Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

davidm wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:08 am
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.
That one is aware or others views is not necessarily indicative of their understanding of those views. To some, it's just so much reading, oblivious of the implications.

The debate continues today over the substantivist v. relatationist view of spacetime.

Space and Time, ch.8, Norman Swartz
But that's putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. One has to first reconcile spacetime as a four dimensional continuum. If one builds their foundation on swampland they can only ever expect it to sink! But then they first have to understand that it is in fact swampland. ;-)
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

uwot wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pmWhat 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.
I guess, at the risk of giving some here the chance to cackle that relativity defenders can’t agree among themselves, I would have to disagree with this.

We do know the mechanism that drives time dilation. Your yourself have explained it.

It’s the invariance of the speed of light.

This can be elucidated differently.

One is the example of the light clock, which shows that all physical processes slow relative to a rest frame precisely because of the invariance of light speed.

Another is to agree that all clocks everywhere tick at the same rate in actuality (whatever that is) but in certain spacetime paths — such as that taken by a traveling twin relative to his cohort on earth — his path through the “time” part of spacetime is shorter than that of the “time” path of the twin on earth. So when they compare clocks back on earth they will find that the traveling twin has aged less and his clock reads less even though their clocks both ticked at the same rate. It seems to me that this is the way that Noax likes to put it.

Both explanations are absolutely equivalent, it seems to me. They are two different way of saying exactly the same thing.

If you mean we don’t know what the mechanism is in some broader metaphysical sense — why light, space and time have these particular properties and not others — then that is a different matter.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Relativity?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

uwot wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:14 am
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.
I understand that uwot. My only concern is what the actual causal was for the difference, that I see as only believed. That is until such time that I know all that was considered in coming to the conclusion they did.

Who knows what the "universal truth" is?
No one does yet, and that's often my point. But humanity keeps inching toward that endeavor slowly but surely. I just hate it when someone counts their chickens before they're hatched, (jumps to conclusions.)

We can only deal with the empirical data, the facts of what demonstrably and consistently happens.
Sure, but that which the empirical data is often said to prove, is not necessarily the only thing that it could be. That which it could be is oft limited by our knowing what it could possibly be.
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.
That means nothing, you should know that by now. A mob is not necessarily correct in their judgment, as all of humanity could equally be limited. Remember that once the majority believed the earth was flat, they were the authority. Do you really want me to start talking about religious dogma now? Galileo's, Copernicus's and others opposition of the past, that was considered the authority in their time. It would seem you haven't learned the lessons of history and mans selfishness very well.

The premises claim that speed and gravity affect the rate at which events occur, and every test has produced results that support those hypotheses.
Without isolation from other variables. Like I said years ago, the experiment won't be even partially complete in my mind, unless conducted far from planet earth, like on the way to and on the surface of Mars.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

I don't know why these people go on with this stuff. I think that I, uwot, Noax, and others have made clear that we do not regard theories as definitive truths. So what is the argument?

In the case of Ken, he has promised a TOE that is a definitive truth. But he never produces it.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax »

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?
I would have to favor the latter view in the light of the inability to objectively order events, but our lack of that ability does no imply events are not in fact ordered. They're different interpretations and there is not any hard evidence one way or the other.
I for one cannot separate space and time. The ability to rotate all for axes in 4-space is essential to my visualization of the relationships. If events are ordered, the time axis is in a fixed direction and all the other ones are wrong, however much the correct orientation is unknowable.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:03 am
davidm wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:51 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:36 pm
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!
Conceded what, now?
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am A mob is not necessarily correct in their judgment, as all of humanity could equally be limited. Remember that once the majority believed the earth was flat, they were the authority. Do you really want me to start talking about religious dogma now? Galileo's, Copernicus's and others opposition of the past, that was considered the authority in their time. It would seem you haven't learned the lessons of history and mans selfishness very well.
The findings of all these people are still taught in schools. F=MA still works today, and doesn't even require an asterisk. Their work laid the foundations which have been refined ever since. Don't think anybody is claiming the refinements are done, but I am claiming that any future models will be relativistic. The Earth will never be flat again. Sun going around Earth is still a valid interpretation. It's just a rotating reference frame with all the mathematical overhead that comes with that system.
The premises claim that speed and gravity affect the rate at which events occur, and every test has produced results that support those hypotheses.
Without isolation from other variables. Like I said years ago, the experiment won't be even partially complete in my mind, unless conducted far from planet earth, like on the way to and on the surface of Mars.
Must disagree. The variables are all accounted for. For the first time, they were able to compute planetary motion without fudge factors. Nothing would be learned halfway out to Mars which still is heavily in the significant gravitational fields of the Sun, galactic core, and finally the great attractor. GPS was not useful until they worked all the variables into the computations done in your personal device. Now they're as accurate as their ability to measure signal timings down to the 10-nanosecond level.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

davidm wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:29 am
uwot wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:12 pmWhat 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.
I guess, at the risk of giving some here the chance to cackle that relativity defenders can’t agree among themselves...
Fuck 'em. The point I've been trying to make is that we agree that clocks, and all other physical processes, slow down the faster the 'frame' they are in is moving and/or the stronger the gravitational well it is in. I would suggest that part of the reason we agree, is that we are familiar with the results of experiments and observations that demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that is what happens. It is only the real headbangers who insist that every test that demonstrates time dilation is wrong, or that everyone who reports such a test is part of a conspiracy or deluded mob.
We also agree that relativity quantifies that dilation to a very high degree of accuracy, for the simple reason that it demonstrably does.
davidm wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:29 am...I would have to disagree with this.
We can disagree about the mechanism all day long; it makes no difference to the fact that we accept the findings of experiments and the efficacy of the mathematical treatment.
davidm wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:29 amWe do know the mechanism that drives time dilation. Your yourself have explained it.

It’s the invariance of the speed of light.
That's not actually how I have explained it. I have made the point that the speed of light, as treated in special relativity, is invariant only in an idealised vacuum that we know does not exist, at least not in our universe. I have also made the point that the speed at which light actually travels is a product of the refractive index of the medium through which it is travelling, and that space is a medium with mechanical properties, that can be warped and twisted, as Einstein described in general relativity. The details are all in the blog/book: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am... My only concern is what the actual causal was for the difference, that I see as only believed. That is until such time that I know all that was considered in coming to the conclusion they did.
I have said many times that there are three elements to a physical theory.
1. The observations.
2. The mathematical analysis.
3. The causal hypothesis.

1 and 2 are critical. If you don't see what you expect to see, your theory is wrong. If the sums don't add up, your mathematical model is wrong. The causal hypothesis can be anything you like, provided it isn't contradicted by 1 or 2.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am...I just hate it when someone counts their chickens before they're hatched, (jumps to conclusions.)
Regardless of what any physicist thinks the "actual causal" is, for practical purposes they will make observations and predictions based on the mathematical tools that work best. It is not jumping to conclusions to believe that, for instance, the field equations of general relativity are effective; they demonstrably are.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am...that which the empirical data is often said to prove, is not necessarily the only thing that it could be. That which it could be is oft limited by our knowing what it could possibly be.
Indeed. No amount of empirical data, nor any degree of mathematical accuracy 'proves' any causal hypothesis.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am...A mob is not necessarily correct in their judgment, as all of humanity could equally be limited. Remember that once the majority believed the earth was flat, they were the authority. Do you really want me to start talking about religious dogma now? Galileo's, Copernicus's and others opposition of the past, that was considered the authority in their time. It would seem you haven't learned the lessons of history and mans selfishness very well.
Hmm. I have also made the point that the Ptolemaic model actually predicts the position of the planets to a surprising degree of accuracy. As above, the mathematical model works to a degree and the fact that the causal hypothesis is false doesn't change that.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am...Like I said years ago, the experiment won't be even partially complete in my mind, unless conducted far from planet earth, like on the way to and on the surface of Mars.
It's being done as we speak. It's how the boffins keep track of Voyagers 1 and 2: https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax »

I think I figured out a plausible model. It is the Copenhagen interpretation of the age of twins.
Relativity says that when the twins part company, it is ambiguous which one is older. It is frame dependent. But they're twins which (as ken pointed out) are known to be the same age when their age can be unambiguously compared, which is when they consciously see each other when they meet again.

The solution is obvious. Twins have entangled existence unlike any other pair of humans (such as the two women newly impregnated on the day before departure, the highest-precision human-clock I could envision). Their actual ages become a probabilistic thing which can be computed from a wave-goodbye function. When the twins meet again, the wave-goodbye function will collapse to an actual age and both will have aged either 140 days or 8.6 years or maybe somewhere between, but their age will match regardless. Spooky action at no-distance.
There is also the MTI (multi-twin-interpretation) where all possible outcomes are the case in different worlds, but that's just getting silly.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Noax wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:19 pm I think I figured out a plausible model. It is the Copenhagen interpretation of the age of twins.
Relativity says that when the twins part company, it is ambiguous which one is older. It is frame dependent. But they're twins which (as ken pointed out) are known to be the same age when their age can be unambiguously compared, which is when they consciously see each other when they meet again.

The solution is obvious. Twins have entangled existence unlike any other pair of humans (such as the two women newly impregnated on the day before departure, the highest-precision human-clock I could envision). Their actual ages become a probabilistic thing which can be computed from a wave-goodbye function. When the twins meet again, the wave-goodbye function will collapse to an actual age and both will have aged either 140 days or 8.6 years or maybe somewhere between, but their age will match regardless. Spooky action at no-distance.
There is also the MTI (multi-twin-interpretation) where all possible outcomes are the case in different worlds, but that's just getting silly.
:D

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
ken wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 3:42 pm
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmDo you even know what an inertial reference frame (IRF) is?
No.
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmThe frame of X is the frame in which X is stationary. Our traveler is stationary by definition in his own frame,
Now I do know how you define 'inertial reference frame'. Thank you.
This definition is older than Galileo.


That could depend on what you use to reference.

The definition of 'education' is said to be even older.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pmYou've not even picked up the most rudimentary textbook , or at least not comprehended even the terms used.
Was I meant to?

Textbooks, and 'education' in its current usage, can and have to some degree already severely distorted reality. Some times just looking at what IS, instead of textbooks, will provide a much greater and much more clearer and thus better picture of reality, than any current education could ever give.

Terms used, can get changed significantly, so that is why I made it quite clear that I now know how YOU define 'inertial reference frame'.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pmThe frame is inertial if X does not accelerate. Otherwise it is the accelerating reference frame of X. Special Relativity covers the special case of only inertial frames. General relativity includes non-inertial frames among other things.
Is there any actual "special case" of any actual existing inertial frame at all?

Or were the special case of only inertial frames only thought up and used for the thought experiments, themselves?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
What do you think My view is?
Apparently abject ignorance, disguised as open-mindedness. It would be a closed-minded act to actually learn a few terms and learn what experiments have been used to verify/falsify the descriptions from said rudimentary texts. This is what I think you view is, and I have nearly 50+ pages of evidence to back it up.
Well I have NEVER viewed learning as being, as you call it, "closed-minded" at all.

You may well have nearly 50+ pages of evidence to back up what you THINK My view is, but you would have a great deal of trouble finding any evidence at all to back up that My view IS; learning is a "closed-minded act".

In fact the very opposite could be said to be true.

Just repeating what others have said and/or written is a sad reflection of what the current education systems teach is learning. Copying and repeating what others have said and/or written more accurately is what sadly some people think is learning, and the more accuracy one person just repeats or copies what others before have already said and/or written, then it is perceived by some, very depressingly, that that person has learned more.

The greatest learners in Life are the ones that who are the truly open, and they are those human beings who have NOT copied nor repeated what others have said and written yet. The ones who have learned, copied, and who believe, are the closed ones.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm While going nowhere, A-C takes 70 days to come to him.
From who's perspective?
From the perspective of the frame. I see you've cut that part off.
You see that I have cut WHAT part off?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm The frame does not require there to be an observer, a human, or any other object, for it to be true that A-C comes to a stationary point in that frame after 70 days.
Well from the sense that THE FRAME has bugger at all to do with reality, then what you said here makes sense.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
A traveler who sees that they are stationary and see alpha centauri moving towards them, right?
A traveler cannot 'see' that he is stationary. There is no known test for it. This was also known before Galileo, and is part of the principle of relativity. Look it up. Oh right... Open minded people don't cloud their openness with principles known centuries ago.
"Principles" like the sun revolving around the earth and the earth is flat were "known" centuries ago also. Do you still follow and believe those principles, or did those "principles" change? Just to make it clear to you, some of the "principles" "known" today will change also. And, just maybe it is some of those "principles" that you believe and follow today that WILL BE the ones that change also. Unless of course you are so closed that you believe that the principles of today could NOT possibly change.

Also, is it only Me who can see how human beings will pick and choose what "principles" to accept and follow, which "somehow" conveniently supports what they ALREADY accept and believe is true also?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
But let us use your 70 day scenario, and let us say one day is 24 hours. If the traveler sleeps once for eight hours each day, eats and urinates three times each day, and defecates and showers once per day, then how often does the traveler sleep, eat, urinate, defecate, and shower when alpha centauri "moves" closer to them?

AND, would those answers be different from what a human being on earth, and/or on alpha centauri, would observe?
He does those things 70 or 210 times in that 70 days, just like the human on earth does in 70 days.
So, do you really think that a human being could actually be traveling at a speed but still be actually stationary? If so, to you, if a human being could travel at a speed fast enough, while actually being stationary, they could cover a distance of let us say more than four light years in just 70 days?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm The experience would be the same if the Earth guy was in a similar unpowered life-support craft following Earth orbit. The guy actually on Earth has different experience since he has weight there, so the best comparison is the control guy in a ship staying nearby Earth.
Every person has different experiences from each other no matter what. Because of the way ALL people are separated there are no two people who share the exact same experiences.

What do you mean by 'control' guy, and, best comparison to what exactly?
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm It would take 4.3 years perhaps in your view, and perhaps somebody's clock is not measuring actual time due to not being actually stationary.
In My view, no person nor clock is actually stationary.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
ALL of My questions from now on will be in relation to travelers and distances, and NOT any inertial frame of reference, unless otherwise stipulated. It is the 'inertial reference frame' that causes the contradictory, inconsistent, and confusing views people form regarding this. ALL My questions will be 'frame independent'.
You're not going to like the answers then.
How do you KNOW?

Is it sort of like a reflection thing going on here, because you do NOT like My answers, and/or questioning, that you then think that I will NOT like your answers?

Some of your answers I truly love because they show Me how to better illustrate where confusion is caused and how confusion comes about. Because you very carefully choose your words to accurately fit in with what you have previously said far more than others do I can use your answers to My advantage.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
But IS the traveler stationary or only said to be stationary?
Undefined without a frame.
Will you provide examples of different frames where you say a traveler IS stationary and where you say a traveler is only said to be stationary.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm You are moving perhaps 1500mph relative to the guy on the opposite side of the world. Both are 'said to be stationary', so which is right? Absent a frame, it is undefined.
But who would say that? I would NEVER say one nor both is stationary. When I am looking at what IS, there is NO stationary, besides one thing. But getting to the point of discussing that thing with others is still a long way off yet.

To you, is there such a thing as IS stationary, from a real and actual frame? Or, when talking about 'frames' is it always only about 'SAID TO BE ...'?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
So, only from the perspective of a "stationary traveler" this is said to be what is observed? Just to make it clear that is NOT what I would observe. But, I do NOT observe all the same things that human beings do. For example I do NOT observe alpha centauri coming towards the traveling traveler and observer.
Assuming you equate 'perspective' to inertial frame, yes.
And until some thing has actually been observed, then it is only SAID, or in other words only ASSUMED, that is what is or will be observed, right? To Me, until an actual inertial frame is ever experienced what will be observed is only an assumption.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm I don't get the last 4 words. What's the 'observer' that seems to be neither you (presumably on Earth) nor the traveler?
Apologies for not properly qualifying for you again.

The 'observer' is just the traveling traveler. I was just making it clear, clumsily, that the traveler was also observing.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
When I write the word IMAGINE, does that word get completely overlooked? If so, WHY?

What is it with human beings and NOT being able to IMAGINE? Have some of you completely lost the ability to IMAGINE?
Fine. I imagine a human unable to witness the history of the universe-singularity in his final moment.
That does not have much at all to do with what we are talking about, but if that is what you imagine, then so be it.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
You are so OFF TRACK now, which honestly I am not following, this is becoming nearly unbelievable. Your assumptions and/or beliefs have led you so far astray from what I have been actually discussing and questioning that your reply here, to what you quoted Me as saying, is nearly beyond understanding.
Don't recall quoting you in what I said in the thing to which you're replying here.
I did NOT say, you were quoting Me IN what you said, but rather, I said, what you quoted Me AS saying.

There is a difference. Although, noticeably, some would not have noticed it.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm You had asked what it was like to move fast.
Did I?

I said; I am pretty sure this questioning and answering discussion would be a lot easier if people could just imagine that human beings and clocks COULD travel at the speed of light.

To which you immediately replied; A human, or any other object with rest mass, CANNOT reach that speed, but can (and is) arbitrarily close to it.

I had also wrote: If any person wants to stay with that imagined scenario, then please acknowledge that so then I could ask you the very simple question, and following clarifying questions.

I am still waiting for a person to acknowledge that they want to stay with that IMAGINED scenario. Some one might have already acknowledge that, but because I am very slow I have not yet read all replies yet.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm I came up with an example of you having done just that. It feels completely ordinary, as it must.
But you just wrote that you do not recall quoting Me in what you said, in the thing to which I was replying. You said you were asked what it was like to move fast, besides the fact that this is NOT what was asked, you still HOWEVER did actually quote Me in what you said if we are to accept what you just said here, which is, I came up with an example of YOU having done just that.

If you come up with an example of Me having just done some thing, then are you quoting Me in what you said or not?

Also, I had NOT asked what it was like to move fast. You were answering a question that you assumed was asked. In fact a tremendous amount of the actual questions I ask do NOT get answered. And, instead what people usually reply to is what they assume is being said and/or asked.

And, if when you wrote, "I see you've cut that part off" you were referring to writings, then when, and if, these writings are looked back upon, then just how much of others writings I have 'cut off', and therefore not replied to how much others have 'cut off' of My writings and not replied to can and will be seen.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
If, as you propose, "humans are not accurate enough clocks to measure the difference", then what that really means is NO actual twin experiment has been done, nor finalized, right?
It has been done with humans, and due to poor precision of measuement of human aging, nothing was falsified by that particular data, despite being verified by the clocks they brought with them.
So, again the clocks supposedly verified some thing but they obviously did NOT verify that human bodies age differently, right? Unless of course some people have already made, and thus jumped to, the conclusion that human bodies and/or ALL physical process age slower with speed, because clocks are said to "do" that, right?

Although there is NO actual evidence, yet, some human beings will still accept and/or believe that human bodies will age slower with speed?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmPhysical processes dilate with motion.
'Motion', relative to WHAT EXACTLY?
Any frame.
Is there such an actual real thing as a 'stationary' or 'inertial' frame?

Is there such an actual real thing as a 'stationary point' or 'inertial point' in a frame?

If so, does it exist outside of thought and/or imagination or only in thought and/or imagination?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmThis has been demonstrated.
To who?
To those who ran the falsification experiments, and those who care to read the reports of their findings.
But what you propose has NOT been demonstrated to all people who have cared to read the reports of their findings. The unconscious biases, which existed, and the confirmation biases, which affected the results are obvious to some. The only thing that has been demonstrated to some is that some human beings will accept and believe any thing.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Has it been demonstrated to you via first hand experience?
Why should that matter?
My question was not in regards to if it should matter or not. Is there any thing whatsoever that really matters? I was just wondering if it had been demonstrated to you via first hand experience or not.

I base My ability to know some thing with more accuracy on first hand experience than I do just on what others say or write down. I can express what I observe with accuracy, (but obviously what if what I observe is accurate or not is another matter). I can not, however, accurately express what others observe.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm I have no first hand experience of a round Earth, so you're saying I should have zero reason to believe it is round?
That is exactly NOT what I am saying.

Why did you even begin to assume that?

If you do NOT clarify what I am saying, then you will always only ever be assuming, and like now some times getting it completely.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
If it is the latter, then are you just accepting things on what other people tell you?
Yes. We call it an education. Without one, you'd be unable to survive a week.
You may call that an education. I do NOT.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Also, does you using the word 'demonstrated' mean that this an indisputable proven fact, which would also, to you, mean that there really is no use discussing it any further?
No, my usage of the word doesn't mean that.
Fair enough. What does 'demonstrated' mean to you?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
But, according to you, and contradictorily the occupants age would slow down with "stationary traveling" speed, ...
No. Never said that. A stationary person ages normally.
'Normally' to WHAT exactly?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
so the faster the occupant goes to another planet, (or, as you would say, the faster an occupant stays stationary and the other planet goes to the occupant)
Faster an occupant stays stationary???? No, I would not say that. Stationary means not moving. Staying 'here', wherever your 'here' happens to be.
Again My apologies for NOT properly being able to qualify for you. I meant when the "stationary traveler" is "traveling" 'at a faster speed' than another speed, ...
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
the occupants life would slow down, or "extend", and therefore the trip could NOT take longer than the life of the occupant, right?
Not right. All kinds of wrongness pointed out.
Instead of just saying, "All kinds of wrongness pointed out", would you like to clarify or elaborate on even just some of the "ALL kinds of wrongness"?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm The trip in practice would take long because we lack the technology to even leave the solar system.
Obviously I have to KEEP stipulating EVERY minor detail to you so that you can stay with what I am talking about, even though we ARE discussing a trip that you say would take 70 days from the frame of the traveler.

WHY when you want to look at traveling to places, which human beings never have traveled before, and you already have an answer for that, like the answer of 70 days, then you will use that. But, when it comes to answering further clarifying questions in regards to the EXACT SAME THING, then you will say but it is NOT POSSIBLE or IN PRACTICE WOULD TAKE LONG BECAUSE WE LACK THE TECHNOLOGY TO EVEN LEAVE THE SOLAR SYSTEM.

NOT being able to leave the solar system did not stop you before coming up with the "70 days" answer. But now it does stop you answering further questions. Why?

At current times do human beings have the technology to take the trip in just 70 days, from ANY frame?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm Oh sure, they've flung Voyager beyond that, but it isn't carrying a life support system.
Who really cares?

And in the not to distant future, from where you currently are, human beings are carrying what you call "life support systems" even further distances. But this also has not much at all to do with the questions I was asking you, which are,
If a human being was traveling at a speed, which is what we were talking about, that allowed them to travel a distance of over four light years, which you say would only take 70 days, and let us say that this human being lived for 100 years, then, in "theory", they could travel a distance of about 2000 light years in their lifetime, which is a far greater distance than the four light years that you were proposing that the human being could not last for.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
You, in your "current" time, might actually believe that you lack the resources to travel to another star, or lack the resources to get the star to travel to you, but you do NOT lack the resources, the only thing you lack is using the resourcefulness of imagination.
I did it the imagination way. It took 70 days one way. 70 more if they've got a wicked trampoline over there to bounce him back.
So, what part was imagined and what part is what would really happen?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmunless you declare that the human body, alone among all physical processes in the universe, is immune to this and is special.
A very stupid thing to think, assume, and/or say. WHY did you write that?
Maybe because of this:
But I have NEVER stated anywhere that the human body, alone among all physical processes in the Universe, is immune to physical dilation and is special. You really need to stop assuming and/or believing that that is what I am saying. It is not helping you to clarify and elaborate on what you believe is true.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
The scenario where one human twin actually leaves earth, travels, and comes back would actually reveal if the age of one of them slows relative to the other. Until then it is only an assumption.
Yes, very stupid thing think to think otherwise, that the traveler would age 8.6 years in only 140 days, but since nobody has tried this, an open minded person would not assume that the guy would age only 140 days in those 140 days.
Of course an open person would NOT assume that. For the very fact that the 140 days has NOT yet been proven and shown to true and correct. Therefore, it is NOT yet verified.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm Got it. Sorry, I'm closed minded. I assume, without evidence, that a person will age 140 days in 140 days, barring radiation poisoning or some other environmental malady that brings one to an early demise.
Considering it is you that says one person ages 8.6 years, another person ages about 6.2 days, and another person will age 140 days in the exact same 140 days period, depending on where they are, then the assumption you make here seems rather more contradictory. If you were to stipulate that just one person, that is the traveler, when you assumed will age 140 days in 140 days, then that is a bit more reasonable than not stipulating that at all. Although, and which has already been stated, the 140 days is still only a presumption anyway. So, there is a fair amount of assuming going on here from some.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
So, a traveler does NOT move, and other things move towards to a traveler, is that what you believe is correct?
Frame dependent question.
Okay.

Is, how long does it take light to travel from alpha centauri to earth, a frame dependent question also?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmThere is no 'appear' in relativity.
What you see, is what 'appears', to you.
What I see, is what 'appears', to Me.
Right. Theory of Relativity doesn't change that. The principle of relativity actually asserts that in fact.
So, we agree on the principle of relativity.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pmThe thought experiments do not involve perceptions. The 'observers' are instruments that detect signals and distance and such.
What do you mean "thought experiments" do not involve perceptions?
Exactly what I just said there.
I thought 'thought experiments' would involve mental concepts or perceptions of what would happen, and which those experiments are usually used when physical experiments are not, yet, possible. But you are saying, thought experiments do not involve perceptions.

I MUST BE once again WRONG, from your perspective, right?

Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
That is ONLY what might happen. You are ONLY presuming that is what would happen. That is ONLY your assumption, which is based solely on your own past experiences. Without first hand experience you can NOT accurately tell Me what will be seen, and, even with first hand experience you can only tell Me what you saw. You still can NOT accurately tell Me what I would see.
Yes, you have already expressed denial of science above. We get it. It would get in the way of being open minded.
I have NEVER expressed denial of science.

Your are once again making an assumption, and, once again making a completely WRONG assumption. You take what I say, twist it around and turn it into whatever you assume and/or want to believe I am saying, and then you BELIEVE what you are saying IS TRUE.

Being as closed as you are, you unable to obtain My true and real view of things.

Noax wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:37 pm
Also, has the actual test been carried out and the actual person doing the experiment verified that this is WHAT HAPPENS?

This is only what is assumed to happen because it has NEVER been tested, right?
Nobody has been accelerated to .999c relative to Earth if that is what you're asking, but the experiment has been done at lower speeds, yes. And verified.
That was NOT what I was asking.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
What was the name of that experiment that has been done at lower speeds, which you say was verified?
Hafele–Keating experiment was an early one. You bring it up below, so you already know about it. So why ask again?
Did I?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
And, what was the name of the human being who done the experiment at lower speeds and who you say verified that experiment?
His age measurement was of insufficient precision to use as verification.


Okay.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Okay, now, I understand that an 'inertial frame' is stationary.
No, it is not stationary. It is a reference against which the velocity of any object can be expressed. The frame itself has no velocity (stationary or otherwise) except in relation to say another frame. So the traveler is (by definition) stationary in his own frame, but the frame is not itself stationary or not-stationary.
Will you explain more of what this 'frame' is supposedly meant to be?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
I do "what" every day?
Travel at .999c
Nothing remarkable about it except to say there exists some frame in which your speed is .999c
Will you give an example of a 'frame' in which My speed could possibly be .999c of?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Is there such a thing as an 'extraordinary experience', to you?
I think aging 4.3 years in 70 days would be pretty freaky, just to name something off the top of my head. In a year I might be dead at that pace.
But have you not expressed that a human being on earth would age 4.3 years in the frame of a traveler who traveled for 70 days at .999c for about 4.3 light years in distance.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
I am curious now to know how you KNOW what My view IS, AND, also to know what you think My view IS.
I have revised my assessment of your view, expressed up at the top. Sorry to presume something else.
You do not have to be sorry. I would just like your open and honest views.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
And the part about 'dilation' was "verified" by one experiment involving two planes traveling in opposite directions around the earth, right?
That was one test, yes.
Was that the first test that "verified" 'dilation'?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
So, no matter what THEY told you, as long as it sounded believable enough, you would just accept those findings, is that right?
Depends on the reputation of the teller, but I think you have that covered by the 'sounded believable enough' qualification.


Yes 'reputation' is a very important part of accepting and believing.

For example a human being who is given the label "professor" is usually listened to and believed far more about a subject than just an ordinary 'person' is, although the one labelled 'ordinary person' may KNOW far more than any one labelled "professor" ever has.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pmExperimental results are not accepted without verification done by another party and thus carry far more weight that say other things I'm told that are not even findings at all.
There is no dispute that the more parties that verify some thing, then what is being verified would more likely be more accurate. However, just because another party or parties have verified the same thing that in of itself does NOT make it completely nor more accurate. Human beings can have both conscious and unconscious biases, which both tend to direct people to only finding and seeing what confirms their biases. For example there once was a story about how EVERYONE believed the earth was flat, and if you were to ask any of those people, then they ALL would have "verified" and accepted that the earth was flat. But, as the moral of the story goes, just because ALL people accept and believe some thing, even with supposedly "verified evidence", then that just maybe NOT what IS the truth.

So called "experimental results" can be "verified" by another party, or by many parties, who ALL have the same unconscious, or conscious, biases in the beginning, with these biases effecting, or confirming, the "actual" results. There are even some human beings who actually use others, and what others say, as being the sole source for "verifiable proof" of what they, themselves, already accept and believe is true.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Have you ever considered that some times people word things in a way, which sound believable, in order to get others to accept and/or follow them and what they say?
Yes, but what if the believable thing isn't worded in some sort of pursuasive accept-this kind of way?
Is there some sort of way to word some believable thing that is not a persuasive accept-this kind of way?

If so, will you provide any examples?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm How to divine the purpose of the things the person is saying then?
I want to answer this question as accurately as I can, but I first need to know what do you mean by 'divine' here?

To keep the discussion moving, and I replaced 'divine' with 'know', (but correct Me if that is to far off track), then the answer is it is easy if and when you are completely open. Being fully open allows you to know, see, and understand the purpose of the things the person is saying.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Could you be just another one of those multitude of followers and/or believers of others?
For a sheep, I think I'm pretty good at spotting the stories that are lies.
But what about if the person telling the stories that are lies does not even know they are lies, is it just as easy to spot those stories?

I would think if a person is telling stories that are lies but does not in any way know that they are lying, then that in some cases would be far more difficult to spot and recognize.
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm I know some pretty subtle ones put out by some incredibly effective liars.
They can not be to effective a liar if they can be spotted. Or do you mean that some people who tell stories that are liars, even if those liars are pretty subtle, and that are effective of fooling some or a majority of people you can spot?

What about those very subtle liars that are told by some people who do not even know they are telling liars, of which they are so effective that you have not even spotted, yet, could it be possible that some one else might be able to spot them? Or, that is just not possible?

Could you and others be being fooled here, without any of you even realizing, yet?

Could a liar have started so long ago and be told so convincingly for so long that people do not even know this?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm No, don't ask. An open-minded person cannot understand, lest a stance actually be taken.
But one who is very open understands completely WHY human beings have learned to take a stance.

There is NO actual need for 'taking a stance', and in all truth that is actually leading to human beings own downfall. But who am I to point out that the BELIEF; that one HAS TO 'believe' (or 'take a stance') is doing that very thing. I have absolutely NO reputation, and if the truth be known I am actually nobody anyway, so who would or even want to listen to Me?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
Also, if you are proposing that 'absolute time' has been empirically verified as absolutely true and correct, then what IS 'absolute time'?
It has been falsified, not verified.
So, do you accept and believe that there is no actual 'time', itself?

If so, then how do you tell others this? What do you say to them?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm If there were actual time, there would be an actual amount of time it takes for light to get from Earth to A-C, as opposed to all these different frame-dependent answers.
So, what do you say about all those people and "textbooks" that say and suggest that light takes an actual and certain amount of time to get from one place to another, for example from the sun to earth? Would it be better if they explain that there are many different frame-dependent answers? Would it be better that students are asked "from what frame are you asking" when they ask questions like, How long does it take light to get from the sun to earth?

Or, could there be any possibility at all that in ALL truth and reality there really is in fact only ONE frame, from which EVERY thing belongs in and with?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pmNo, I am not suggesting that this is your view. My assessment of your view is expressed above.
Is that assessment fixed or changeable?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:02 pm
AND, just as I said, the "data" you use, which, is fixed light speed, does NOT demonstrate what you are presuming and presupposing happens.
Says the guy who won't work it out.
WHAT will I supposedly not work out?

If I do NOT accept and agree with your understanding of things, then does that mean I have not worked "it" out?

Could it be possible that I have worked things out differently than you have, which has led to a very different outcome than what you have "worked out" or maybe have just read and copied, so the only real difference is I just observe things differently, and thus just have a very different view from yours?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

gaffo wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 am
ken wrote: Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:48 pm
So, to you, a clock can 'experience' time as long as it is not moving as fast as the speed of light, right?
according to Einstein's theory of Relativity.
I thought according to einstein's theory of special relativity einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers. I did not realize that according to einstein's theory of realitivity clocks can experience time.
gaffo wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 amI see no reason to reject it since latter empirical evidence has only - since 1918 Solar Eclipse in Brazil - and many latter (Mazon's anyone?) obversations only serve to affirm is a Real/Reality/Truth (of a sort - of the kind within the limits of mankind's mental capacity/nature). a partial "truth" if you will.
Does it HAVE TO be one or the other, that is accept it OR reject it?

Is there, to you, no middle ground one could stand?

Also, I can see a very good reason to reject that a clock could experience time. For example, if there is no such actual thing as 'time' existing, then there would not be a thing that could experience that which does not exist.
gaffo wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 amI read all your replies to me in this post and you come off as a flippant troll, interested in getting some hackles/rankles from the naive (rather than one interested in conversing and communicating about our mutual existence in this place we call life).
Well I obviously come off, to you, exactly the opposite of what I was doing. That is I was sharing some of My views, and, asking clarifying questions to your views. If I do not come off as interested in conversing and communicating about our mutual existence in this place we call Life, then do you have any advice how I could come across as being interested in that. I thought asking questions about how, TO YOU, you see things would be showing interest in conversing and communicating. But maybe when you use the words 'mutual existence' you mean only what we mutually agree on. Is this what you meant?

I am pretty sure I am NOT interested in getting some hackles/rankles from the naive. What are hackles/rankles, by the way?
gaffo wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 amso fk you. my time if more valuable than playing Troll games with an adolescent with more time on this hands than sense or simple social decency.
If 'so fk you' means 'so fuck you', then is that a mature simple social decent thing to do?

By the way, if 'so fk you' means 'so fuck you', then why did you not just write that?
gaffo wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 amgood day and good bye.
Take care and good day and good bye also.
gaffo wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 amwelcome to talk when you are able, until then you shall be ignored my me. My time is not worth wasting on trolls.
When would I know when I was able to talk? Would it be when I was AGREEING more, or wholeheartedly, with you, or some thing else?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 pm
thedoc wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:25 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2017 2:16 am My time is not worth wasting on trolls.
Good for you.
Of course he's a troll.
This is the at the third person who has said I am a troll. What is a 'troll'?
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 pm I think Lacewing has done the best as describing his motivations.
It never thought to any one to just ask and clarify what My actual motivations are? Instead let us just look at the person and all just take guesses and make assumptions about what My motivations are, and then we will decide who has best described what My motivations really are?
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 pmActually wanting to know these answers is obviously not it.
Is that what is obvious, to you?

Just because I do NOT accept ALL of the answers you provide, and you are clearly unwilling or unable to answer further clarifying questions that I ask, then making assumptions about not wanting to know the answers you give might be completely untrue. Just maybe I want you to show the answers you provide and for you to clearly state that they are the most correct and true answers we have, not just so that I know those answers but so ALL the people who read this KNOW that these are the answers you give.
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 pmFunny that I persist. Perhaps I have a different purpose in replying than naively expecting ken to suddenly seem to understand something.
Just maybe the things that you think I should be understanding are the very things that I want you to say are true and correct.

From what I have seen EVERY generation of human beings that I have observed believe that they have the true and correct knowledge, and that it was the previous generations who were wrong, that is until one day when one comes along and shows otherwise, then that one is suddenly put upon a "pedestal", and then it seems like that no matter what that one has said it is true and right. This applies for all generations, and this generation is certainly no different at all in this regard.
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 pm
ken wrote:I supposedly just do not get "WHAT" exactly?
See? Just a taunt, even changing the meaning of the the words from the post it answers. Davidm, I think ken perhaps does get it, but pretends not to just to push your buttons.
HOW did I change the meaning of the words from the post it answers?

I just used eight very simple straight forward words to ask a very simple straight forward question, how can that change the meaning of other words? Maybe if you gave some examples I, and some others, would then KNOW what you are actually talking about.

Just because you and davidm supposedly "get some thing" then does that mean and/or do you expect ALL others to "get it" also?
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 pm
davidm wrote:BTW, the twin's "paradox" experiment has actually been conducted, as I described upthread, which you predictably ignored.There are actually in real life twin astronauts. One orbited the earth and aged less than his twin on earth.
This is admittedly begging, and ken seems not to know how to express that other than foaming-mouth repetition of the same questions.
What does 'begging' mean to you?

And, if I said, davidm you are 'begging', then do you really think or believe that would be the end to davidm's belief that there has been an actual twin experiment conducted?
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:04 pm They know about relativity, computed the relative motions of the twins, and put out the difference computation of the durations of their existence. Said duration difference was a consequence of relativity, but a measurement of the person's age was not used as a verification of it. It just naively assumes that a twin in space still ages at the pace of one day per day, something that ken apparently finds implausible.
NO I do NOT find that implausible.

You are the one who finds it implausible that human beings do NOT age slower with speed.

Your 'one day per day' wording is obviously an attempt at trying to mislead others. Just like those very subtle stories of lies that try to manipulate others into believing some thing that is NOT true. Just some people are unaware that they are lying. Some people just do not even know when they are lying.

I know about relativity, and I know that said "duration difference" was a said "consequence" of said "relativity", and you are right in that said "duration difference" naively assumes that any human body in space WILL NOT age at the same pace as a human body on earth, because to said "consequence" of said "relativity" one day at speed and/or in space is NOT one day on earth. To you, clocks adjust themselves according to what speed they are traveling and/or to what distance they are from earth, correct? And, from that conclusion, to some, that means that ALL physical things dilate also, according to clocks dilation.

Assuming that a living organism will react the exact same way a human made clock does, is some thing I will NOT assume. When, and IF, the actual evidence that the human body ages slower with speed and/or gravity is provided, then I will take a look at that. Until then I will just wait.
uwot
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

ken wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:43 amCopying and repeating what others have said and/or written more accurately is what sadly some people think is learning, and the more accuracy one person just repeats or copies what others before have already said and/or written, then it is perceived by some, very depressingly, that that person has learned more.
I don't know what sort of school you went to, but in all the ones I went to, we were shown and performed experiments so that we didn't have to take the teacher's word for it, we could see for ourselves.
The motto of The Royal Society (who all great British scientists get elected to: Isaac Newton. Michael Faraday. Charles Darwin. James Clark Maxwell. Stephen Hawking are some you might have heard of) is Nullius in verba-take no ones word for it.
One of the few philosophers of science that scientists actually listened to was Karl Popper. He came up with falsificationism, the idea that hypotheses and theories can never be proven true. They can, however, be proved wrong, so an important part of science is to test theories on the assumption that it will break; at which point, you can see were the cracks occurred and rebuild the theory to make it stronger, or start from scratch.
You don't get a Noble Prize for proving something we already know.

I could go on, but one of the problems identified by Popper is that some theories are unfalsifiable. No matter how many times adherents are proved wrong, they will just reshape their theory to accommodate the evidence, or they will simply ignore it. And that, ken, is exactly what you do. Which is ironic, because you have persuaded yourself that it's the other way round:
ken wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:43 amBeing as closed as you are, you unable to obtain My true and real view of things.
But then, we could see it a mile off. This was over a month ago:
uwot wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am
ken wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pmTime does NOT dilate, nor does length contract just because a human being observer is traveling. The "scientific" evidence for this, which you are probably looking for and seeking, will come soon enough.
You might as well get it over with. I suspect it will be chewed up and spat out by four or five of us in under two paragraphs. After which, you will sulk and accuse us of not being open-minded, or indoctrinated by some quasi-religious cabal of scientific conspirators.
But then, perhaps you are the exception. Whaddya got, ken?
If you are the exception, it's about time you showed it, rather than trot out the same old bollocks that cranks everywhere trade in.
Post Reply