uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm
ken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amThe 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.
My point WAS and IS that mathematical descriptions of physics can and do sometimes get shown to be wrong, false, and/or inaccurate. This applies for in the past, at present, and into the future (if human beings will persist on making supposed or proposed explanations instead of just looking at
what IS).
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amObviously 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.
EXACTLY. AND exactly what I was and am saying.
AND, this advancement in being able to observe more physical things will continue to happen as advancements in technology get better. So, that is WHY I question people when they say "current" observations are actual facts and truths.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amIf 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.
And, you are not the one who clearly states "current understanding" is absolutely accurate, like davidm does. But although you do not clearly state it that way, you sublimely or subconsciously write it that way.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amI 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.
Who cares?
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmDriving 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
The obvious greed that has been instilled in the people, of this day and age, is blindingly obvious. Thankfully by the time what I am writing is being better understood greed will be on its way out or better still has already been completely extinguished.
I have read some already, and there are some inconsistencies in there also.
Also, was the emotive driven word "allergic", in relation to spending money to buy YOUR book, put in there on purpose to cause affect in Me or some people to give you money for your views, for what is after all just some absolutely free to produce thoughts, or did you not do that with conscious purpose?
Did you do that on purpose or is greed so ingrained within you now that you did not even notice you were doing it?
Offering up a free version of your views somewhere else was a kind gesture, but you could have also provided them here, like the rest of us are doing.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmThe maths is simple: multiply 9.5 trillion by 4, and divide by what ever speed you wish to know about.
You KNOW what speed I have been referring to, but once again you want to ignore that so as to deflect away from the answer I am seeking. The reason for this is because that answer is inconsistent with already "observed facts" that those labeled "scientists" have previously made, which always seem to coincidentally fit in with and suit a previously made theory.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmWhatever the answer, that is how long it will take from the point of view of people on Earth.
Again it is back to point of view of people.
What about people on other planets? If there were, what would the point of view of those people be?
I do NOT even want to begin explaining HOW and WHY there are apparent different observations made between the one travelling and others if people, themselves, do not want to give honest answers of what they, themselves, see is the answer.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmHowever, 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.
To state that 'events take longer' is to presume that that is an actual fact.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmIf 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.
The only things that you have explained are the very things you have read. You have just rewritten them in your own words.
One only needs to go to the original source for you are trying to explain. The inconsistencies in the original source are there to be seen as they are in your own words.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amYou 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.
Yes there can be any number of human MADE mathematical models, which describe the same phenomenon. But My question was, can there be two or more mathematical answers to one mathematical problem?
Again, another case of NOT answering My question but rather answering some perceived question.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amYou 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.
Yes you have been consistent by responding that different observers have different views, which ultimately is the truth. But that does NOT answer the actual question I have been asking, which is, HOW long does a trip take, that travels four light years travelling at the speed of light?
That is the part that you have been giving conflicting answers.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amI 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.
Which, by the way, the
conflicting observed "data" supposedly conforms special relativity only AFTER the theory was proposed.
What is actually observed does NOT yet conform with what has been previously observed.
This is because what people observe and see is distorted by what they are already viewing, assuming, and/or believing to be is true.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amI 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.
If you believe that is the case for one and ALL, then the ability of belief, itself, to distort truth are readily being shown right here and now.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm 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.
"Behaving in a way", that some people would "like to understand", has an unconscious or sub-conscious effect on what will be seen and observed.
Being labelled a "physicist" does NOT give that one any more nor any special powers nor ability than another one has.
Assuming or believing that those people labelled "physicists" are some how more than another person is a distortion of truth.
Why not just look at and observe how the Universe actually behaves instead of the Universe behaves in a way that would like to be understood?
HOW the Universe actually behaves can already be very easily seen and understood.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm2. 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.
And forever more they will be "tweaking", "altering", "sifting", and "trying" to find patterns, which they can describe with numbers. When the truth is what they are actually looking for is already being observed and can already be seen and understood. That is once they discover or learn HOW to do it.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pm3. 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.
The very reason I question every one about WHY believe any thing is because in just believing one is being extremely foolhardy.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amIt 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.
Which, it could be argued, is what people who speak for "science" (and "religion") continually try to do.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:54 pmken wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:49 amIt 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?
I write in a certain way, for a particular reason.