## Einstein on the train

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2059
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:08 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:41 am Ten, 10 would be expressed as 1.0 x 10¹. But is only 'precise' to 0.5. That is less precise. 18 m/s² would be just false of the definition of a gravitational field acceleration rate at sea level without using some other measure other than the "m" for meters and "s" for seconds. Those units matter too in the expression.
Do you think you have a framework in which to quantify the concept of ''precision' without ending up in circularities?

The general form of 1.0 x 10¹ is: significant * base ^ exponent

10 = 1.0 x 10¹
11 = 1.1 x 10¹
16 = 1.6 x 10¹
20 = 2.0 x 10¹

Because 1.1 = 1 when you ROUND DOWN then it follows 10 = 11
BECAUSE 1.6 = 2.0 when you ROUND UP then it follows that 16 = 20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic
The Most significant digit is the left for English speaking, the Least significant digit is on the right.
Accuracy is to the most where precision is to the least.

For different architectures it depends on your electronic design: see Little-endian vs. Big-endian. This is true of the assignment of integers as well as floats. AND they differ in formats for the integer representing only the fraction part usually (but not necessary) and the exponent. 103.849034 is moved to 0.103849034 exp3, changed to binary, etc.

What is the purpose here? What are you confused about the measure of gravity? I showed you that you CAN use the UNIVERSAL gravitational constant if it bugs you that the specific one varies. But I don't think you seem to know the difference.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Einstein on the train

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:17 pm The Most significant digit is the left for English speaking, the Least significant digit is on the right.
Again - you are missing the point and nit-picking.

I am not talking about endianness.

I am asking why you have CHOSEN to round 9.81 up to 9.8 and stopped there. Why didn't you round up 9.8 to 10?

The most significant digit in English IS the left digit. So 9.8 is 10.
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:17 pm Accuracy is to the most where precision is to the least.
You have still failed to address my point about precision. Quantify 'precision'.

And for as long as you keep making arbitrary choices that you can't justify, I am going to keep beating you over the head with them.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2059
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

logik, we don't need to stay on Willy's thread for this. Let's give his thread a break. It's drifting way off topic.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Einstein on the train

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:22 pm logik, we don't need to stay on Willy's thread for this. Let's give his thread a break. It's drifting way off topic.
Cool. Start a thread in which you explain why 9.81 is approximately 9.8, but it is NOT approximately 10
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:08 amComputer scientists have figured out how communication works.
How developing languages form nothing works.
We have strategies for navigating around ambiguity, semantics and all the tomfoolery that plagues human interaction.
We know how to transmit information from one human mind to another while there's so much noise in our communication mediums.
We know how to build consensus form near-zero shared knowledge.

We KNOW HOW to agree. IF you understand the rules of "The Game' e.g Turing completeness/Logic and a handful of basic algorithms/strategies for problem-solving.
That has been the goal of rationalist philosophers and logicians from Parmenides, through Descartes and up to the modern day. Everyone knows that if there were a perfect language and perfect logical system then, properly applied, anyone who accepts the premises is compelled to accept the conclusions. But:
Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:08 amThere is no such thing as 'universally accessible text'.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:23 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:22 pm logik, we don't need to stay on Willy's thread for this. Let's give his thread a break. It's drifting way off topic.
Cool. Start a thread in which you explain why 9.81 is approximately 9.8, but it is NOT approximately 10
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Einstein on the train

uwot wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:29 pm
Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:23 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:22 pm logik, we don't need to stay on Willy's thread for this. Let's give his thread a break. It's drifting way off topic.
Cool. Start a thread in which you explain why 9.81 is approximately 9.8, but it is NOT approximately 10
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=26325
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Einstein on the train

uwot wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:28 pm That has been the goal of rationalist philosophers and logicians from Parmenides, through Descartes and up to the modern day. Everyone knows that if there were a perfect language and perfect logical system then, properly applied, anyone who accepts the premises is compelled to accept the conclusions. But:
Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:08 amThere is no such thing as 'universally accessible text'.
Computer science has solved this. We have languages that interpret themselves.

The only thing that is required of you-the-human is to learn to THINK in the language that interprets itself

Colloquially - we refer to it as the Bootstrapping problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping_(compilers)

Separate to the problem of language is the problem of communication (encoding decoding of information for the purposes of transmission) and consensus. HOW to agree despite errors and noise in communication channels.

We call those Byzantine failures ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault )

The solutions are out there, but to get the humans to DO THE WORK and learn HOW... hard problem.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:39 pm
Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:08 amThere is no such thing as 'universally accessible text'.
Computer science has solved this. We have languages that interpret themselves.
I don't understand why that makes any of them a 'universally accessible text'.
Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:39 pmThe only thing that is required of you-the-human is to learn to THINK in the language that interprets itself
What bearing would that have on the soundness of the premises?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Einstein on the train

uwot wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:52 pm I don't understand why that makes any of them a 'universally accessible text'.
If you do the work to master the tools - they become accessible TO YOU. TACIT Knowledge is power...
Explicit knowledge is .... meh.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to inspire humans to DO WORK or to LEARN things.

Except to use the Marketing Department and leverage the longest-standing brand name in human history: Truth.

The universe is a computer. it's True. All scientists agree.

Facts are facts, but Truth is just a tool for social control
uwot wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:52 pm What bearing would that have on the soundness of the premises?
None whatsoever. You can prove ANYTHING with mathematics.

It's all invented. Garbage in - garbage out.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

Logik wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:53 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:52 pm What bearing would that have on the soundness of the premises?
None whatsoever. You can prove ANYTHING with mathematics.

It's all invented. Garbage in - garbage out.
Fair enough. Anyway, back to the subject of the thread: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
Age
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:11 pm For uwot and Age con't,

The other problem I know Age was not understanding that you, uwot, at least linked for his/her own follow-up was to another concern I too had when I first wanted to follow but is too often skipped over:

You, uwot, did an excellent job connecting some features of doppler but the question to which Age was thinking is HOW can they determine THAT the Doppler effect determines distance? The missing details are, the initial close star distance as determined by parallax, the math of the inverse square law of luminescence of stars, and how they determined the standard distances based upon brightness BEFORE you could use Doppler to compare with. That might be something you could add to help clarify. (next edition?)

Anyways, I think this is enough to help clarify for Age to uwot the misinterpretations and what might be of value to improve upon the confusion of those similar questions any 15 year old might be wandering too.
scott mayers just to clear some thing up; Nothing you said about me asking things was even close to anything you ASSUMED I was asking about. You appear to have based all your assumptions about what I was referring to, and/or asking, solely on your OWN past experiences and what YOU, yourself, have questioned.

The point I was making, which I think "uwot" finally worked out anyway, was that the 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration due to gravity 'fact' is ONLY a 'fact' at this point, when this is written. The only thing I was thinking about when I questioned or wrote in relation to that 'fact' was that this figure could change if and when certain things happen in the "future". But "logik" has much better demonstrated that this figure is NOT a fixed nor constant fact anyway, as there are so many variables to take into consideration now already.

Also, as for "your" ASSUMPTION that I was asking HOW can they determine THAT the doppler effect determines distance is also WRONG. If I recall correctly I NEVER asked such a thing. What I was asking was, if I recall correctly, does the doppler effect show the distance, or the direction, of stars, relative to earth, and, what does the red shift show, because how I read the book this was not clearly stated? As for HOW human beings determine THAT the doppler effect determines distance or even HOW the doppler effect, itself, determines distance I could NOT care one bit about. I was just curious as to; Does the red shift determine distance or direction, or both? If it was one of these, then in the book it was written in a way that contradicted this.
Age
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

Logik wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:03 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:57 pm F = (Gm1m2)/d^2

(...)
Now, while this precision is more correct, it is intimidating and unimportant to deal with the constants when one is learning the logic-side of the issue. So you aren't helping. That is the insignificant 'facts' that were muddling the issue Age was trying to express, as I understood.
Only two things I want to point out.

1. Observe how you chose Newton's equation, not Einstein's one. And so my point (as before) stands. Context!

You have constrained yourself to contexts in which Newton's equation works and thus you implicitly exclude all contexts in which they don't.
Einstein's equations are generalisations of Newton's equation. They reduce down to Newton's equations with a margin of error so trivial that nobody cares.

Still: you ignore my point. Every scientific theory so far comes with a fine-print that we call 'domain of applicability' a.k.a context of validity.

2. Age's intellectual journey is still at its infancy. He is focused entirely on consistency. He pursues consistency religiously and idiomatically. He nitpicks at any and all inconsistencies - both small and big, to the point that if he were aware that Newton's equations were 'imprecise' he would insist that you used Einstein's equations - even here. On Earth even though the margin of error is insignificant.

He still has an all-or-nothing mindset. If it's not perfect it's junk.
Either a 'fact' is a fact or it is NOT.

If it is a 'fact', then it is proven to be true in ALL circumstances. If a 'fact' has NOT yet been proven true in ALL circumstances, then it is just a relative truth, AND this is a fact, which is much better to be made aware of and KNOWN.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Einstein on the train

Age wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:15 pm Either a 'fact' is a fact or it is NOT.

If it is a 'fact', then it is proven to be true in ALL circumstances. If a 'fact' has NOT yet been proven true in ALL circumstances, then it is just a relative truth, AND this is a fact, which is much better to be made aware of and KNOWN.
There is no room for such idealism in this universe.

If you don't like it - write your complaints to god@nobodycares.com

Find a new Universe maybe. I don't know.

I think that I can confidently say that the number of 'facts' that match your criteria for 'universality' is exactly zero.

Q.E.D
Logik wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:03 pm 2. Age's intellectual journey is still at its infancy. He is focused entirely on consistency.

He still has an all-or-nothing mindset. If it's not perfect it's junk.
Age wrote: Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:15 pm Either a 'fact' is a fact or it is NOT.
Age
Posts: 5759
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

### Re: Einstein on the train

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:13 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:03 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:57 pm F = (Gm1m2)/d^2

(...)
Now, while this precision is more correct, it is intimidating and unimportant to deal with the constants when one is learning the logic-side of the issue. So you aren't helping. That is the insignificant 'facts' that were muddling the issue Age was trying to express, as I understood.
Only two things I want to point out.

1. Observe how you chose Newton's equation, not Einstein's one. And so my point (as before) stands. Context!

You have constrained yourself to contexts in which Newton's equation works and thus you implicitly exclude all contexts in which they don't.
Einstein's equations are generalisations of Newton's equation. They reduce down to Newton's equations with a margin of error so trivial that nobody cares.

Still: you ignore my point. Every scientific theory so far comes with a fine-print that we call 'domain of applicability' a.k.a context of validity.

2. Age's intellectual journey is still at its infancy. He is focused entirely on consistency. He pursues consistency religiously and idiomatically. He nitpicks at any and all inconsistencies - both small and big, to the point that if he were aware that Newton's equations were 'imprecise' he would insist that you used Einstein's equations - even here. On Earth even though the margin of error is insignificant.

He still has an all-or-nothing mindset. If it's not perfect it's junk.
Maybe we should wait to see how (s)he thinks. But it is just confusing the concern, given I read his discussion to Willy and was pointing out that the detail SEEMED odd to be concerned with when the specific (variable)constants change.

I'm not getting into Lorentz transformations here. I already spent way too much time finding superscripts to go further. You got the point.
What i think is; "logik" is far closer to understanding what i am actually doing then what "you" "scott" think I am doing and/or am asking.

By the way also, although "logik" proposed I WOULD do some thing in regards to insisting people use einstein's equations, just to make it clear, I would NEVER do such a thing. That person's equations could also further change, than they have already, all to easily.