Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:01 am

davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:16 am
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:13 am
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:00 am
DNFTT
davidm EXPECTS others to respond to davidm's responses, but this is all davidm can give in return.
:lol:

I've given you TONS of stuff in return, which you've IGNORED.
TONS of stuff, or just some stuff?

I have also replied to you, which you have also IGNORED.
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:16 am
You're a TROLL. As everyone here now knows.

DNFTT
Does 'everyone' know I am a troll or just some?

Also, what is a troll?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:40 am

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:31 am
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:40 am
Also, are you aware that human beings have been giving whole pages, and whole books, of "information", for thousands of years, and continue to do so, supposedly "validating" various numbers of things?
For somebody who regularly complains about assumptions being made of the views you won't state, you making a lot of them about these human beings you seem not to number yourself among.
If by 'them', you mean assumptions, which you state that I am supposedly making a lot of, then what assumptions do you think or assume that I am making?

And, WHERE EXACTLY in what I wrote here leads you to think or assume that I do not number My self among one of these human beings?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:31 am
Can you back this absurd claim that books are used to validate things?
Did I make that actual claim, or did I say 'information', in books, is used to, supposedly, 'validate' things.

Just look in any bible for an example. I am sure you have experienced what I have said here in many books also.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:31 am
You're always asking for links, so I thought your claim here needs one.
Is that really what you think?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:31 am
I think I said in my prior post that science is a about falsification, not validation, and nowhere did I say that books (or links for that matter) are what are used to either validate or falsify something.
Did I say, you did or did not say that, or did or did not say otherwise?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:31 am
surreptitious57 gave a nice description of the process a few posts back, and using links and books was not part of it.
So what? That has NOTHING to do with what I wrote here.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:31 am
I presume that he's human. Not so confident of that assumption with you.
You can presume all you want. If what you presume is actually true or not is another matter.

So, you also agree that I am not or may not be a human being?

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:00 pm

uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:24 am
All we know for certain is that if an interpretation or explanation fails to include time dilation, it is wrong.
Okay.

Well at least you, and some others, KNOW for certain some things. Does "we know for certain" mean that what we know for certain is absolutely true, right, and correct?
uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:24 am
Anyway; when are you going to stick your neck out and present us with your 'Theory of everything'?
Parts of I already have.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:13 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 am
I too would very much like to see ken produce this Theory Of Everything so can you do that please
Yes okay.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 am
Make it as detailed as you can so that there is no ambiguity and also no need to ask any questions
How long do you really think it would take one person to write some thing, like a theory of everything, in which there is NO ambiguity and also NO need for any person to ask any questions?

Further to this, how much longer than that do you think it would take me, that is a very slow, thick, uneducated, does not yet know how to be heard and understood, and does not understand any thing, type person, to write some thing like that?
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 am
I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
That is very easy indeed. But I can not even get human beings to look at an imagined scenario, in order to find some thing out, let alone get people to look at some thing that they already KNOW FOR CERTAIN is NOT true or does NOT exist.

Would you care to explain what parts, if any, you think are not united between general relativity and quantum mechanics? If you did, then I would know what parts you are very interested to see how I try to or could actually unite.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:34 pm

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm
Asking ken for that TOE is about as pointless as ken continuously asking for a link to one specific test that he knows very well has not been performed. We all know he has no TOE.
HOW do you KNOW that?
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:33 am
I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
It wouldn't unite them, but rather eliminate them, else it would not serve the purpose of proving that we're all wrong.
To Me, this is NOT about either proving any one (any thing) wrong nor falsifying any thing also. This is just about how any and every person can see the truths and see the falsehoods in any thing in which there is supposedly two sides of.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm
That's what science is about, right? Proving wrong all those other guys.
'Science' like absolutely any thing is what you, your self, make it.

Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer.

How one observes, or looks at, any thing (every thing) influences how they then see it, and understand it, including Everything. This, depending on the observer affects every thing, includes what some thing, like 'science', is about. What some thing is about is very much depended on the actual observer.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm
His post asked if we would accept his TOE if he produced it.
That is EXACTLY NOT WHAT I SAID.

Your ability to read actual words written down and twist them into what you imagined is being said is a result of the actual BELIEFS that you already have and hold onto, and from making up assumptions, which are based on past experiences.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm
That is not a claim that it exists, and of course we all know it doesn't.
Again, HOW do you KNOW that a theory of everything does NOT already exist?

And, WHY do you think you can speak for 'we'? By the way who is the 'we' you refer to here?

Also, from the assumption that you made up and which you believe is true, you are right that 'that is not a claim that it exists', But all of this has NOTHING whatsoever about what I actually wrote and said. You are the one who assumed that that was the claim.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm
The asking of the question was I think hoping to show our biases that nothing he says can be right.
That has already been shown, and proven.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm
But on the contrary, if a TOE is produced, it would be better than the current not-TOE that we have.
I had not thought of that before. Thank you.
Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:14 pm
It would be a sensation. Of course we would embrace it.
If it is a sensation or not is yet to be seen.

I would NOT be so 'we' would 'embrace' it. But of course that all depends on who and/or how many you mean when you say 'we'.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:39 pm

davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:52 pm
ken wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:40 am
<snip>
I gave you tons of links dealing with all your questions, and you have the nerve to ask for them again?
If you really believe you gave "tons" of links, then that speaks for itself, and, if you really believe you gave them to "all" of My questions, then you are more blinded than previously thought.
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:52 pm
Go hunt 'em up. They're in this thread.
Can only find a couple or so. By the way they NEVER really answered the actual questions I was posing anyway.
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:52 pm
This is why people have concluded that you're a troll.
People can conclude any thing they like. But from what I have observed older human beings any way usually more so conclude from their own beliefs and assumptions, which can be totally distorted, than they do from actual real and true facts.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:41 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:57 pm
ken wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:46 pm
...
Good luck to you. I'm not interested in investing any more in this.
Fair enough. You did not seem really that interest anyway in looking at all of this.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1687
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 pm

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
That is very easy indeed
As you have made the claim you should be able to demonstrate it so can you please do so

surreptitious57
Posts: 1687
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:09 pm

ken wrote:
Would you care to explain what parts if any you think are not united between general relativity and quantum mechanics
If you did then I would know what parts you are very interested to see how I try to or could actually unite
No because you have made the claim that they are easy to unite and that is not conditional on anything else
I just want to see what you are going to offer because until you show it I really have no idea what you have
Last edited by surreptitious57 on Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:12 pm

davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:13 pm
Nope, doesn’t work.
You appear to be very quick to jump to a conclusion, which you seem to believe is absolutely true and correct.

Do you have ALL the evidence, which you base your absolute statement on here?

Or, are you basing that absolute statement on what "evidence" you say you have, which fits in perfectly with those beliefs and assumptions that you already have and make up?
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:13 pm
When we say, “a clock runs slow,” the “clock” is a figure of speech called a metonymy — a figure of speech in which a part stands for a whole.

The part is the clock.

The whole is all physical processes run slow.
But just because you, and others, believe and say "all physical process run slow" that does NOT mean that it is true, right, and correct. Especially since that belief is based solely on a couple of examples of when it was said "a clock has run slow" with speed.

Have tests and experiments been performed which shows, without any doubt, that ALL physical process run slow with speed?

By the way, who is the 'we' you refer to here?
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:13 pm
This is why, of course, that no one, stationary in his own frame, can ever notice a slowing clock — because all processes, including mental, also slow as judged by a different observer in relative motion.
If that has NOT yet been shown and thus proven and/or evidenced, through tests and/or experiments, then HOW do you KNOW that this would, of course, happen?
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:13 pm
All clocks tick normally in one’s own frame.
Again is this a proven unambiguous fact that could not be disputed, or just an assumption of what would happen?

Have ALL of the known possible different frames, and all the actual amount of differing frames imaginable, been considered in this absolute statement of yours here? Or is it more like this is what you presume would happen?
davidm wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:13 pm
If one notices a clock ticking slow, it just means the clock is broken — or subject to outside influences.
This would ONLY be noticeable relative to other human beings devised and created clocks or relative to earth's revolution in relation to the sun.

There is NO actual thing, besides light, or maybe more specifically the speed of light and another human being made measurement and clock, that one could notice the so called slow down of a ticking clock.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1687
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:24 pm

ken wrote:
Would you care to explain what parts if any you think are not united between general relativity and quantum mechanics
If you did then I would know what parts you are very interested to see how I try to or could actually unite
No because you have made the claim that they are easy to unite and that is not conditional on anything else
I just want to see what you are going to offer because until you show it I really have no idea what you have

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:41 pm

The last several posts you've make today contain no content. I saw no comments or questions that appeared genuinely interested in discourse. The Bible thing maybe, presented as an example of verifying something through a book. True that, but it isn't presented as science. Ditto for an astrology book.
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:34 pm
Noax wrote:His post asked if we would accept his TOE if he produced it.
That is EXACTLY NOT WHAT I SAID.
Your ability to read actual words written down and twist them into what you imagined is being said is a result of the actual BELIEFS that you already have and hold onto, and from making up assumptions, which are based on past experiences.
I believe this is the exact quote, page 52 I think.
ken wrote:Are you in any way, shape, or form at all open to the possibility that I already have a better theory or better still already have A "Theory" of Everything, which would obviously do away with ALL other theories?
My summary of it hardly seems to be "EXACTLY NOT WHAT I SAID". OK, you asked about our opinion of you having such a theory, and not how we would react if it was actually produced, and the reaction I suggested was presuming it passed falsification tests. Without the tests, it would be a Theory of Nothing, despite any title you might care to slap at the top of it.

So in direct answer to your quote 9 pages back, while I am open to it (I would not reject a produced tested theory just because of its author), all empirical evidence indicates the lack of that situation. The model where you have one has been falsified in many ways.
Noax wrote:That is not a claim that it exists, and of course we all know it doesn't.
Again, HOW do you KNOW that a theory of everything does NOT already exist?
And you accuse me of twisting. I said that your TOE doesn't exist and that you are not going to produce one. It was a comment about you, not about the theory potentially being produced by somebody else.
By the way who is the 'we' you refer to here?
Such a troll post. I meant all of us reading this thread, yourself included. Your language skills are weak indeed if you really needed to ask this.
Last edited by Noax on Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:33 pm, edited 9 times in total.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 610
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:50 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:52 pm
ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:I shall be very interested to see how you try and unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
That is very easy indeed
As you have made the claim you should be able to demonstrate it so can you please do so
Yes, I believe this elevates it to a claim, not of existence of the theory, but of the ease of producing one.
Given that ease, it seems reasonable now to request this easily produced thing, which of course would utterly cement in how wrong the rest of us have been all this time about our assessments.

uwot
Posts: 3630
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot » Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:54 pm

ken wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:00 pm
uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:24 am
All we know for certain is that if an interpretation or explanation fails to include time dilation, it is wrong.
Okay.

Well at least you, and some others, KNOW for certain some things. Does "we know for certain" mean that what we know for certain is absolutely true, right, and correct?
Well, if you want to be even more specific, what people who have bothered to look at the experimental data know, is that the clocks were reported to read times that were in line with what relativity predicts. If you break the habit of a lifetime, and do some research, you too can read the papers to that effect. As I said, you can attribute that to a fluke, a conspiracy, divine intervention or that relativity actually describes reality fairly successfully.
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:00 pm
uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:24 am
Anyway; when are you going to stick your neck out and present us with your 'Theory of everything'?
Parts of I already have.
Great. So you won't mind repeating them.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:26 pm

ken wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 1:12 pm

But just because you, and others, believe and say "all physical process run slow" that does NOT mean that it is true, right, and correct. Especially since that belief is based solely on a couple of examples of when it was said "a clock has run slow" with speed.
:lol:

A couple?

Did you read this page I linked you to, many pages back, troll?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests