davidm, and ken seems to be motivated by such results as well.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:49 pm So here it that example I promised above:

We have a clock that measures time, or so we say it does. In this case it's a pendulum clock, not for the sake of accuracy, but rather for the sake of the point easily being understood by you all. Now I can slow this clock by various means, but does it necessarily mean that time is slowing or simply the mechanism that we say is measuring time, that is slowing. As there is no necessary connection between this man made devise that is said to measure time, and time, which is simply a human mental construct, a human mental conceptualization.

If it were several hundred years ago when clocks existed, but knowledge of electromagnetism didn't. And I showed you the pendulum clock, and I touched the pendulum and told you I was slowing time, you'd probably tell ne that I was a liar and that I was simply slowing down the mechanism that is said to measure time. But if a had coils of wire, magnets, a battery and a remote control all hidden in the device and/or my pocket, and said that I was just kidding, but that I would now really slow time by simply passing my hand in front of the clock and I did so while secretly pressing the remote control in my pocket, thus energizing the electromagnetic field on either side of the pendulum which had a hidden magnet within it, such that it obviously slowed, you probably would believe my model, (my math) that I was capable of slowing time, when in fact I was just slowing the mechanism that is said to measure time. In such a case how would you know the difference?
A scenario with a request for a falsification test.

You describe a situation where clocks run at normal pace when actually stationary, and slower when they move, according to the Lorentz transformation presumably. With this I could easily devise a device to detect being stationary from within a box. I have a gadget that puts out a pulse of light at regular intervals, perhaps 440 hz. It also emits sound at that frequency. The faster it goes, the lower the frequency actually gets (per your description above), but any holder of the device slows with it, so the effect is not noticed.

Now I put that thing on a string and start winging it around my head. If I am stationary, it will stay at a fixed distance and yet be slowed by its relativistic speed. I get a steady pulse rate of perhaps 438 hz. If I am moving, then on one side it would be moving slowest and the other side the fastest. I will read perhaps 442 on one side and 434 on the other. It will warble. The side where it puts out the lowest frequency is going the same way I am. I have just determined my motion direction from inside a box. ToR says you get a steady 438 hz in any frame, hence something to falsify one view or the other. Flaws in that? Did I misrepresent your scenario Spheres? Correct me if I have.

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:33 pm
by uwot
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:25 pmYou can choose to be a clone or an original, it's up to you! And a clone you surely seem to be!
Spheres, people who take the trouble to familiarise themselves with current research are not clones, they just know what the facts are.

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:36 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:13 pm No one here -- not I, not noax, not uwot, not thedoc -- claims "certain and complete knowledge," nor do any of us claim that a theory is anything but a defeasible model. In this very thread, I believe I've discussed the pessimistic meta-induction -- the idea that we ought to expect that all our current theories are false theories.

Take a sedative.
I'm referring to this moron, "Nope, doesn’t work." You acting as though your understanding of anothers "theories" are so necessarily correct that you can say such a thing, without even understanding what I meant!

You must be on hallucinogenics to appear so confused! Do you actually know which of your ends are up?


:lol:


Merry Christmas my friend!

My gift to you is soooo good! ;-)

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:41 pm
by davidm
Noax wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:31 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:49 pmLook at my message count and my join date, idiot! You newbie troll!!!
Argument from seniority fallacy, which is not the way to drive home the parroting charge.

Will I also become the target of the ad-hom storm that seems to be going on? I've come to expect that from davidm ...
I must beg to differ. Insults are not (necessarily) ad hom. Sometimes even compliments can be ad hom. Example: "You know your argument is wrong because you're far too smart to believe such nonsense."

Ad hom:

P1. Hitler was a vegetarian.

P2. But Hitler was a bad man.

C. Therefore, vegetarianism is bad.

Insult:

Hitler was a bad man.

I don't believe I've ad hommed anyone in this thread, though I have, perhaps too liberally, deployed insults. Still, one often finds oneself sore provoked. I didn't insult SpheresofBalance, but merely disagreed with him, and look what happened: he hurls a storm of insults my way. Only then did I respond in kind.

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:45 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
uwot wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:33 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:25 pmYou can choose to be a clone or an original, it's up to you! And a clone you surely seem to be!
Spheres, people who take the trouble to familiarise themselves with current research are not clones, they just know what the facts are.
Wrong uwot, you're just assuming they are indeed facts, sure they are factual, in that, it is what is currently believed, but that's a far cry from saying they are factual relative to the universal truth. You know, that which actually is the case, despite man's so called knowledge. Which did you mean? Do you believe they are one in the same thing?

And uwot it's a fool that believes that just because one disagrees, they have no idea of mankind's current belief system. You assume far to much with respect to that which you read, that others have written.

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:50 pm
by davidm
Is SpheresOfBalance Kens' sock? :?

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:51 pm
by davidm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:36 pm
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:13 pm No one here -- not I, not noax, not uwot, not thedoc -- claims "certain and complete knowledge," nor do any of us claim that a theory is anything but a defeasible model. In this very thread, I believe I've discussed the pessimistic meta-induction -- the idea that we ought to expect that all our current theories are false theories.

Take a sedative.
I'm referring to this moron, "Nope, doesn’t work." You acting as though your understanding of anothers "theories" are so necessarily correct that you can say such a thing, without even understanding what I meant!
I do understand what you meant. It's wrong. I explained why it was wrong.

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:53 pm
by davidm
I am also awaiting for you to point out where the stuff you quoted contradicts anything I wrote in this thread, as you claimed to be the case.

Waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...

*crickets*

Re: Relativity?

Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:53 pm
by davidm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:45 pm
uwot wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:33 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:25 pmYou can choose to be a clone or an original, it's up to you! And a clone you surely seem to be!
Spheres, people who take the trouble to familiarise themselves with current research are not clones, they just know what the facts are.
Wrong uwot, you're just assuming they are indeed facts, sure they are factual ...
:lol: