Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

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.
Incorrect, I was referring to him calling me "new" only. That he was wrong in doing do. You should read a little closer.


Will I also become the target of the ad-hom storm that seems to be going on?
Only if you keep on misrepresenting what one has meant! At least from me.

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.
No you guys have misunderstood completely. It was simply an example that one doesn't necessarily know the causals behind any particular change, unless they can eliminate all the variables. That one has to know of all the potential variables before they can come to a valid conclusion. It was a metaphor for the problems I see in the experiments supporting time dilation. And that's how simple it was.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:50 pm Is SpheresOfBalance Kens' sock? :?
Your fear is very apparent, as well as your confusion! ;-)
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax »

davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:41 pmI must beg to differ. Insults are not (necessarily) ad hom.
You're correct. It is not necessarily an ad-hom storm. But I find the language crossing a line of civility with a large percentage of the threads in which you participate. It carries a perception of immaturity. Fear not, there are far worse offenders on this site.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:51 pm
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.
You had no clue, as your response had nothing to do with what I said! Later when you finally did, you conceded! Keep up son, why so confused? Parrot maybe? Clone maybe?
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:53 pm 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*
You're a dumb bunny aren't you??? I only ever said that your response had nothing to do with my initial message. Keep up or go home, son!


Merry Christmas!!! ;-)
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:39 pm "Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe—a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[15][16] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[17] and Immanuel Kant,[18][19] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled." --wikipedia--

It would seem philosophers can't agree. Which is it?
Very well aware of this, thanks ...a "moron" like me is very well aware of Newton's view, Einstein's view, Leibniz's view, Kant's view and the view of others. The debate continues today over the substantivist v. relatationist view of spacetime.

Space and Time, ch.8, Norman Swartz
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:53 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:45 pm
uwot wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:33 pm 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:
That you cut when you did, shows that you're immature, like I've been saying all along! You can't win that way, son! ;-)


Ho, Ho, Ho, Merry Christmas!
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:05 am
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:53 pm 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*
You're a dumb bunny aren't you??? I only ever said that your response had nothing to do with my initial message. Keep up or go home, son!


Merry Christmas!!! ;-)
No, you specifically claimed that something you quoted contradicted what I had written in this thread. What me to rustle that up for you, sonny boy?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:08 am
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:53 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:45 pm
Wrong uwot, you're just assuming they are indeed facts, sure they are factual ...
:lol:
That you cut when you did, shows that you're immature, like I've been saying all along! You can't win that way, son! ;-)


Ho, Ho, Ho, Merry Christmas!
No, what I cut off spared you the embarrassment of not knowing the definition of a fact. I was trying to help you save a little face.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5593
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Noax wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:01 am
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:41 pmI must beg to differ. Insults are not (necessarily) ad hom.
You're correct. It is not necessarily an ad-hom storm. But I find the language crossing a line of civility with a large percentage of the threads in which you participate. It carries a perception of immaturity. Fear not, there are far worse offenders on this site.
Yes, I have proven to be one of those. You know losing my cool. Good thing you guys are behind keyboards so far away. Nope, scratch that, as I certainly would never have to worry about that with irritates me if it were otherwise. ;-) We'd all be very civil indeed! Each and everyone of us! ;-)

Happy Holidays!
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Noax wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:01 am
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:41 pmI must beg to differ. Insults are not (necessarily) ad hom.
You're correct. It is not necessarily an ad-hom storm. But I find the language crossing a line of civility with a large percentage of the threads in which you participate. It carries a perception of immaturity. Fear not, there are far worse offenders on this site.
Fair enough, I respect your opinion. I just wanted to clarify the difference between ad hom and insult. Ad hom specifically is a claim that some argument is false because of some characteristic (good or bad) of the person making the argument. This I haven't done.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:45 pmWrong 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.
I think you are confusing empirical facts with hypotheses. It is, for instance, absolutely a fact that atomic clocks which are put on aeroplanes and circumnavigate the globe, show different times to ones on the ground that they were previously synchronised with. That is not something which is believed, it is something which has been demonstrated. In other words, it is a fact. Who knows what the "universal truth" is? We can only deal with the empirical data, the facts of what demonstrably and consistently happens.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:45 pmAnd 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.
Well, if it were just a few people who had written it, you'd have a case, but it is absolutely everyone who has conducted an experiment that is sufficiently sophisticated, that has found results commensurate with the predictions of relativity. The premises claim that speed and gravity affect the rate at which events occur, and every test has produced results that support those hypotheses.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Noax wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:01 am
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:41 pmI must beg to differ. Insults are not (necessarily) ad hom.
You're correct. It is not necessarily an ad-hom storm. But I find the language crossing a line of civility with a large percentage of the threads in which you participate.
In fairness to myself, I would say that in a large percentage of the threads I participate, the language crossed a line of civility even before I joined.

But you make a fair point and I see this defect in myself. I'll try to do better in this respect.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:58 pm
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.
Incorrect, I was referring to him calling me "new" only. That he was wrong in doing do. You should read a little closer.
I think by "newest troll" he didn't mean recently joined the site, but perhaps 'newly joining into the dissenting side of this thread', but then my reply about the fallacy thing was misplaced. I indeed did not read carefully.

It is true that SR is inapplicable to reality which is non-empty, moving, accelerating at all times, gravity, curved, blah blah. SR assumes the absence of these things. Yet the twin thing is still completely valid, lacking all the GR details that would make differences in the 7th decimal place. Those 7 digits are incredibly important if I'm expecting to arrive at the correct planet at A-C, but they're pretty irrelevant to a 2-digit precision example that we've been going over.

Perhaps I missed your point as well about the slowed-clock thing, but it did ask how one could tell the difference, and I think I answered that.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:00 am
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:50 pm Is SpheresOfBalance Kens' sock? :?
Your fear is very apparent, as well as your confusion! ;-)
*trembling all over*
Post Reply