## Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:32 pmWhat is 'time', itself, to you?
Don't really know, lacking hard evidence one way or another.
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm
Is 'time' itself dependent upon a frame?
The measure of it between two events is frame dependent.
When you say the measure of "it", did you mean the word 'time'?

If so, then what do you mean by, "The measure of time between two events"?
Yes and yes.
If, for example, you had said, "The measure of THE time between two events", then I could better understand this. Although it does sound clumsy it makes more sense, to Me anyway. I understand the words 'the time' usually refers to the actual measurement, itself, taken. But when you say, "The measure of time between two events" I do NOT understand what is it EXACTLY that is being measured? How does one measure 'time', itself?
Clocks are nice, and a selection of frames is needed to give the figure meaning.
And, what is 'it' [time], itself, that one is measuring?
I gave no answer to this. It doesn't matter to this discussion.
Of course mars is NOT west of jupiter. In the Universe there is NO west, nor east, nor south, nor north, nor up, nor down, nor left, nor right, et cetera, et cetera. Only a human being's perspective, relative to earth, would consider and ask such a meaningless question.
But if one chose an arbitrary direction for north, and one more orthogonal for west, then the question can be answered. That's what a frame is. An arbitrary assignment (human or otherwise) of a coordinate system, without optional specification of an origin. How far west of Mars is Jupiter? The answer is frame dependent, on which way you arbitrarily decided was west. In one possible frame, Mars is straight north of Jupiter and is zero distance to the west. Nobody magically brought Jupiter closer. We just moved the coordinate system. Time dilation is no more magical than that.
Noax wrote: Depends on the spatial frame, a definition of which arbitrary direction is considered west.
How many actual and real spatial frames are there?
None or infinite, depending on what you mean by actual and real.
By the way are 'frames' actual real things, or just words used to fathom things in conceptual thinking?
Probably the latter. They are reference systems, not objects, but if a different direction is considered west, then Jupiter really is more or less west than some other choice of orientation. So it is real in that sense.
What does 'relativity' hinge on, to you?
Knowledge of it hinges on empirical observation, much in the same way that knowledge of it does not hinge on the ontological status of what time is.
It would also be easy if the sphere is expanding. Also, what do you mean by the 'hubble sphere' is shrinking? Is that what is really happening, or is that only how it appears to be happening?
The radius of it is getting smaller. Stuff out that far passes beyond the sphere as the radius shrinks and no longer includes them.
The reason I asked, Could that even be done?, is because it would be virtually impossible for a human being to leave the 'visible universe' because wherever the human being is the size of the 'visible universe' would be roughly the exact same, depending upon deterioration of eyesight and of visibility of course, right?
Yes, human have no way of getting out there, so it isn't possible for us, but this is from a race still incapable of reaching the nearest planet.
By the way is the 'visible universe' the same as the 'observable universe'? If it is, then the 'observable universe' is larger than the 'hubble sphere', so objects could move from inside the hubble sphere to outside of it and still be in the observable or visible universe.
The Hubble Sphere is defined as the distance where a comoving object increases its particular velocity at the rate of c. The visible universe is larger than that since light can come from not far outside the sphere and travel inside it, eventually reaching us. The most distant visible thing is defined by the past light cone at time=infinity. Objects beyond that can never be detected in any amount of time from here.
It is a bit of a misrepresentation. Inertial frames are valid only locally, and that distance is hardly local.
Hardly local to who?
Close enough that adjustments for bent or expanding space are insignificant. SR is bunk as uwot points out. It works locally, but GR totally dominates if you start talking of distances to galaxies not part of our cluster.
In physics, 'local' often means 'from with a box', but the box can get pretty big. A million light-years is fine.
That's why I put our control twin in a ship nearby Earth. It puts him in the same sort of box as his twin.
Noax wrote: Special relativity simply does not cover that case, and one must apply GR rules for a description of what it means to exit the sphere like that.
Sounding more like special relativity really does have bugger all to do with reality more and more.
Yes, exactly. It just doesn't cover that non-local case.
Noax wrote:
So, the "traveler", who is now sitting "still", waits 70 days, according to the "traveler's" accompanying clock, for a distant object, which was about four light years away, to traverse towards and reach the waiting sitting "still traveler", right?
No, the object was a bit less than 70 light days away. But otherwise, yes.
That answer is subject to either the still-moving stationary traveler or the object "traveling" at .999c, right? It is just that it was not properly qualified in THIS quote here.
Yes. I forgot. The answer was not qualified. The distance that AC moves is about 70 light days in the traveler frame, and the traveler moves 4.3 light years in about that time in the Earth/AC frame.
Also, before the traveler set off the distance they were about to "embark" on was just over for light years and not just under 70 light days, right?
Only in Earth frame, which the traveler is in before he's shot out of his cannon or however it is done. After that, he's stationary in a different frame.
Noax wrote:
If so, and while that sitting "still traveler" awaits supposedly only 70 days for earth and alpha centauri to both traverse and cover a distance of four light years, the clocks on both earth and on alpha centauri supposedly only changed by 75 hours according to the "traveler", is this correct?
Yes, except again for the four light year reference.
But the traveler can only verify this when the traveler is with one of the clocks, correct?
That is the only time the comparison is not frame dependent, yes.
That is right, the traveler's clock is not one of the two OTHER clocks. The traveler has their own clock, a third clock, right?
If we want to describe his elapsed time, it would be nice to say he has a clock, yes.
Considering we were talking about the traveler's clock being synchronized with earth's clock at departure event, the traveler's clock and earth would have been synchronized and in the same frame on earth
No, they're not in the same frame, so cannot be synchronized to either frame. They're in each other's presence at the departure event and synchronize to that event (time zero). They don't stay in sync because each clock is dilated in the frame of the other.
and the earth and alpha centauri clocks are synchronized together in the earth frame, then that would mean the travelers clock, earth's clock, and alpha centauri's clock would have been synchronized the same also, correct?
The traveler clock is synced at one event, unable to continue to be synced to any moving clock that runs at a different pace.
If the three clocks are the same at departure event, then when did the earth and alpha centauri clocks differ by over four years in the frame of the traveler?
Different events are simultaneous in the traveler frame. This is super important to understanding it all. In the traveler frame, the A-C clock already reads 4.3 years (minus 3 days) at traveler time zero which is Earth time zero. This is what is meant when the say that simultaneity is relative, or frame dependent. Different frames define different spatially separated events that are simultaneous with any given event.
Was it just after departure, during acceleration, during "rest" at .999c, during deceleration, or at some other point or time?
It is the frame in which the simultaneity is considered. It is not something that happens or is caused.
Also, if at acceleration (and/or deceleration) the traveler is not in 'inertial frame' does that mean that the traveler is ageing slower than the people on earth and the traveler's clock is "ticking" slower than the earth and alpha centauri clocks?
GR covers accelerating (non-inertial frames). For simplicity, we assume high enough acceleration that it is a negligible computational overhead. He's in an unpowered box shot out of a cannon. If a trip like this was actually done, GR computations would need to be made because acceleration takes time. Going .999c would kill a human even at slow steady acceleration. Would not survive the first second of that.
If so, then what happens if the traveler is only in an inertial frame of reference for say 1 minute or 30 days for example, then how does that effect the ageing and/or physical dilation processes, relative to the differing frames of references?
The math gets more complicated then. The trip takes a little bit longer, and he comes back still a bit over 140 days older than when he left. No, I'm not going to do the math when the simple example suffices. Nobody can survive the scenario anyway, instantaneous acceleration or not.
For example earth and alpha centauri would be in "stationary" or inertial frame during the traveler's acceleration and deceleration periods, right?
Right. Only the traveler is accelerating, so only his frame is non-inertial.
But when the traveler was constantly still-moving .999c, then the traveler would be in constant still-moving inertial frame? If this is right, then we would have to be changing our 'frame of reference' and views of what is happening, right?
Yes.

I was SAYING and ASKING, if the travelers clock is synchronized to earths clock, at the start of the trip in the traveler frame, and alpha centaur's clock is synchronized to earth's clock also, then the three clocks must be synchronized the same, right?[/quote]Not if the traveler frame is different than Earth frame. Said this above. His clocked was synced to an event, and A-C clock is not synced to time zero in the traveler frame.
WHY is the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock reading a bit over four years ahead in traveler frame if the traveler clock is synchronized to the exact same as the earth clock BEFORE the trip begins?
The frame defines which event is simultaneous with the departure event. That event on A-C happens to be 3 days short of time 4.3 years on their clock.
Noax wrote:
... if they do, between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock if at some stage from the "traveler's" frame there was zero difference between earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock?
There is only negligible discrepancy between those two clocks in Earth frame if we synced them in that frame. They stay synced.
So, when and why does traveler's clock become out of sync?
He's moving in Earth frame. His clock logs less time in Earth frame. A clock that logs 70 days in 4.3 years is not able to stay synced.
Remember the traveler's clock was synced with the earth clock when the traveler and earth were in the same frame, which was also synced with alpha centauri's clock, which you just stated stays synced with earth's clock.
Yes, but only in Earth/AC frame.
Noax wrote:
If so, then from earth frame how much does the "traveler's" clock read? What does the "traveler's" clock read in the earth frame?
That's not a frame dependent question because the traveler is present at that event.
What do you mean by that answer?
I think the comment above spoke of the departure event. Clocks were synced to zero there, in all frames, since both were present at that event. No frame redefines an event. It might redefine the order in which two different events occurred.
The traveler is present at WHAT event?
Departure event. Not sure if that was stated. Some context was lost.
If you can give Me an answer from traveler's frame regarding the change on earth's clock, then why can you NOT give Me an answer from earth's frame regarding the change on traveler's clock?
The traveler clock changes 70 days between the two events because that's how much time elapses for the traveler. He ages 70 days. 140 if he comes back, defining a 3rd event of being reunited with his older brother.
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm His clock reads 70 days in any frame at that second event.
I thought the traveler's clock would read just over 4.3 years from earth's frame and/or alpha centauri's frame because from those frames that is how long it would take a traveler to take a trip from earth to alpha centauri at .999c, is this right?
The traveler clock is dilated due to high speed in the Earth frame. His clock logs only 70 days during the 4.3 year time it takes in that frame. It's 4.3 light years away and he can't go faster than light.
Noax wrote: The first event when Earth and traveler parted.
What do you mean here?
Verb missing. The first event is when Earth and traveler parted.
Noax wrote:
So, from "traveler" frame, earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock changed by and thus reads 3.1 days, right?
No, if those two clocks were synchronized in Earth frame, they'd not be synchronized in travler frame.
But both were synced with traveler clock at departure event.
Both Earth and AC clocks are synced with each other in Earth frame, not with traveler clock in any frame since the clocks don't run at the same pace in any frame we'd find useful.
So, what does earth's clock and alpha centauri's clock read now at arrival event, from traveler's frame?
3.1 days, 1/22nd of the 70 days the trip took. 70 is 1/22nd of 4.3 years. The dilation factor at .999c is pretty close to 22.
Noax wrote: but if the Earth and AC clocks were syncronized in Earth/AC frame, AND time was zero at the first even (departure), then the traveler clock reads about 70 days at the 2nd event and the AC clock reads 4.3 years plus about 40 hours.
But why would the traveler's clock read about 70 hours, from alpha centauri frame, and alpha centauri clock reads 4.3 years plus from alpha cenatauri frame, when before, and correct Me if I am wrong here, which no doubt you will anyway, you said that only 3.1 days past on alpha centauri because it was the traveler who was at rest and alpha centauri was moving?
The traveler is present at the event of arriving at AC so what is clock says at that event is not frame dependent. It reads 70 days at that event, and a frame specification is unnecessary.

You're not in need of correction. Only 3 days passed on AC in traveler frame during the trip. In that frame, the clock on AC already read about 4.3 years at the departure time.
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:18 pm That's 75 hours the clock logged and about 4.296 years of Earth and AC being out of sync.
What is "THE" clock, which has logged 75 hours?
The AC clock (the Earth one as well), in the traveler frame.
And, how can earth and alpha centauri clocks now be out of sync when you have said, they stay synced?
They're still in sync in Earth/AC frame. Earth clock also reads 4.3 years in Earth frame, since the trip took that long. AC is 4.3 light years away in that frame, remember? The twin back home is 4.3 years older now in Earth frame, but only 3 days older in traveler frame.
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:48 amzero at the departure event, and reading 70 days at the arrival event.
Noax wrote:
Are you saying that the earth clock and the alpha centauri clock "ticked" slower, in the "traveler" frame, than the "still traveler's" clock did? If so, is this because the "traveler" was the one "at rest" because earth and alpha centauri were the ones moving? If that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying?
Yes, you actually expressed that correctly. Time is dilated for moving things. In the traveler frame, it is the other clocks that are moving.
Therefore, the clock on alpha centauri would read about 3.1 days, from the traveler's frame, but would be reading 4.3 years plus, from alpha centauri's frame, right?
It traveler frame, Both Earth and AC clocks advance by 3 days during the 70 day trip, but AC clock already was at 4.3 years at departure time.
And, the traveler's clock would read about 70 days, from the traveler's frame, and you have already stated that the traveler's clock would be reading about 70 days from alpha centauri frame also, right?
Not frame dependent question since the traveler is present at that event, so yes to all.
Noax wrote: I have no links for the halfway question. It's just that there is no magic than happens more at the front or the back half. If nothing is accelerating, the progressing of all clocks in all frames is steady.
But you have more or less stated that clocks change, all by themselves, at speed.

That sounds rather magical, to Me, anyway.
Sort of lost me. Of course clocks change. They'd not be functional if they were a changeless lump. I don't think you meant that, but cannot figure out how else to parse that.
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

thedoc wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:36 pm BTW, I rarely read a long post all the way through, too boring, even if I am interested in the subject.
Oh, please don't bother reading the big ones unless you'd like to proofread them. I assure you mistakes are made.
But the content is mostly repetitious.
And sadly, the subject is turning away from the part I was interested in, the bit about why denial of empirical findings might be a virtue.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:25 am
And sadly, the subject is turning away from the part I was interested in, the bit about why denial of empirical findings might be a virtue.
Well I would like to hear more about that. Why would denial of empirical findings be a virtue? This seems to be a repudiation of epistemology going back to Hume and unless I misread you, it seems to be a denial of all that you've posted in this thread. Perhaps I misunderstand? Maybe you are talking about Ken's denial of empirical findings?
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:01 amMaybe you are talking about Ken's denial of empirical findings?
Yes that. He calls it being open minded. Maybe all the scientists bias their findings about this relativity thing and faking the evidence.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:14 am
davidm wrote: Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:01 amMaybe you are talking about Ken's denial of empirical findings?
Yes that. He calls it being open minded. Maybe all the scientists bias their findings about this relativity thing and faking the evidence.
OK that's what I thought. *whew* For a moment I thought you were going all rogue on us,

gaffo
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

### Re: Relativity?

Hi Noax.

all is well i hope?

why waste your time with Ken the Troll.

he has more time to waste here then sense.

and - given so much free time from Fortune - if wise could use it to become Wise/r , but instead wastes it on playing Troll games and caging his mind in a 6 x 4 cm cage - big enough to give his brain a little breathing room - lol..................

your and my time is more important (worth conversing and expanding our knowledge of your world through others of similar viewpiont)................neither of us have the time nor are so frivalous as to think time is so worthless as to waste it on such a Troll as "Ken",

from the posts here - he/it ain't worth more than a few seconds of my time...........................not worth even that since being here a month or so and noting his petty natured posts.

save your energies for posting to members here worthy of reading any wisdom you offer.

- that leaves "ken" out of course.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:11 am
ken wrote:
Why are they called falsification tests

Does that some how give them more weight in their support of the thing that was said would happen

Why not instead just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS

Trying to perform a falsification test or a verifiable test means that there is already a preconceived outcome
Potential falsification is a fundamental component of the scientific method. Hypotheses have to be subject to it or else they are deemed invalid
What do you mean by; Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed 'invalid'?

If hypotheses (some thing) are not subject to potential falsification, then does that HAVE TO make the hypotheses (or some thing) invalid? Or, could some thing that is not subject to potential falsification also just mean that that thing could be just what IS, or an unambiguous fact, which may not be disputable, instead?

Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification? In other words could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed, ever be found, realized, and known through scientific method?

Or, does every thing, which is a part of a scientific method, always remain a fundamental component and therefore there will always be potential for falsification?

In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?

But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified. [/quote]

If and when it becomes 'verified' does it then remain a fundamental component of the scientific method or does it progress further and past the scientific method?

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:11 amScientists may have preconceived
notions pertaining to the outcome of an experiment but they do not let that influence them. Because the methodology is what is important here not the opinions of scientists which mean absolutely nothing less they can actually be verified. And this is why the scientific method is employed
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:04 am

What do you mean by; Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed 'invalid'?
Isn't it rather that within science they need to be empirically falsifiable, otherwise they are not good hypotheses - because science concerns itself with what is empirically predictable?

So science itself, the scientific method, is not within science. It is taken as a given. In that sense science accepts it works within limits.
In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?
I think that you can say something is true/real using a different method to science, but it will still hang on some method. And, as with science, that method cannot be self-justifying. It will always be 'X is true/real....if....'
But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified.
I don't think it can, for the reasons I give above. In science, for something to be verified beyond any possibility of contrary empirical evidence would be to say our claim was something more than an observation of 'what is'. If I argue something 'must be' then I am claiming I have knowledge of a principle that lies behind the empirical, and thus the scientific; proposing a 'why' in the metaphysical sense.

(Either that or the hypothesis would turn out to be some sort of a tautology)
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

Londoner's answers to these questions are as good as I can come up with, but I'd thought I'd throw on my spin.
ken wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:04 am Why are they called falsification tests
A valid hypothesis will predict something different that some alternative model. The thing in question is tested, and the model that makes the worse prediction is falsified, which is not death for it, but demonstration that it needs improvement. With some competing models, one might predict the outcome of X better, but the competing model predicts the outcome of test Y better. Both models are off then, but perhaps they're the best we have at a time. The parts where predictions match is closer to the 'verified' list.
Why not instead just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS
That's what they do.
Trying to perform a falsification test or a verifiable test means that there is already a preconceived outcome
No. The method of measuring results is designed to eliminate biased results. Double-blind tests are a great example of this. Bias is recognized and the double-blind procedure eliminates it.
What do you mean by; Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed 'invalid'?
A model that makes no predictions is useless to science which is about making accurate predictions. Science is not in the business of discovering what actually is, however much they might phrase their findings that way.
If hypotheses (some thing) are not subject to potential falsification, then does that HAVE TO make the hypotheses (or some thing) invalid? Or, could some thing that is not subject to potential falsification also just mean that that thing could be just what IS, or an unambiguous fact, which may not be disputable, instead?
Your wording implies that an invalid hypothesis must be wrong. Not so. It is invalid as a hypothesis is all. It may very well describe what is. What IS, has nothing to do with science. What do you mean by 'unambiguous'? If you mean it cannot be questioned, then all hypotheses are ambiguous since they question things. If you mean it is what actually is, then science doesn't concern itself with what cannot be known.

What if flat-Earth is actually true? I can make a case for it by stepping outside the bounds of methodological naturalism and propose a solipsistic view of what actually is. No test can falsify that, but no prediction is made. It is a valid interpretation, but an invalid hypothesis.
Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification?
You're asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified'? This seems to be the crux of this attitude you're taking. Is it possible that Earth will ever be demonstrably flat, and we're all sheep for believing the round model? Are we closed minded for actually accepting that, or just stubbornly remaining sufficiently ignorant of the evidence that you consider it a viable possibility? This seems to be the point you've been taking against us, but correct me if I'm wrong.
In other words could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed, ever be found, realized, and known through scientific method?
Why would an absolute fact be beyond dispute? Anybody is free to dispute. Can it be known through the scientific method? Not all of the facts, no. The more we progress, the more things become matters of interpretation. It should be the other way around if we're expected to approach some kind of actual truth.
Or, does every thing, which is a part of a scientific method, always remain a fundamental component and therefore there will always be potential for falsification?
You (or somebody) brought up Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. as a line of people who've been falsified. They haven't. All of them proposed things that are still taught as fact (not just history) today. Their models grow more unfalsifiable over time, but each of them was incomplete. Einstein and relativity is like that. It will be tweaked and improved, but the chance of a non-relativistic model replacing all of these is about as likely as one where Earth is flat.
In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?
Outside science I guess. It doesn't become true or real because it always was.
But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified.

If and when it becomes 'verified' does it then remain a fundamental component of the scientific method or does it progress further and past the scientific method?
There is no verifying a hypothesis. There isn't a way to do that.
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

gaffo wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 amwhy waste your time with Ken the Troll.
He has some points, many of which are summarized in his post just above.
save your energies for posting to members here worthy of reading any wisdom you offer.
I do that sort of thing on another site which more encourages that sort of discourse. I have some pretty controversial views, and I find it unproductive to put them out for discussion here.

As for being open minded, that is a very good thing in philosophy where empirical evidence is lacking. But ken is apply the methodology to science where it is in conflict with empiricism.

So ken, what is your point? You are on record for emphatically denying belief that the world is round. If that is the case, why not defend that position, one where your lack of education is perhaps a little less of a stumbling block. From the questions you've been asking about the relativity examples, it is clear that your education never got started on it. So why take your stand there? Defend why one should not blindly believe the books about the position of the Earth being round. At least there, the concepts are more in the grasp of an uneducated person, and we can debate the point without need for hundreds of posts that fail to give you a working foothold on a subject clearly beyond your willingness to actually pick up one of those books and digest it to the point of understanding.

If your goal is not to defend lack of belief in something like a round Earth, but rather to find an inconsistency in (to falsify) relativity, then there is no point in continuing. People far more familiar with the subject would have done so long ago. None of us, certainly not you, is smart enough to do that. Ignorance is not the way to falsify a theory. Finding an inconsistency in what we're posting here also proves nothing except that our understanding is not as good as that of the actual physicists.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
What do you mean by Hypotheses have to be subject to potential falsification or else hypotheses are deemed invalid
Without potential falsification there is no way of knowing if a hypothesis is true or false

If hypotheses ( some thing ) are not subject to potential falsification then does that HAVE TO make the hypotheses ( or some thing ) invalid
Yes for the reason already given

Or could some thing that is not subject to potential falsification
The scientific method only deals with that which can be subject to potential falsification and nothing else

also just mean that that thing could be just what IS or an unambiguous fact which may not be disputable instead
Unambiguous indisputable facts have no need to be subject to potential falsification because they cannot be falsified

Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification
No because that is the complete opposite of what the scientific method with regard to hypotheses actually does

could the actual Truth that is an unambiguous fact which can not be disputed ever be found realized and known through scientific method
See answer above concerning unambiguous indisputable facts

Or does every thing which is a part of a scientific method always remain a fundamental component
Yes because removing any of them would make the scientific method less reliable

and therefore there will always be potential for falsification
Yes there will always be the need for potential falsification

In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and /or real
Anything can be true or real but science is only concerned with what can either be verified or falsified

But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified
If and when it becomes verified does it then remain a fundamental component of the scientific method
Yes because potential verification has to be possible just the same as potential falsification has to be

or does it progress further and past the scientific method
What is past the scientific method has nothing at all to do with science

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

### Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
ken wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:08 amSaying that a clock ticks slower, supposedly with speed,
I didn't say that.
I used the words "a clock ticks slower" because others here have.

What did you say then?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Clocks are presumed to measure time.
ANOTHER presumption. WHY NOT just look at what IS, instead of making more presumptions? When, and if, you can just look at, and see and understand, what IS instead of wondering or presuming what it is, then you will find out that what IS is even far more amazing than you even imagine it is.

By the way, what is this THING, called 'time', which you say clocks are PRESUMED to measure?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm If they read less, it is because there is less duration to measure, not due to ticking slow.
IF, and only IF, they read less is that absolute fact it is because "there is less duration"? And, by "less duration" do you mean less duration of time? If yes, then from what ability is this thing you call "time" able to contract and extend by? And, from what varying degrees of this contracting and extending are possible? Is it from 0 to eternal, or somewhere in between. For example, when at absolute rest how fast or slow does one age, the physical processes proceed, and a clock tick? And, when traveling at the fastest speed how fast or slow does one age, the physical process proceed, and a clock tick?

If a clock measures 'time', as it is presumed to do so, then is it a coincidence that a clock ticks in time with 'time' at the rate of 60 seconds for one minute and 60 minutes for 1 hour and 24 hours for one day? Is a day a day for 'time' just like a day is a day for human beings on earth? Is a day a day the exact same throughout ALL parts of the Universe, or just for those on earth?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
and basing all further examples on that one example, does NOT show how twin human bodies age differently if they age at the same pace, IF THEY STARTED OUT AT THE SAME AGE.
The assumptions, beliefs, and confirmation biases in those further examples, which are based solely on the one and supposedly "tested" experimental example are startling obvious.
This is what I mean by denial of evidence.
What do you mean by 'denial of evidence'? You have not said anything here to know what you are talking let alone to understand what you mean.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmThere's hardly been one verification of it.
What is 'it'?

Are you saying there has hardly been one verification for it? Does that mean it is there not been verified?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm A test of it is performed every second of every day.
A test of 'what'?

And is a test of EVERY SECOND of EVERY DAY really being performed?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm The example we've been looking at is not presented as evidence.
What 'example'?

And, if that 'example' we have been looking at is NOT presented as evidence, then WHAT IS presented as evidence?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Just answering questions for the sake of understanding.
Who has been, or is, just answering questions for the sake of understanding?

The way you write is NOT really answering My questions at all.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
The very simple fact that the words AGE AT THE SAME PACE means that they would NOT nor could NOT age differently.
That's right, despite my interpretation of your comments to assert otherwise.
ONCE AGAIN, and obviously, YOUR INTERPRETATION is WRONG.

Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm You've said no, it's not that you expect a twin to age over 8 years in under 5 months. Perhaps you think that A-C is some sort of anomaly that tacks on 8 years to each visitor that comes there. I'm just guessing because you haven't been very specific about why that scenario would differ from all the scenarios that have actually been done.
WHY would you make the assumption that I would think that most ridiculous of assumptions?

Are you ONCE AGAIN trying to paint Me as thinking absurd things so that we do NOT stay with what you assume and BELIEVE is true?

When I ask you to provide scenarios that prove twins who are born at the same time would age differently, then you have not, or can not, provide any actual scenarios THAT HAVE BEEN DONE.

Also, if you are NOT already know fully well aware, you are the one that says, if a human being travels about four light years away at a certain speed then anomaly happens where some would age by about 70 days, while some would age by about 4.3 years and some would age by about 3.1 days but ALL are ageing at the same pace.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
The very fact 'that time appears to change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer' can very easily be shown and proven true.
There is no observer in that statement since there is no way to directly observe dilation since it involves events not present at the observation point.
A traveling observer begins at a starting event and ends at a finishing event, and according to you there WOULD BE proof of dilation, of which the observer at that final observation point could well observe dilation IF it happens the way you say it does happen.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm You say this can easily be proven true, yet you don't seem to accept the evidence.
If it is "evidence" to you, then that does NOT mean it is actual real and true evidence.

I, obviously, do NOT have to accept "evidence" that you accept.

You, also, have just shown and thus verified that what you believe is true, then you are NOT open to any thing opposing that.

You can accept and believe any thing you like. I really do NOT care. But you also do NOT seem to "accept the evidence". Do you accept absolutely EVERY piece of "evidence" that others say is evidence? Do you also accept the FACT that others also say you are in denial of the evidence and that YOU also do NOT accept the evidence?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Am I expected to accept, and/or agree to some thing, that is NOT properly qualified?
Never expected you to accept it. I think some of the others are frustrated at your apparent denial, but that's them. I'm more amused by it.
If, and when, real and true evidence is presented that I am NOT in denial of it. I am also NOT in denial that you and others are accepting of some things that you and them say is evidence.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm I thought the subject of debate was why this stuff should be accepted.
I do NOT do debate, because of the already explained stupidity of debating and what debating can cause. I prefer to look at what IS actually true and real instead.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm What differentiates your position from one of denial of a specific theological stance, or perhaps an interpretation of QM?
What differentiates My position from all others is because My position is NOT one based on denial nor on accepting.

Every thing is relative to the observer. A theological stance and/or an interpretation of quantum mechanics is relative to the observer, and that is WHY some people find things in theology and in quantum mechanics confusing or puzzling, and thus WHY they also are NOT able to fit ALL things perfectly together as One and see the whole and big picture.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmIf you deny the answer, justify the denial.
I have attempted to show what I observe, but I can not get past the beliefs that you, and others, have.
You have an observation of something that falsifies anything we've said?
Yes.

I have already said that, of which you even replied to it.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm If not, then what you observe isn't evidence one way or the other, and the denial of the positive evidence goes unjustified.
Why would you assume the answer would be no? Did you NOT read and understand what I wrote previously?

Also, is it supposedly "positive" evidence, because you and some others BELIEVE (in) it is true and correct or is there another reason for it supposedly being "positive evidence"?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Are you at all open to the fact that the answers you, and others, have given could be WRONG?
Absolutely.
Well you do not necessarily come across that way.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm But ignorance is the wrong path to being open.
Why would you even think ignorance was in relation to being open?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Knowing the theory, understanding it, and making it better is the way to go.
And making the theory better is already a very simple and easy thing to do.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Very few theories are just plain wrong.
True that.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm The Earth is not flat, but the surface of a sphere is effectively flat at close range.
Looking at things at close range will only give you a very small and very narrow view of things.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm The round earth was a minor adjustment to the geometry, the exact same sort as relativity.
Would you like to finish the sentence? As it stands I am unclear as to what you are actually saying. Are you saying 'relativity' was a minor adjustment to the geometry ALSO?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmYou seem to consider it a virtue to be open to flat Earth because you have all you experience on an apparently flat place.
1. I do NOT consider it a virtue to be open to flat earth because of your stupid assumption.
2. WHY did you make ANOTHER assumption, which by the way is AGAIN completely WRONG.
3. Is earth really apparently a flat place to you? If so, then that partly explains your very narrow view of things here.
4. Earth is NOT apparently a flat place to Me.
5. ONCE AGAIN, what SEEMS to you is NOT necessarily the truth of things.

Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmYou consider the rest of us sheep for following the obviously wrong texts that teach of a round planet.
If you continue to BELIEVE the assumptions that you obviously make up your self, then you are going to continue on this path of a very narrowing view that you have until you will NOT be able to distinguish truth and reality from the falsehoods and unreal things you are now seeing and saying here.

HOW and WHY have to jumped to this sort of conclusion. Can you provide exactly WHAT has made you to start these assumptions AND jump to these most ridiculous conclusions?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm You've attempted to point out the flat Earth you observe,
I have NEVER attempted to point out the flat earth I observe BECAUSE I DO NOT observe a flat earth. For you to even assume that is a reorganization of the power of belief to distort what IS, actually going on.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm but cannot get past the beliefs that us others have.
What do you mean by that I can not get past the beliefs that you others have?

I can see the obvious beliefs you all have. I even KNOW why you all have them, so I can easily get past them. It is you, and others, who can NOT get past those BELIEFS, which are by the way of your own making.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm We should not necessarily accept flat Earth, but be at least open to it. Well I'm not. Baaaaa....
AGAIN rather foolish assumption you have made up here. WHY do you continue to make up assumptions? AND, especially the obviously stupid and silly ones that you are making up here now?
I also do NOT deny your given answers. I just do NOT, yet, see how they logically follow.
Look up the thought experiments then.[/quote]

Is there any ones in particular that you want Me to look up. Some I have looked up, and the obvious flaws in the answers in some of them stand out pretty quickly. Even the reasons WHY some people come to some of those weird conclusions can be obviously seen and understood.

Also, what does a 'thought experiment' entail to you?

In other words, what does 'thought experiment' mean to you?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm All of it logically follows from just fixed light speed.
All of it might to YOU, but it does NOT logically follow to ALL of us. For obvious reasons.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Your refusal to follow the illustration might justify your naive personal view,
But I have NOT refused to follow the illustration. I just observe, see, and understand where the picture is painted wrongly.

Does saying it is My "naive" personal view help you to BELIEVE in your view more or better? Do you NEED to try to paint a picture of Me in a certain way?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm but it does not justify your bashing of the rest of us for accepting the hard evidence.
By saying it is "hard evidence" just shows HOW MUCH you actually BELIEVE (in) it.

Are you feeling "bashed"? If so, WHY?

Could there be any chance that I, or others, could also be perceived of trying to "bashed" too?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Ignorance is not a valid argument.
Very true.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Which, if I am correct, that "evidence", which you see, you are NOT going to give and explain again, right?
Correct. You seem to have a track record for not acknowledging evidence, perhaps because it was not done by you personally.
I have acknowledge the so called "evidence" you have provided. But just because some thing is EVIDENT to you does NOT necessarily mean it is actual true and real evidence, nor does it even mean that it is evidence to and for ALL others. NOT ALL people have to acknowledge what you acknowledge. Or does that NOT fit in with your expectation of Life and others?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
To Me, saying, A clock ticked slower, traveling in a certain direction, around earth compared to another clock that stayed in the same place on earth is NOT verified evidence that a human body will age slower when it travels at speed. That might be enough evidence and proof, for you, but I need more than just that.
Clocks accurately measures duration in their own frame.

Clocks, supposedly, accurately measure the duration of WHAT, exactly, in their own frame?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Not accurate to say one ticks slower, because if it did, the other clock would be ticking faster, which contradicts the situation described from the frame of what was the slower clock.
Thank you.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
That is NOT to say that what you are saying is true and correct is NOT true and correct, that is just saying I NEED more evidence to see and accept what you say you see and accept here.
I understand. But why go on the forum then and post that we're all wrong to accept our education?
Have you got a link, or a page number, or any thing else where I have supposedly gone on this forum and posted that you are all wrong to accept your education?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Why is this stance of denial a good thing for anybody else, especially those of us who need to know this stuff to engineer things like rockets that need to get to their proper destinations, or GPS devices?
What stance of denial?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmFlat earth works until you're in charge of scheduling airline routes.
Flat earth has NEVER worked, has it?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmWHY would you say flat earth works until ... [any thing]?
I have NOT based any thing on people who always stay together. Are there two people who have ALWAYS stayed together?
There have yet to be any exceptions to this.
I have NOT observed two people who ALWAYS STAY TOGETHER.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmAll humans have stayed sufficiently together to make their age adjustments far less than the precision to which human age can be measured.
So if it has NOT yet been measured, then WHY the BELIEF that IT WILL HAPPEN?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm The worst adjustment was on the order of a second, and the precision is on the order of nearly a decade. Here there is one data point from which you draw your stance of denial.
Which data point do I allegedly draw My stance of denial?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
What do you mean by, "you balk"?
You did it just above. You denied that people stay together.
I have NEVER observed two people who have ALWAYS stayed together. Show Me where this has happened, then I will accept that this has happened. Until then I will express what I observe, which is I have NEVER observed two people who have ALWAYS stayed together. If you want to call that "denial" then so be it. That is your choice and you are free to think and do whatever you like. I will certainly NEVER get in your way.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
So, hitherto zero humans have left the general frame of their home planet, but to you there is ENOUGH evidence to support and prove that twins born at the same time age differently when one is traveling at speed, is this right?
No, they age at the same pace of one day per day, unless you consider it closed minded of me to assume that.
I consider it NOT open of you to disclose that one day per day is NOT the same for a traveler as it is to one on earth. So, if that is the case, then the twins would obviously be aging differently. As could easily be proven when they meet up again. It is you, is it not, who is saying when they meet up again that they will be different ages, right?

As I asked previously, if twins who are born at the same time, and are the same age at the beginning of one of them who takes a journey, then how could they be different ages when they meet again if they aged at the exact same pace? If after they meet again their ages are different, then the pace of ageing must of changed some where, correct?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm They've had people in space for years, and they don't seem to age faster due to being in space.
Although they are traveling at faster speeds, is that right?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm So the traveler is probably not going to age significantly different than one day per day just because he's in an enclosed box with life support. But it's an assumption. Maybe there's a magic aging ray that hits you out past the Kuiper belt. Have to keep an open mind about that one.
And, maybe there is some sort of magic ageing ray that hits human bodies when they travel at speed also, what do you think?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
So, to you, the conclusion that a traveling twin HAS, without any doubt, existed for less duration than the twin which stayed on earth is based solely on the clock or watch that they take with them, is this right?
Never said that. From the traveler frame, one existed for 70 days, and the Earth twin existed for only 3. The watch was brought up as a way to measure the elapsed time if either twin found it inconvenient to have an age-o-meter shoved up his wazoo at the end of it all.
But now with the "traveler frame" back on earth frame how are they going to work out the differences? Obviously far more than 3 or 70 days has actually past, so what are the clocks actually saying?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmTwins are not required you know. Do it to two newly impregnated women. After the trip, one will starting to show a round belly, and the other will be dealing with her third grader. Much more obvious difference in age if you do it from age zero like that.
That is if the presumption that because clocks supposedly slow down just because they travel with speed then human bodies, and all physical processes for that matter, will slow down also is believed, then what you say here WILL HAPPEN.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
So, to you, 'clocks' are used in tests as they are a lot easier to get up to "speed"?
The low-precision ones are. The accurate ones probably haven't been accelerated to anything faster than they've done to humans.
You missed the point I was making. But that is My fault alone, of course. And also of no real importance.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
"Up to the speed" of what exactly? Where they looking for a result, prior to the test?
99.5% of lightspeed, and yes, they were looking for a result. The clocks had perhaps a 10% error rate.
What was the result they were looking for?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
I do NOT have a "counter point" as I have NO "view" in the first place.
Yes you do. I've pointed it out. You'd not be posting if you had no view that we're seemingly not getting.
You say I have a view, so what is My view?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Do you human beings actually realize...
The wording implies you're not one.
The wording was written specifically for a reason.

What did NOT happen and what WILL happen is just more proof of what I HAVE BEEN SAYING HERE.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Bridge troll perhaps? You should put it in your profile.
To you, what is a 'bridge troll'?

For that matter to you what is a 'troll'?

I await your answers, then I might actually put in My profile.

Are you proposing a 'troll' is some sort of negative thing?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
I have NO known way at all of predicting the age of some body not on earth.
You fail to understand our stance. Doubt of a view is acceptable, but only in the face of a better alternative. There are examples of views that were considered truth but then discarded. In almost all cases, the view discarded was interpretation, not science.
Is that 'interpretation' thing like what you and others do here of what I say?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm The other cases the view was improved upon, not discarded.
ALL views can be improved upon, and are done so, almost instantly, that is once you know how to.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmNewtonian mechanics is still valid, just incomplete.
But it is already complete, just like all the other so called "theories". It is just that some people have not been able to observe and see this complete picture just YET.

Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm People were not closed minded to accept Newtonian physics taught at the time.
Just like you say, "I never said that".
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Progress was made not by denial of the theory, but by noting inconsistencies, thus identifying places in need of refinement.
Of which I have tried to do. BUT because you BELIEVE some things already you are NOT able to see this, just yet.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm You've identified zero inconsistencies, and don't seem to be trying to.
I have only tried to do what I want to do.

I am only here to learn, and in doing so I have ended up showing some things. If they are what you actually want to see, then that is another matter.

As I have already stated I can very easily show the inconsistencies, however, I can NOT make you see them nor even make you want to see them. I have also already explained WHY you are blinded to them, AND, WHY you have a distorted view of reality.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Instead you're evangelizing the ignorance view of denial of the evidence we have. It seems to be the wrong path because it does not lead to any knowledge at all.
If that is what you believe and want to keep believing it, then that is perfectly fine with Me. That view provides more and more evidence for what I am actually saying, AND SHOWING, that is to those who are open enough to seeing it.

The actual opposing inconsistency and contradiction in your statements here is glaringly obvious, and one I am very happy that you have provided.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
The more questions I ask, then the more I can learn.
Not if you deny the answers given.
One again, just because I do not, YET, accept the answers that you give then that does NOT mean I deny them.

Your answers could just be WRONG. Can you accept that?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmYou still know nothing if you throw all the answers in the 'maybe' pile.
Or, just maybe one can learn FAR MORE that way. You will NEVER KNOW until you try it. But you may never try it because might be one of those under the illusion that one MUST believe some things.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
What part of 'relativity' exactly has been supposedly "well verified by empirical tests"?
It has parts? Don't know how to answer this.
How about by saying the "parts" that have supposedly been verified?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
What is the 'pace' corresponding to the duration of existence?
One day per day, or I.E. 1.
The ridiculousness of your answer here is startling.

Is it a coincidence that, to you, one day that was devised up by human beings supposedly matches up perfectly with one day of 'time', itself, as you are presuming here? If a clock presumably measures time then time, itself, MUST slow down if a clock slows down, that is if it is traveling at speed and/or with gravity, is that right?

Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Is it not you who is the one who says that the pace of the ageing process depends on how fast a thing is traveling?
If so, then considering ALL things travel at differing speeds, then that would imply ALL things age at a mismatched pace, correct
No to the first. Human aging is a measure of decomposition. Living humans tend to predictably change appearance over time, and fall apart after around 80 years. Other things don't necessarily age like that. A buried bone might age really slow and be found as a fossil millions of years later, and another one might break down in months in a harsher environment. So things do age at mismatched paces. The aging of a bone is far less predictable.
At least you are consistent in trying to change the focus away from what IS actually being discussed when I ask questions about the ageing process of human bodies and clocks supposedly slowing down with speed.

Because you are certainly NOT consistent when you talk about what this thread is actually about.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Also, what is the duration of existence, and, what is that duration measured against?
Duration as used in this thread is the time between two events. It can be measured by any physical process. The more stable/predictable the process, the more accurate the measurement.
So it is back to 'predictable'?

Let Me know if I have this wrong, what you predict will happen is far more likely to happen then what others predict will happen if they do NOT agree with your predictions?

Are you even some what aware that there is NO actual thing as two events?

Is every thing you see and believe based on what you have been taught and, what you call, "educated" on?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
I think you have completely missed what I am suggesting.
I also suspect you think that.
Have you then ever thought to clarify? Or do you just prefer and want to continue to make up your own assumptions, and then believe those self made assumptions instead of asking clarifying questions? Do you want to continue to make up assumptions solely out of habit or do you do it because it feels far more comfortable that way? If you make assumptions, in regards to what you already believe is true, then what you already believe is true and real will remain that way, for you anyway. The actual Truth is obviously far different from what you see and believe it is.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
A proposed 'speed of light', in a vacuum, might have help a human being come up with or make up a theory, but 'the speed of light', itself, did NOT suggest any thing. How do you propose it could?
Fixed light speed was not something that was proposed. It was measured, and that measurement was unexpected. They knew their model at the time was not complete.
When was light speed measured? Was that before or after the theory? Has that measurement the first time it was measured remained? Could that measured speed change in the future? Is the model now complete?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Also, there is only ONE absolute labelled "model" and that IS the real thing, Itself.
Not what a model is.
What "absolute" model are you referring to, and what do you propose it did not predict?
The absolute model is the real thing itself. By just looking at what IS instead of making up models and/or making up theories, then the "model" observed, seen, AND fully understood is the complete real and true thing, Itself.

By the way, a model does NOT predict any thing. ONLY human beings make predictions.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmNewtonian absolute space. It predicted that if you were not stationary, one could measure different times for light to go forward vs. backwards.
Who cares?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmTake the train moving at half lightspeed. Two clocks are synchronized at each end, and emit a photon at time zero and measure when the signal is received at the other end. The train is 6 light-microseconds (usec) in length. If the train is stationary, it takes 6usec, and both measurements read 6. If it is moving, the light signal from the front moves 2/3 the train length in 4 usec, and the half-lightspeed motion of the back sensor makes up the remaining distance. It measures 4 at the end. The signal from the back must travel two trainlengths in 12 usec. One to cover the length of the train, and the other to cover the movement of the front sensor in those 12 usec. So the moving train gets unequal measurements of 4 and 12 for light to travel the length of the same distance, a variable speed of light. This was empirically falsified. They needed refinement of the model, but not a discard of it.
Who really cares?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmThe experiment can be done without reliance on synchronized clocks. Just one emitter/sensor at one end and a mirror at the other. The stationary train measures 6+6=12 usec for the round trip, and the moving train measures 4+12=16. This is closer to how light speed is actually measured. They have scattered about several reflectors on the moon for exactly such purposes.
Really?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Why are they called "falsification" tests? Does that some how give them more "weight" in their support of the thing that was said would happen?
Yes.
Thank you.

Predicting what would happen, always helps in finding ways to MAKE THAT ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

Human beings are very good at devising things.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm If there are two models and they make different predictions, all one need do is test the thing that is predicted differently, which matches one model hopefully, and serves as a falsification of the other. Don't mean the winning model is perfect, but it is better.
The real and true model is the best. It is also the best one to look at and study.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm QM interpretations are supposedly vastly different views,
To some they may be vastly different, but they are NOT vastly different to ALL.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm but lack falsification tests and thus are not science theories, but merely philosophical interpretation.
WHY interpret any thing? WHY NOT just look at what IS?

What is PERCEIVED as being "vastly different" is easily observed. Also, WHY some people perceive things vastly different from what actually IS is also very easily observed and understood.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm They are trying to identify falsification tests which would elevate them to science.
And, to you, only then things would be seen and better understood, am I right?

Do you really believe only scientific methods are the best way to learn and discover things?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Why not, instead, just do a test and just wait completely openly to see what ACTUALLY HAPPENS?
That's exactly what they do.
Are you sure? I thought you said they make up theories?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm But you seem to support the ignoring of what ACTUALLY HAPPENS.
Do NOT forget that what seems true, to you, is NOT necessarily what IS, true.

I do NOT support what APPEARS to you that I support
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Not sure why that needed to be in caps like that.
Because you said people do tests, PREDICTING what will happen.

Where I prefer to do is just remain OPEN, and see WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, instead of PREDICTING WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Trying to perform a "falsification" test, or a "verifiable" test, means that there is already a preconceived outcome, which can influence what readings are taken and then given.
There is no verifiable test. It's all about falsification.
Okay.

The 'verifiable' is more of a subtle subliminal thing than an actual test.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm QM interpretations are full of verifiable tests, but lack falsification. Hence they're not science, and there is no solid grounds for asserting one of them being more correct.
There is solid ground. You are just unaware of it yet.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
What other tests prove that time slows down with speed?
Predictions about where planets are observed. Measurement of gravity waves. Lifetimes of exotic particles in fast moving environments like LHC.
And they all supposedly prove that 'time' slow down with speed, BUT what is 'time', itself?

Is there an agreed upon, and/or accepted definition of what 'time' is exactly, BEFORE we could even move onto the point of there being some thing/s that prove "time" slows down with speed?

This is a bit like arguing that there are tests that prove or disprove God exists, without ever agreeing on and/or accepting what the definition of God is FIRST.

Without a definition of 'time' and/or 'God' saying that there is evidence of any thing to do with either I see as a rather very pointless exercise. But what I observe is NOT necessarily what others observe.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmNo book was written before then.
"No" book?
Sorry, all the context has been removed. Not bothering to hunt down the origin of that snippet.
You wrote, if you want to know why it must be like that, it is because it was worked out from only one empirical piece of evidence: The invariant speed of light.

I then went on to talk about how some things get written down, in a book, AND THEN some readers BELIEVE what is written down and FOLLOW it as though it is absolutely true, or gospel.

If I was to assume what you meant when you then wrote, no book was written before then I would have assumed that you meant no book had been written before the so called "evidence" of the invariant speed of light was written. But I do NOT like to assume any thing so I asked you for clarification because "No book" usually means no book at all.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Noax wrote:Said in caps no less. Must be true.
So, again, I will ask, WHAT (exactly) was obvious?
If you can NOT provide "what" exactly was obvious, then, once again, we others have NO idea what you are referring to and talking about.
You're the one who yelled that IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT LIKE THAT AT ALL. You don't know? I was just commenting on the caps usage, which seems to be the argument which makes your assertion of obviousness true.
Once again, what SEEMS to you does not necessarily mean it is what it SEEMS, to you.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmI didn't assume anything about what you actually find obvious, since in your efforts to remain unclear, you decided to omit from that statement.
SO, even if you know or perceive that I, in My effort, remain unclear you will still NOT ask for clarification. You still prefer to make up assumptions, as well as believe some of your own assumptions, which you have obviously, on your own, made up, is that right?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
By the way 'caps' do NOT necessarily mean "Must be true". 'Caps' can some times mean read and hear what it is that is actually been written and said. Saying some parts louder than others, with caps, is some times used in order to make the actual or particular point, that one is making, hopefully more clearer, and thus better understood.
Caps is considered yelling, and rude.
ONLY TO SOME PEOPLE.

Do you understand that, or do you only believe in what you already accept as being true?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Italics with mixed case implies emphasis.
Is that a Universal understanding, which is agreed upon and accepted by ALL people?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Your statement of obviousness did not include what was obvious other than "human beings BELIVE some things MUST BE LIKE THAT", leaving off what they believe things must be like.
Just maybe that was ALL I wanted to include, did you consider that?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Knowing that part might allow me to comment on how obvious some unstated alternative position is.
Did you ever or even consider asking for clarification?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
This is why you're not being taken seriously. No model cannot compete against a model that makes good predictions.
I have NOT yet even begun to show a model.
We noticed that. Hence us not taking you seriously.
The most simple and easily understood point that I have been trying to make has NOT even been noticed, yet. Let alone moving onto more in depth understanding of things. I am NOT going to begin to explain what would be called "the theory of" Everything when human beings can NOT even begin to notice how to understand the best way to learn and understand things.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
And, if you have already decided that NO MODEL can compete against a model that makes "good predictions", then we already KNOW what you have decided to believe in, and follow.
We would fall beind a better model in a moment.
You have already fallen. WHY you are unable to get back up again is clearly obvious, to some of us that is anyway.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Also, did you mean "No model can compete against ...", "A model cannot compete against ...", or "No model cannot compete against ...", or, some thing else?
I meant the lack of model cannot compete again an existing model, however poor.
The complete model is already created, but only some KNOW how to observe It correctly.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
And, to Me, it seems like an extremely preconceived conception to have, that another model could not compete against a model that makes "good" predictions. Do you mean a model that HAS MADE "good" predictions, with the word "good" meaning that the predictions have ALREADY been verified as being indisputably true and correct?
None of the above. I was talking about a non-model.
Are you talking about the non-model that already exists, which you are just unaware of and thus unable to see yet? Or, is there some other non-model you so talk about?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
What is there to be taken seriously in in what I have been writing? Most of what I write is just asking clarifying questions? If people are not taking seriously clarifying questions, then what does that actually mean?
We disagree that we're sheep just because we accept verified scientific findings.
How come you are able to disagree, but when I disagree, I am tried to be shown as one in denial of so called "evidence"?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
In fact it was I who was trying to get you, and others, to look from other perspectives, which would show in much greater detail a much bigger thus much more truer view, but that perspective has consistently been denied as being NOT even being able to even be looked at.
Your attempts presumed conditions known to be false.
Thus the reason I said I am looking for people with the ability to imagine.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you can express that THIS WOULD HAPPEN, even though it has NEVER been shown to happen, yet when I ask people to imagine some thing for a 'thought experiment' they are, for real reasons only known to them, unable to even consider this. These same people want to use 'thought experiments' as examples for WHAT WILL HAPPEN, but are themselves NOT even capable of performing thought experiments, themselves.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm You can prove anything on such ground, and it would just show that your assumptions are probably wrong.
WHY are you assuming that there would be assumptions made? Also, why are you assuming that the said assumptions made are probably wrong? A lot of assumptions being made here BEFORE any actual thing is said. Thus the reason I say assumptions can very easily distort what IS true and reality.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmRelativity is based only on one assumption, and that was one known to be true, yet counterintuitive.
If some thing is known to be true, then how is that an assumption?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm That led to some very counterintuitive falsification tests.
I do NOT know of any thing that is counter intuitive, but that might be because I do NOT base any thing on any thing else without PRIOR first hand experience FIRST.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
You have NOT even begun to grasp what I observe, instead you just make up more assumptions about what I see.
You've implied that you're not human, so perhaps you're quite right about my assumptions about what you see.
I have just written a few words. You do NOT KNOW what I have implied. There is only one true way you can KNOW what I have implied. All you are doing is making assumptions, YET AGAIN.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm I base it off what I see, and other than the software that runs my cellphone nav app, I get little day to day experience that would be different between relativity being the case or not.
What are you trying to say here?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
The reason I do NOT examine your assumed and imagined view that I supposedly have is because I have NO real idea what it is that you THINK I view. Remember it is all of your making. Without clarifying you will NEVER KNOW what I see and understand. Assuming you do know is NOT helping you at all.
This is why everybody labels you a troll. You prattle on about what you see and understand, but don't tell us those things, and they type paragraphs about how much we don't know about you.
Has any thought ever crossed paths within that head about HOW you can actually learn more and/or gain a better understanding of some thing?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm If you see and understand something we don't, then produce it.
WHY should I?

I can NOT even get you, and others, to begin to notice the most innate thing of being a human being yet you ALL even KNOW what that thing IS, although that is unconsciously KNOW IT.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm If you won't because you prefer to whine about how much you're misunderstood, then you're a troll in our eyes.
You, and others, can call Me whatever you like. I really do NOT care one bit at all.

By the way, what does 'troll' mean, to you, if you did NOT answer before?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Noax wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:15 pmYes, we've noticed this.
Are you saying that you already do KNOW what the actual truth is, although you have NO such physical evidence for this?
These forum posts are virtual I suppose. Does that count as physical evidence? Certainly not proof since the knowledge level you choose to portray might in fact not correspond at all to what your actual level is.
What is My perceived 'knowledge level' that comes across to you? And, what is My perceive 'actual level of knowledge'?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm So no, I don't know the truth of it.
Thank you for being honest.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
What was the name of the actual test done conducted on twins?
We should keep a count of this question. Nobody has ever traveled far from Earth.
Should we also then keep a count of how many times it is said that TWINS WILL BE OF DIFFERENT AGE WHEN ONE TRAVELS AND RETURNS?

Again if NO actual test has been conducted, then how can you, and others, be so absolutely 100% sure of what WILL happen?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm It is admittedly an assumption that a human in deep space ages at one day per day out there, just like he does in near-space.
YOUR 'one day per day' statements overlook the very reality, which you say one day IS NOT really the same one day depending on the speed.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
WHY do you, human beings, seem to NEVER ask for clarification and instead just make up the most ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS and jump to the most inconceivable CONCLUSIONS, some times, thinking that that will counter act what another is saying?
Another implication of not being human.
WHAT is the supposed implication of not being human.

I just asked a question for clarification. Since you, and others, do what I am asking a clarifying question about, I just wonder what answers you will or might provide. The actual true and right answer is already obvious to some, but waiting for you, and/or others, to answer is enjoyable.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmYou know very well that no human has traveled to another star. You have no specific protest it seems, but barring one, you force us to make assumptions about what part you're unwilling to accept.
I am NOT forcing you to make any assumption at all. In fact I suggest to do the exact opposite, and that is do NOT make assumptions and instead ASK FOR CLARIFICATION INSTEAD.

Also, and furthermore, you making the assumption, of which one more there was NO force, that there are parts that I am unwilling to accept is JUST ANOTHER ASSUMPTION. When will you, human beings, stop making assumptions.

By the way this answer is already KNOWN. I, once again, just wait for your answer/s.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm They've pretty much verified every aspect of it except the rate of aging in deep space, or perhaps A-C being some sort of anomaly, although the original twin-experiment made no mention of a specific location like that. So rather than going on for 20 posts about our human assumptions, tell us the part you think should be open to questioning.
Is there any thing in Life that should NOT be open to questioning?

I think absolutely EVERY part of LIfe is better left open to questioning. After all the only thing I have observed that is KNOWN, for sure, are the thoughts that arise within one. EVERY thing else is questionable.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm I've listed the only ones I can think of. If you don't do this, then you're verifying our assessment of your view as being from ignorance.
Let us start by asking you, what is My supposed view, which you are making an assessment of, and of which you are trying to verify as being from ignorance?

What view do you think I have, which is coming from ignorance?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
There is NO denial of the indirect evidence of relativity, by Me, so there is NO reason why you ASSUME there is. You are making that ASSUMPTION all by your lonesome.
Yet you consider it open-mindedness to reject the implications of that evidence.

I have ALREADY stated on numerous there is NO such thing as open nor closed mindedness. So, let us start with that. Then we can move onto, I do NOT consider it open to reject the implications of (the actual truth and that is what you call) "that evidence".
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmThat's willful ignorance in my book.
You WANT to BELIEVE My view is being and coming from ignorance, therefore no matter what you observe, view, and see every thing will lead you to the conclusion that My view is based upon "willful ignorance". In your book, or in other words, from your story, I am ignorant because you BELIEVE wholeheartedly what you call EVIDENCE is absolutely true, right, accurate, and correct, AND that I deny that so called "EVIDENCE".

Being able to read between the lines in others books and stories allows Me to observe, see, and understand things about them and what they see that others, and they themselves are NOT able to see and understand, yet.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
Again ONLY AFTER the trip is made could it be proven there is a "younger" twin or not. So, making an "assessment" while the trip is being made, or as you say not in each other's presence, is again ONLY AN ASSUMPTION.
No, not an assumption. It is ambiguous. That's different than an assumption. I'm claiming no assumptions.
Okay that is fine with Me. If you do NOT want to call making an "assessment" of WHAT WILL HAPPEN, before an actual test and/or experiment is even done, an 'assumption' and instead call that "ambiguous" instead, then so be it. That does NOT affect the way I observe because I look at what IS, and that does NOT change. The Truth does NOT change just because some people try to change words so as to make up a theory or story to fit in what they already see as being the truth.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
So again, WHY make an ASSUMPTION BEFORE you have the actual evidence? And, as to who made the trip the answer is obvious, whoever is decided to make the trip.
No. It is not about decisions. In fact it is about acceleration. One (or both) of them must accelerate in order for the two to meet again.
And, how does acceleration influence the outcome?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
There is NOTHING that 'stationary' can be measured against so that would mean every thing is moving.
This is wrong.
Is it absolutely wrong?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Anything can be considered stationary,
The Truth IS absolutely any thing can be CONSIDERED. BUT 'what is considered' is NOT necessarily what IS. What is considered is also NOT what is necessarily actually true nor necessarily able to be true. For example, any thing can be considered stationary, but is there any thing that is actually ABLE TO BE stationary?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmand be that against which time is computed, or measured if in the presence of the measurement.
Was this a conscious decision to be a diversion away from the question, an unconscious result of diversion away from the question, or some thing else?

You say, any thing can be considered stationary and be that against which time is computed, or measure if in the presence of the measurement.
1. What can 'stationary' actually be measured against in real and true Life? (Of course one thing can be said, or considered, to be "stationary" against another thing, but that is NOT what I am asking here).
2. What is 'time'?
3. How is time 'computed'?
4. How do human beings supposedly accurately measure that which is considered stationary, but in real is NOT stationary, against that thing called 'time' but which we are awaiting a definition for, and of which is some how computed?
5. What 'measurement' can a considered stationary thing be in the presence of to be measured against?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
If some people want to make guesses about what would be observed from a perspective that they are obviously not in and decide how that frame would be seen compared to another frame, then that is quite a different thing from WHAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN.
They're not guesses.
How can you be so SURE they are NOT guesses if the actual test needed to confirm them HAS NOT YET BEEN DONE?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Nobody but you claiming that there's guessing going on.
One other person here in this thread may, or may not, claim they are guesses. But anyway, yes you are right what I know, at the moment, I am the only once claiming they are guesses. Is there some thing wrong with that claim?

It is you, and others, who are claiming WHAT WILL HAPPEN, BEFORE an actual test and/or experiment is even performed. I also claim you are basing your guesses on one or more OTHER experiments. Therefore, that is the reason WHY I made the claim that what you, and others, are saying here are ONLY GUESSES.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm
The contradiction of "traveler" being "stationary" speaks for itself.There is NO such thing as what 'stationary' could be measured against yet.
Ah. An attempt at stating a contradiction, coupled with the refutation you seek no less. The traveler is stationary relative to his ship for instance. He's in his seat, and a while later, still in it. Sounds pretty stationary to me.
Being "stationary" in or to a thing, which itself is NOT stationary at all, does NOT sound pretty stationary, to Me.

Looking at only a very small frame, of the big picture, will obviously NOT show you much at all, which is really already pretty obvious, to Me. One could NOT be expected to see the true and big picture if they are only looking at a very narrow or small view or frame that picture.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm What definition of stationary do you have that contradicts that?
The word 'traveler' sounds pretty contradictory to 'stationary', to Me.

The first definition I found for 'stationary', which was, not moving or not intended to be moved, sounds very contradictory to 'traveler', of which the first definition I found for 'traveler', was, a person or thing that travels, with the first definition of 'travel' I found, being, make a journey, typically of some length. The word travel and traveler usually referring to moving, which is in stark contradiction of not moving or not intended to be moved.

I thought 'stationary traveler' was a very simple contradiction to see in and of itself, and that it spoke clearly as a contradiction in and of itself. But then again I do NOT observe things as most people do.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pmYou seem to refer to stationary in some absolute sense, but that would imply a definition from an alternate view which you've stated you don't have, so I'm left unclear as to what you're suggesting.
You are the one suggesting an alternate view, which you say I have stated I do not have. What is the alternate view of which you speak?

May be I do have that alternate view. What is the alternate view that you mention?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Relativity says there is no absolute (not relative to anything) way to test for being stationary,
So WHY then do some people who talk about relativity use terms like "at rest", "stationary", et cetera?

Some people even say things like, "The traveler is stationary relative to his ship for instance. He's in his seat, and a while later, still in it. Sounds pretty stationary to me." BUT if relativity says there is no absolute (not relative to anything) way to test for being stationary, then WHY do people say things like the example I just provided?

If there is NO absolute (not relative to ANY THING) way to test for being stationary, then that would also include a traveler sitting in a ship's seat, would it not?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm and your comment above agrees with that rather that contracts it as you seem to have intended.
Yes it APPEARS that way, this time. I wonder if this time it is one of those time when what APPEARS (or SEEMS) is actually how it IS, or, if this time it is again only how it APPEARS (or SEEMS) but is NOT necessarily so?

Can you tell the difference?
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm If light speed were not fixed, then there would be an easy test.
By the way, WHY do you need others to make up theories of things, like relativity for example, for you to be able to better understand things, like relativity, when ALL meaningful things can be observed, known, tested, and fully understood, just about instantly by one's Self anyway?
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:08 pm
Noax wrote:
The assumptions, beliefs, and confirmation biases in those further examples, which are based solely on the one and supposedly "tested" experimental example are startling obvious.
This is what I mean by denial of evidence.
What do you mean by 'denial of evidence'? You have not said anything here to know what you are talking let alone to understand what you mean.
This conversation is indeed making no progress. You blatantly state that there has been but one supposedly "tested" example, and then you ask what I mean by denial of evidence. That statement is what I mean. It is why I replied to it.

Please see the prior post (to gaffo) which addresses this point you seem to make. Your protests of relativity seem to be one of interpretation (what is time, do clocks really slow down or do they just measure less?) All that is beyond relevance. You seem to be completely uneducated in this subject, and unwilling to get one from me. So in my prior post I address more the point of why we might believe something when it has been supposedly "tested".
Are you saying there has hardly been one verification for it? Does that mean it is there not been verified?
Science does not verify.
A test of 'what'?
And is a test of EVERY SECOND of EVERY DAY really being performed?
Relativity. And yes.
And, if that 'example' we have been looking at is NOT presented as evidence, then WHAT IS presented as evidence?
The empirical tests that have been done.
ONCE AGAIN, and obviously, YOUR INTERPRETATION is WRONG.
If that could be shown, it wouldn't be an interpretation now, would it. For someone with no education and no beliefs, you throw around 'obviously' and WRONG a lot. This post of yours has a lot of troll replies. I don't feel inclined to answer much other than things not answered before.
A traveling observer begins at a starting event and ends at a finishing event, and according to you there WOULD BE proof of dilation, of which the observer at that final observation point could well observe dilation IF it happens the way you say it does happen.
No, I didn't say this. The traveler is stationary from his own point of view, and thus no observation of dilation. Everything is normal. He ages normally.
I do NOT do debate, because of the already explained stupidity of debating and what debating can cause. I prefer to look at what IS actually true and real instead.
Your methodology seem to be in direct conflict with this pursuit. See that prior post, which addresses this point.
Noax wrote: The round earth was a minor adjustment to the geometry, the exact same sort as relativity.
Would you like to finish the sentence? As it stands I am unclear as to what you are actually saying. Are you saying 'relativity' was a minor adjustment to the geometry ALSO?
Yes. Earth is flat until you consider a large enough scale. You can draw a square on the parking lot and its angles add up to 360. But not if the square gets big enough. Newtonian physics is descriptive at normal scale but needs a more complete description of the geometry at large scale.
Noax wrote:You seem to consider it a virtue to be open to flat Earth because you have all you experience on an apparently flat place.
1. I do NOT consider it a virtue to be open to flat earth because of your stupid assumption.
I base this observation on you having said that you do not believe the world is round. It was said in caps I think.
Flat earth has NEVER worked, has it?
Flat Earth has worked for more of human history than not. It is still used today. My paper maps are flat and don't mark corrections for the curvature. People's everyday experience is one of the sun rising each morning.
As I asked previously, if twins who are born at the same time, and are the same age at the beginning of one of them who takes a journey, then how could they be different ages when they meet again if they aged at the exact same pace? If after they meet again their ages are different, then the pace of ageing must of changed some where, correct?
From the viewpoint of the stable (not particularly accelerated) Earth frame, yes, although the wording is that of others. I would have said the younger one had not lived as long but aged normally, but the end effect is the same.
Noax wrote: They've had people in space for years, and they don't seem to age faster due to being in space.
Although they are traveling at faster speeds, is that right?
Well, they're all stationary relative to themselves, and thus age normally. They're moving a bit in Earth frame, but are also less deep in a gravity well. The effects are pretty trivial and cancel out at a certain altitude. At typical human orbital altitude, their age is dilated down up there.
Noax wrote: Maybe there's a magic aging ray that hits you out past the Kuiper belt. Have to keep an open mind about that one.
And, maybe there is some sort of magic ageing ray that hits human bodies when they travel at speed also, what do you think?
And misses the squirrels? Seems implausible that it would be just humans. Hate to think something is gunning just for us.
But now with the "traveler frame" back on earth frame how are they going to work out the differences? Obviously far more than 3 or 70 days has actually past, so what are the clocks actually saying?
In the traveler frame, he doesn't ever return to Earth. He'd have to accelerate to being stationary in a different frame to do that. Without coming home, the clock comparison is ambiguous.
Noax wrote:
"Up to the speed" of what exactly? Where they looking for a result, prior to the test?
99.5% of lightspeed, and yes, they were looking for a result. The clocks had perhaps a 10% error rate.
What was the result they were looking for?
They were looking for the result of that measurement, whatever it turned out to be.
Your answers could just be WRONG. Can you accept that?
I know they're wrong. That's why they're not from the theory of everything.
How about by saying the "parts" that have supposedly been verified?
Science doesn't verify things.
Let Me know if I have this wrong, what you predict will happen is far more likely to happen then what others predict will happen if they do NOT agree with your predictions?
I guess it depends on that which the two of us are basing our predictions.
Are you even some what aware that there is NO actual thing as two events?
Is this some redefinition of 'event' or are you making some new assertion?
Noax wrote:Newtonian absolute space. It predicted that if you were not stationary, one could measure different times for light to go forward vs. backwards.
Who cares?
...
Who really cares?
I suppose one in denial of evidence that does not support his biases would not care.
Noax wrote:They have scattered about several reflectors on the moon for exactly such purposes.
Really?
Yes, really. It was a pretty cheap and useful thing to do.
Noax wrote:[QM interpretations] lack falsification tests and thus are not science theories, but merely philosophical interpretation.
WHY interpret any thing? WHY NOT just look at what IS?

What is PERCEIVED as being "vastly different" is easily observed.
A proposal as to how to go about doing that would go some distance towards dispelling the nonsense that is your reply.The lack of observable differences is exactly the problem. I take it you're completely uneducated on even how the term 'interpretation' is being used here. You seem totally unaware of the problem, to the point where it is pointless to ask you what 'actually is' on the QM subject.
Noax wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:21 pm Not sure why that needed to be in caps like that.
Because you said people do tests, PREDICTING what will happen.

Where I prefer to do is just remain OPEN, and see WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, instead of PREDICTING WHAT WILL HAPPEN.
Two models, making different predictions. The test is run, they see what actually happens (which might not match either model), and the model that predicts incorrectly has problems. At no point is there bias in that unless the results are falsified to match the model.
BUT what is 'time', itself?

Is there an agreed upon, and/or accepted definition of what 'time' is exactly, BEFORE we could even move onto the point of there being some thing/s that prove "time" slows down with speed?

This is a bit like arguing that there are tests that prove or disprove God exists, without ever agreeing on and/or accepting what the definition of God is FIRST.

Without a definition of 'time' and/or 'God' saying that there is evidence of any thing to do with either I see as a rather very pointless exercise. But what I observe is NOT necessarily what others observe.
All philosophical questions irrelevant to the subject at hand. The tests do not demonstrate that time does or doesn't exist since there is no empirical difference to falsify one of those two cases.
You wrote, if you want to know why it must be like that, it is because it was worked out from only one empirical piece of evidence: The invariant speed of light.

I then went on to talk about how some things get written down, in a book, AND THEN some readers BELIEVE what is written down and FOLLOW it as though it is absolutely true, or gospel.
The theory came from the one piece of evidence. It becoming accepted came from the tests that falsified all non-relativistic views. Only then did the books begin to teach it.
I am NOT going to begin to explain what would be called "the theory of" Everything when human beings can NOT even begin to notice how to understand the best way to learn and understand things.
Left unstated is that even if all humans comply with whatever you're trying to get us to understand, no such TOE will be forthcoming from you. The language carries an implication that you have one, but that seems to be attributed to your poor language skills rather than actual intent to suggest you would be capable of such a thing.
Noax wrote:We would fall beind a better model in a moment.
You have already fallen. WHY you are unable to get back up again is clearly obvious, to some of us that is anyway.
Good example of a troll comment. Such comments are why I'm ignoring about 70% of your unproductive content.
If some thing is known to be true, then how is that an assumption?
Fixed light speed is an empirical observation. That data point is the premise (assumption) upon which relativity logically follows.
I do NOT know of any thing that is counter intuitive, but that might be because I do NOT base any thing on any thing else without PRIOR first hand experience FIRST.
We differ there. I lack the smarts, time and funding to do all these tests myself. The boffins seem pretty suited to the role of doing the testing for me. Their success is what backs their methodology.
I have just written a few words. You do NOT KNOW what I have implied. There is only one true way you can KNOW what I have implied. All you are doing is making assumptions, YET AGAIN.
I have no choice. You don't actually say what you see that the rest of us don't. All I get is what you conclude from it. Either you see different facts (due to not being human??), or you see the same things as the rest of us but reject findings you find distasteful.
By the way, what does 'troll' mean, to you, if you did NOT answer before?
You seriously are incapable of looking up a word, or picking out the definition that applies?
What is My perceived 'knowledge level' that comes across to you? And, what is My perceive 'actual level of knowledge'?
Given the question above, pretty dang low, but I was speaking of my perception of your knowledge, not your perception of your own knowledge, to which I have no access.
And, how does acceleration influence the outcome?
Wow, an actual question.
Acceleration causes the accelerated thing to be stationary in a different frame where events are ordered differently. Things true in the old frame (that distant clock reads such-and-such now) are different in the new frame.
Last edited by Noax on Thu Dec 21, 2017 6:33 am, edited 6 times in total.
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:11 pm What is considered is also NOT what is necessarily actually true nor necessarily able to be true. For example, any thing can be considered stationary, but is there any thing that is actually ABLE TO BE stationary?
Only models with absolute space have such a concept.
You say, any thing can be considered stationary and be that against which time is computed, or measure if in the presence of the measurement.
1. What can 'stationary' actually be measured against in real and true Life? (Of course one thing can be said, or considered, to be "stationary" against another thing, but that is NOT what I am asking here).
It's the only answer you'll get. All we can do is look at something and test if we have a velocity relative to it. A proposal of how otherwise to go about it would rock the world. Test for being stationary without comparison to something.
2. What is 'time'?
Irrelevant philosophical question.
3. How is time 'computed'?
It is measured, not computed. We count regularly occurring things.
4. How do human beings supposedly accurately measure that which is considered stationary, but in real is NOT stationary, against that thing called 'time' but which we are awaiting a definition for, and of which is some how computed?
See above.
5. What 'measurement' can a considered stationary thing be in the presence of to be measured against?
Anything. A cat? Don't understand the last two questions, which seem to be deliberate attempts to obfuscate.
Noax wrote:
The contradiction of "traveler" being "stationary" speaks for itself.There is NO such thing as what 'stationary' could be measured against yet.
Ah. An attempt at stating a contradiction, coupled with the refutation you seek no less. The traveler is stationary relative to his ship for instance. He's in his seat, and a while later, still in it. Sounds pretty stationary to me.
Being "stationary" in or to a thing, which itself is NOT stationary at all, does NOT sound pretty stationary, to Me.
I left of the part where there should be no acceleration, something that is detectable. An accelerating object is stationary for no more than a moment in any particular inertial frame, but remains stationary in its own accelerated frame.
The first definition I found for 'stationary', which was, not moving or not intended to be moved, sounds very contradictory to 'traveler', of which the first definition I found for 'traveler', was, a person or thing that travels, with the first definition of 'travel' I found, being, make a journey, typically of some length. The word travel and traveler usually referring to moving, which is in stark contradiction of not moving or not intended to be moved.
You're not looking up a physics definition there. That definition is everyday human language, which seems to be giving you an awful collection of biases.
Good to see you know how to look up a word though when you think it suits your purposes.
If there is NO absolute (not relative to ANY THING) way to test for being stationary, then that would also include a traveler sitting in a ship's seat, would it not?
Correct. He is not stationary in any absolute sense any more than is the Earth guy.