Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:28 am

It's an interesting thing. Maybe uwot would like to comment on this.

In the case of evolution, the data came first, and the theory later.

With respect to relativity, the theory (mostly) came first, and supporting data later.

But it doesn't matter much. As long as the theory (map) matches the facts (territory) then we have something useful to work with.

The pessimistic meta-induction counsels us that all our current theories are false, however.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:37 am

ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:48 am
People called "scientists" do the exact same thing also. Although people believe they may not do it, it will soon be realized just how much they all, subliminally, do it.

People who call themselves scientists may like to think and/or believe they do that, but the actual truth is more revealing.

And gain the process you describe is an extremely very cumbersome and very long drawn out process, especially compared to the much easier, simpler, and quicker way to find and discover what the actual truth IS.
"People who call themselves scientists" you've just identified your self as a science denier and a creationist, there's no point in trying to tell you anything, you'll just deny it.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:42 am

davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:27 am

uwot and I have answered all your questions, repeatedly.
Apparently Ken didn't like your answers, so he'll ask again till he gets the answers he likes.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Thu Oct 19, 2017 6:45 am

davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 5:28 am
In the case of evolution, the data came first, and the theory later.

With respect to relativity, the theory (mostly) came first, and supporting data later.
And data continues to come in to support both theories and usually data that appears to disprove the theories, is recanted over time.

uwot
Posts: 4171
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm

ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
The mathematical description of physics, of what was once seen to happen, was the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.
Although cartography is basically the art of depicting a demonstrably spherical Earth on a 2D page, flat-earthers aside, there has been no serious attempt to describe the world as flat since Anaximander, in about 500BC. It is true that the Ptolemaic model is a mathematical description of a geocentric universe, and the reason it was so successful is that it is reasonably accurate; it actually predicts what can be seen with the naked eye very well.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
Obviously when human beings look at things differently the mathematical description of physics changes.
More to the point, it is when technology advances and enables human beings to see things that were previously invisible to them, that our understanding, and with it our mathematical descriptions change; as was the case with Galileo's telescope.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
If you are under some sort of belief that the mathematical description of physics, in this day and age, is, ultimately, absolutely accurate and thus will not change, then you have another thing coming.
As davidm has pointed out, I am under no such illusion.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
I have asked numerous times, How long would a trip take to travel 4 light years away? What is the MATHS for that?
Well, a light year is about 9.5 trillion km. That’s like driving around the world 240 million times.
Driving non-stop at 100 kmph, that would take over 10 million years. I'm quoting myself there: it's all in my book which you can buy here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1521884722 If you are allergic to spending money, you can read a slightly different version in my blog: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk The maths is simple: multiply 9.5 trillion by 4, and divide by what ever speed you wish to know about. Whatever the answer, that is how long it will take from the point of view of people on Earth.
However, what myself and others are pointing out is that events take longer to happen the faster you are moving, for the simple reason that I have illustrated my book and explained several times in this thread. If you choose not to read it, that is entirely up to you, but please don't tell me I haven't explained the very thing I have gone to considerable pains to explain.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
You have NOT yet given one straightforward answer. There can NOT be two or more mathematical answers to one mathematical problem can there?
The thing is, there can be any number of mathematical models which describe the same phenomenon.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
You have only provided conflicting answers, and, other people have provided even further different answers than you have.
Other people have their own interpretation of special relativity, which is entirely their prerogative. Granted that can lead to confusion, but I'm confident I have been consistent with my responses.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
I can NOT show what does NOT conform with the maths when the maths is not conforming with its own self.
The mathematical model we are discussing is time dilation due to special relativity, which entirely conforms with the observed data.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
I am the One saying to look at what IS the Universe by looking at what It does.
As it happens, that is exactly what physicists do. What you apparently don't understand is that there are generally 3 parts to a physical theory.
1. The phenomenon. The universe behaves in a way that physicists would like to understand; so the make repeated observations, to ensure that they are seeing something that happens consistently.
2. The mathematical model. Having satisfied themselves that they are investigating something real, they will measure it. They will tweak the parameters, alter the conditions and take a huge number of readings. Then they will sift the data, trying to find patterns which they can describe with numbers.
3. The metaphysical model. Once they are happy that the mathematical model actually works, they may or may not claim that the premises of the mathematical model actually refer to something that 'exists'. So for instance, Einstein argued that 'spacetime' is a spongey sort of stuff that is warped by the presence of matter. Many physicists are wary, even hostile, to any attempt to say that mathematical models accurately describe reality. Partly because, as the history of the Ptolemaic model shows, doing so has a habit of making fools of believers, and partly because whether a mathematical model is 'true', makes no difference to whether it works. "Shut up and calculate!" as various physicists since Bohr are alleged to have said.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
It is human beings who try to make models of what the Universe does, or more correctly make models of what It 'should' do.
It is only nutcases who try to tell the universe what it should do.
ken wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 am
It is plainly obvious WHY human beings are continually changing the 'models', instead of just looking at what the actual truth IS the first time.
But you human beings need to remain open before the can begin to come to understand this.
You human beings? What planet are you from?

artisticsolution
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Relativity?

Post by artisticsolution » Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:00 pm

Okay, Uwot...I purchased your book. I'll let you know what I think when I finish it. :)

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:01 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
It is only nutcases who try to tell the universe what it should do.
That would make Einstein a "nutcase" as the is quote is attributed to him, "I can't believe in a God who throws dice." and Niels Bohr replied "stop trying to tell God how to run the Universe."

surreptitious57
Posts: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:27 am

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
How do human beings supposedly know a big bang was about 13 billion years ago

If a human being could travel to another planet 4 light years from instantly or what you call no time at all then if they travelled back to
earth at the same speed are you saying they would arrive back also instantly and thus about 8 years behind every other human being on earth If the answer is yes then is that what human beings mean when they say time travel
The red shift of galaxies and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be observed occurring just after the Big Bang. Red shift is caused by objects moving further away not only in distance but in time too. The Big Bang is still occurring because the Universe is still expanding and so it is not just an event that happened in the past but one that is also happening now

If ken travels in his spaceship at the speed of light to a planet four light years away and then travels straight back to Earth he will not have aged at all while everyone on Earth will have aged by eight years. If someone is travelling at the speed of light technically they cannot be engaging in time travel because they will not actually be experiencing any time. So time travel is more about travelling to locations in the past or the future
The reason I asked how do human beings know how long ago some thing happened was because the measurements are
taken using light. You say light takes no time to travel if this is so then nothing happened previously. It ALL happens NOW
It ALL happens NOW from the reference frame of light travelling in vacuum because in that state photons do not experience time. But from the reference frame of human beings however everything does not happen instantaneously. Both of these exist simultaneously since there is no one single unique reference frame that applies equally to all objects or observers in the Universe and which is what Special Relativity demonstrates

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:30 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:27 am
It ALL happens NOW from the reference frame of light travelling in vacuum because in that state photons do not experience time. But from the reference frame of human beings however everything does not happen instantaneously. Both of these exist simultaneously since there is no one single unique reference frame that applies equally to all objects or observers in the Universe and which is what Special Relativity demonstrates
Well said, some people cannot grasp that there are different reference frames for different observers, they think that all observers must be in the same reference frame.

uwot
Posts: 4171
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:37 am

artisticsolution wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:00 pm
Okay, Uwot...I purchased your book.
Thank you. You won't regret it.
artisticsolution wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:00 pm
I'll let you know what I think when I finish it. :)
Great! (PM me if you think it stinks.)

uwot
Posts: 4171
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:40 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:01 am
uwot wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
It is only nutcases who try to tell the universe what it should do.
That would make Einstein a "nutcase" as the is quote is attributed to him, "I can't believe in a God who throws dice." and Niels Bohr replied "stop trying to tell God how to run the Universe."
Fair enough: nutcases and Einstein. Mind you, he never wore socks...

artisticsolution
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Relativity?

Post by artisticsolution » Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:03 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:37 am
artisticsolution wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:00 pm
Okay, Uwot...I purchased your book.
Thank you. You won't regret it.
artisticsolution wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:00 pm
I'll let you know what I think when I finish it. :)
Great! (PM me if you think it stinks.)
Lol...the only thing that stinks right now is me!

Send good thoughts into your universe please...they just postponed my surgery for a few more weeks...which sucks cause I met my deductible for the year...if they bump me to Jan I may have to pay the big bucks again...damn insurance companies!

uwot
Posts: 4171
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:26 pm

artisticsolution wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:03 pm
Send good thoughts into your universe please...they just postponed my surgery for a few more weeks...which sucks cause I met my deductible for the year...if they bump me to Jan I may have to pay the big bucks again...damn insurance companies!
Very sorry to hear that. Sending some of my very best thoughts right now.

artisticsolution
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Relativity?

Post by artisticsolution » Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:39 pm

uwot wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:26 pm
artisticsolution wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:03 pm
Send good thoughts into your universe please...they just postponed my surgery for a few more weeks...which sucks cause I met my deductible for the year...if they bump me to Jan I may have to pay the big bucks again...damn insurance companies!
Very sorry to hear that. Sending some of my very best thoughts right now.
I feel smarter already :)

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:46 pm

davidm wrote:
Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:16 am
If you say that only humans have points of view, then why do you keep asking what point of view humans would have traveling at c, which is impossible for humans to do? :?
I am NOT the one who is asking that at all. You are the one who is giving the answer to that question, for some unknown reason. WHY is it that you can NOT read and understand the actual questions I have asked?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests