Relativity?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm

Watch Ken ignore this. He’s so predictable. And retrodictable!

A theory is a model of the world that is consistent with empirically observed facts about it, and which makes predictions and retrodictions that are falsifiable.

Special relativity is consistent with observed facts and it makes certain predictions — such as relativistic muon decay. Such decay is observed. You would know all about this if you had read the link that I gave you TWICE.

Theories make retrodictions — predictions about the past. The theory of evolution retrodicts that we will never find a bunny rabbit fossil in the era of dinosaurs. So far we have not found one.

Theory of Ken:

Empirical: doesn’t know anything.

Prediction: won’t ever know anything.

Retrodiction: has shown no evidence of knowing anything in the fossil record of this thread.

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:00 pm

ken wrote:
A theory is more or less a made up version of what thing SHOULD be like
In science a theory is the highest form of classification there is. A body of knowledge incorporating facts and laws that has been subject to the most rigorous examination possible. Theories can still be falsified as nothing in science is ever proven but this does not mean they are made up

thedoc
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc » Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:00 pm

Belinda wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:53 am
Ken wrote:
The difference between you and I is I do NOT, as you would put it, 'make up my own "mind" about the metaphysics', like you do. I just observe what IS, instead. Whereas, you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", and have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is. I, however, do NOT this. I just remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.
Good for you! Do you also admit that your observation can on occasion be your optical illusion?
Do you?

Belinda
Posts: 1647
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Belinda » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:46 am

thedoc wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:00 pm
Belinda wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:53 am
Ken wrote:
The difference between you and I is I do NOT, as you would put it, 'make up my own "mind" about the metaphysics', like you do. I just observe what IS, instead. Whereas, you and others tell your selves "Why that should be so", and have already jumped to a conclusion and very much believe what that cause is. I, however, do NOT this. I just remain OPEN to observe what IS, actually happening.
Good for you! Do you also admit that your observation can on occasion be your optical illusion?
Do you?
Yes.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:16 pm

ken wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pm
Have you NOT made any presumption at all about what 'time' actually IS?
Fine. Time is the temporal separation between events.
What is "it" that you say can be measured between two events?
It is time. It is like measuring the spatial width of your table with a tape measure. That would be a measure of spacetime in a spatial dimension. Time is the same sort of stuff as that, but in a different direction.
You insist, with absolute certainty, that 'time' does things, like, dilates with speed, but you are clearly unable to explain and answer what 'time' actually is.
I didn't say is 'does' things. There is more or less of it if you measure in a different direction. That's me doing something, not time doing it.
So, let Me see if I have this right, human beings assign certain things 'arbitrarily', or based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system?
Most fine one that they find personally functional. On the universal scale, that's a very arbitrary choice.
A 'theory' is more or less a made up version of what thing SHOULD be like.
I can see the others already really taking apart your biases displayed with that statement. Good to see they read enough of these posts to find gems like that one.
Noax wrote:
How many actual and real spatial frames are there?
None or infinite, depending on what you mean by actual and real.
I was meaning actual and real in the sense that they actually exist, and are NOT just human conceived systems that can be moved around or juggled depending on an observer, and/or how they are feeling and/or thinking at any particular moment.

Does the answer have to none or infinite? Is there NO in between here?
OK, I think the answer is none then. Frames are not actual things as you seem to define them. I cannot think of any definition where there would be some number in between.
If you CONSIDER west to be in a certain direction, then to you it is real, is that what you are saying?
It depends on if I define something like a direction to be a real thing. Your description above seems to put it in the 'non-real human concept' category, so by that definition, west is not a real thing, and neither is any frame. I'm fine with that definition.
Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:18 am
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.
So, to you, 'time' might NOT actually be real in any sense at all, other than in conceptualized thinking only, but knowledge of relativity hinges on the "empirical evidence" that "time dilates with speed", is this some what correct?
You can say that time is not real. If so, then space isn't either, since it's the same stuff, just a human concept assigning some number to the distance between here and there.
As for relativity, knowledge of it was gained through empirical observation, one observation of which was time dilation. Non-relativistic views were falsified by the same observations.
Noax wrote: Stuff out that far passes beyond the sphere as the radius shrinks and no longer includes them.
Does ALL stuff supposedly "out that far" passes beyond the sphere? Could some stuff pass into the sphere?

If so, then could that make the so called radius enlarge, or appear to enlarge, and would thus obviously include them?
The sphere is one of those un-real very human-centric things. It is different for every place and frame. What we call the Hubble sphere is in fact just our Hubble Sphere, meaning a sphere of radius R, centered on Earth (in perhaps comoving frame), where R is the the distance that when multiplied by the Hubble constant yields the speed of light. A pure mathematical construct, and has nothing to do with what is actually going on out there.
Anyway, yes, stuff that is moving fast enough towards us can outrun the receding radius and go into that sphere from outside. That does not change the radius. There is an event horizon somewhat further out, beyond which things can never be detected from here even given infinite time.
Do ALL dictionaries, textbooks, literature, teachings, and people who talk about the hubble sphere have the same as, agree upon, or accept your version of the definition here?
I gave a simpler one above, essentially the same one, but without reference to terms like peculiar velocity.
I thought you said before that ALL clocks run at the SAME pace, that is one day per one day, did I think wrong here?
More precisely, all clocks run at the same pace in the frame in which they are stationary. They measure the temporal distance in that frame, and not in another. Similarly a tape measure oriented east-west measures east/west distance but not north/south. Orient it differently and it measures the same thing in a different direction. Inertial frames are nothing more than a designation of a direction.
So, when you say earth's clock is synced with alpha centauri's clock, what do both clocks read at the event of syncing?
The exact same time? Or,
Different times?
The syncing is not an event since the clocks are not in each other's presence. Hence a frame needs to be selected. In that frame, the clocks read the same time. Since A-C is effectively the same frame as Earth (for purposes of this exercise), then they stay synced in that frame.
Noax wrote:
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.
When is simultaneity considered?
???? Whenever you want. The ordering of events is frame dependent, but not dependent on when one considers them.
If it is NOT possible, then WHY do we talk about?
You're the one why always talks about future technology. Maybe they'll have something that accelerates all particles at once so the act is not even detectable to the traveler. Doing this without destruction of Earth (from the recoil) would be pretty awesome technology.
When I question what would happen if, and only IF, a traveler could travel at the speed of light? I am almost inevitably told that that is impossible so there is no use in talking about it.
Traveling at lightspeed is a mathematical singularity and not describable. It is not a technological limitation.
But the "travelers" is NOT different than earth frame at the start of the trip or departure event. We had already gone through this.

If earth clock, alpha centauri's clock, and so called "travelers" clock, were synced when "traveler" was present on the earth at departure event, and earth clock and "travelers' clock are synced to zero time, what is the time on alpha centauri's clock?
Then all three clocks are synced in Earth frame, so long as traveler is stationary in that frame and not yet departed. Once departed, his clock dilates in that Earth frame.
Noax wrote:
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.
WHAT EVENT, and WHY does that event, on alpha centauri JUST HAPPEN TO BE 3 days short of time 4.3 years on "their" clock?

Also, who is "their"?
AC's clock. It doesn't 'happen to be'. It will read 4.3 years when at the arrival event, and that clock takes a 3 day journey in traveler frame, so I subtracted. It's all just math.
What do you mean by "negligible discrepancy"? In other words "by how much"?
Far less than the two-digit precision of our example.
What "two" clocks in earth frame if we synced "them" in that frame? Does "that" mean earth frame?

And, WHAT is "they" that stay synced?
Your command of the English language is weak enough to render communication almost impossible. The two clocks are the AC one and the Earth one, as it was these two that you were asking about. 'that frame' means Earth frame, mentioned a few words earlier in the statement.
Noax wrote:
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.
And, according to you, earth's clock logs less time in "travelers" frame. A clock that logs 3 days in 70 days is not able to stay synced, is that right?
Yes.
Noax wrote:
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.
But why ONLY in earth/alpha centauri frame?

Why not in earth/"traveler" frame or in alpha centauri/earth frame?
Other frames order events differently.
How many frames are there, since both were present at that event?
Clocks were present at the event. Frames have no location.
If earth's clock and travelers clock were synced to zero at the departure event, then what was alpha centauri's clock synced to at the same departure event?
We said it was synced to the Earth clock in Earth frame. The AC clock was not present at the departure event.
Noax wrote:
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.
But that is FROM the "travelers" frame. I am NOT asking about that. I am asking about WHY you can NOT give Me an answer as to what the "travelers" clock changes by between the two events from the earth's frame?
It changes by 70 days between those two events. It is not a frame dependent answer. So if you insist, it changes by 70 days in the Earth frame, or any other frame for that matter.
Noax wrote: 140 if he comes back, defining a 3rd event of being reunited with his older brother.
But how come now the "travelers" brother is older when you said before the time passed on the earth's clock would only be 6.2 days from the "travelers" frame, of which would be 140 days on the "travelers" clock? How could the one who, you say, aged less, from the "travelers" frame, now be the older of the two brothers?
This is the right question. There is a third frame now for the return trip, and in that frame, at the AC event where the U-turn takes place, the Earth twin is already 8.6 years older than he was at the departure event.
Are you proposing some thing magical happened? Is the "travelers" frame magically completely erased and "come back" into earth's frame? Or, is there some purely logical reason for what happens here that you will now explain to us?
Different frames order events differently. At the AC event (the U-turn), the Earth twin's age is 3 days in the outbound frame but 3 days short of 8.6 years in the return frame. Not magic, just a conceptual change about what time on Earth is simultaneous with some distant event that is not on Earth. It is real enough that the twin back home really is 8.6 years older in that return frame than he is in the outbound frame.
Also, is earth's clock and/or alpha centauri's clock dilated due to high speed in the traveler frame?
Of course. That's why the Earth twin ages only 3 days during each leg of the journey.
Noax wrote: His clock logs only 70 days during the 4.3 year time it takes in that frame.
So, in earth's frame the time the trip takes is 4.3 years, right?

If so, is this 4.3 years the same length of time from alpha centauri's frame?
Yes, since they're effectively the same frame. We're assuming that AC is stationary relative to our system, which to well over 2 digits of precision, it is.
And, what about from the moon's frame, jupiter's frame, this solar system's frame, the galaxy this solar system is in's frame, do they measure the time the trip took was about 4.3 years also? Or, do they read completely different readings, like maybe 70 or maybe 3.1 days too?
The frames of none of these things varies by anything near .001c, so no significant difference.
What do you mean by 'we'?
You and I, since we decided that the two clocks would be synced in the Earth frame.
Remember, if, as you say, only 3.1 days pass, from travelers frame, on alpha centauri, then WHY would alpha centauri clocks read 4.3 years?
Because it already read 3 days short of that at departure time, in the traveler frame.
WHEN "traveler" is present at the event of arriving at alpha centauri what does the "traveler" read on the clock on alpha centauri?
1. 3.1 days
2. 70 days
3. 4.3 years
The third one.
So, what does alpha centauri's clock read when the so called "traveler" is present at the event of arrival on alpha centauri?
4.3 years.
Did you just NOT go through saying that earth clock and alpha centauri clock WERE synced at zero time at the departure event and stayed in sync?
No, I said they were synced in Earth/AC frame.
But now are you suggesting that alpha centauri clock was NOT synced with earth's clock, as alpha centauri clock supposedly already read about 4.3 years at the departure time?
Different frame.
Or, did alpha centauri clock "jump" 4.3 years as soon as the "traveler" started moving or staying "stationary", however you want to word it?
It never jumped. No discontinuities.
When you say "synced" what do you actually mean? If for example two clocks are "synced", do they read the exact same time, or, do they read different times, depending on their distance apart from each other, or, some thing else?
I said they were synced in some frame, which does not imply synced in another. Synced means they read the same time.
How can earth clock and alpha centauri's clock now be out of sync, when they were synced at departure event?
They're still synced in the Earth/AC frame in which they were originally synced.
And when you say both alpha centauri clock and earth clock have logged 75 hours, "in the traveler frame", is that while the "traveler" was in its own frame or when the "traveler" was present at the event of arrival on alpha centauri?
It was during time between the departure and arrival at AC events, in the traveler frame.

Noax wrote:
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.
But is that not a "frame dependent" answer?
It is. Earth/AC frame was specified.
Are you now saying the trip actually took 4.3 years?
In Earth/AC frame, yes.
Also how can earth clock "ALSO" read 4.3 years when you said alpha centauri clock reads 3.1 days?
Different frames
And if the "stationary traveler" returns to earth, at the same "stationary speed" will the twin back home be older or younger?
If the traveler remains stationary, Earth is moving away and will not come back. He will not ever return there. Something has to accelerate.
But you also just said the twin back home had advanced by 4.3 years, so what did the earth clock advance by? 3 days or 4.3 years?

When the so called "traveler" is present at arrival event on alpha centauri what does earth clock read? 3 days or 4.3 years
Frame dependent questions.
What would the "traveler" when present at the arrival event see alpha centauri's clock reading?
4.3 years. I've answered this at least 3 times just in this post now.
And, what would the clock on earth be reading when the "traveler" is present at the arrival event on alpha centauri?
Frame dependent question.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 481
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:48 pm

davidm wrote:
Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:41 pm
Noax wrote:Eternalism seems deterministic to me...
To me this is somewhat contestable as determinism seems to be an ambiguous concept in a block universe in which everything is simply given.
I will agree that it is contestable, but not because of free will considerations since the model takes no stance on it. It seems contestable because QM seems probabilistic. An objective view might resolve the conflict between those two, but to discuss the topic on those terms, one must take the objective view on everything including a definition of what a person is, and I suppose what the free part means with the will. The alternative is the subjective, common-language, naive view. Perfectly acceptable to discuss it in those terms, but then objective models must be left out of the discussion. Conflict arises only when objective and subjective terms are mixed, leading to inconsistencies that are not really there.

So for instance, one common definition of free will is "could have done otherwise". This leaves off completely what the subject is, the definition of a human. So the naive view is assumed since we all know the common concept of a person. By that definition, and the use of the past tense, the turf is staked out. Is the past fixed but not the future? Why wasn't it stated as "can do otherwise". Probably because there is no "what was done" to contrast with "what should have been done". There has to be a made wrong choice to contrast with a better choice not having been made in the past, hence the necessity of defining things in past tense.
Anyway, determinism is resisted in this view since the assumption of it conflicts with "could have done otherwise", but the model is the 3D naive view, so determinism is demonstrated false (by QM) in that mode, so they're partially safe so long as they don't look too close.

Another definition is "external volition", meaning a human is free willed only if the nature of a human is a physical avatar under remote control by a supernatural agent. It suggests a falsification test for other views (demonstrate physics being overridden somewhere in the path of human choice), but they of course decline to make this simple demonstration of the view. We're poorly evolved for it, despite a way for it to work.

If we go with the objective view, we need an objective definition of all terms. Perhaps a human becomes a worldline, but then "could have done otherwise" becomes worldline X could BE different worldline Y, which violates laws of identity. So a different definition of free will is needed for the objective view. My particular definition of a human doesn't 'do' anything at all, so there is nothing it can do otherwise, and it cannot objectively be held responsible for its actions. The objective view is almost worthless in the discussion then.

The free-will thing seems to be important because of morals and responsibility for one's actions. But only the subjective view seems to be able to define the terms involved, so sure, there seems to be subjective morals and people are responsible for their actions, but none of these concepts seem to have objective equivalents.

Conclusion: It is wrong to speak of eternalism or 4D models when discussing free will. It is mixing objective and subjective truths, leading to nonsense results.

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:35 am

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:25 am
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.
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.
If it makes you more happy, then we can remain talking about why you, your self, came to the conclusion that the denial of empirical findings might be a virtue, and why this is so.

If you are at all able to, would you like to begin by explaining how and why you came to that conclusion, then that might help you to understand WHY you want to find the answer, and reason, why denial of empirical findings might be a virtue?

This conclusion and this wondering why denial of empirical findings might be a virtue is, after all, all of your own doing.

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:36 am

Noax wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:14 am
davidm wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:01 am
Maybe 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.
WHAT 'empirical findings' exactly do you even imagine that I am actually denying?

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:04 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
Hi Noax.

all is well i hope?

why waste your time with Ken the Troll.
WHY do you waste your time asking why others waste their time, with ken, the one now also named "troll"?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
he has more time to waste here then sense.
You never know I might be wasting more sense then time here?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
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..................
Who do you think this "troll" is a male, and how does this 'his' have a mind?

By the way what is the 'mind' actually, which you talk of here?

gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
your and my time is more important (worth conversing and expanding our knowledge of your world through others of similar viewpiont)................
Do you really think or believe that the best way of 'EXPANDING one's knowledge of the "world" IS through others of SIMILAR VIEWPOINT?

gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
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",
What is a 'troll', to you?

HOW do you KNOW how much time OTHERS have?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
from the posts here - he/it ain't worth more than a few seconds of my time...........................
At least you got the 'it' part right here.

What "your time" is worth may NOT be the exact same for others.

noax thinks or believes they have and knows the answers so noax is doing the decent thing and trying to help Me better understand.

I have yet to see this kind of decency from you.

If you believe that I am not worth of a few seconds of your time, then quite simply do NOT give Me any more than just a few seconds, of "your time".

You seem to have wasted, or given Me, here more than just a few seconds of your time.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
not worth even that since being here a month or so and noting his petty natured posts.
Are all My posts 'petty natured', to you, or just some of them?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
save your energies for posting to members here worthy of reading any wisdom you offer.
Do you always think of your self as being the one who should be telling others what they should be doing? Do you think of your self as a great advice giver, and one that others should follow?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
- that leaves "ken" out of course.
Do you feel much better now that you got that out?

Do you feel bigger, better, or smarter now that you have tried to make Me look smaller, lesser, and stupider?

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:44 am

Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 pm
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?
Are you now asking Me a question?

I was just asking you what you meant by 'what you wrote'.
Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 pm
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.
So, to you, the scientific method, (which is what exactly to you?), is not within science, itself, but taken as science, itself, is this correct?

And, to you, science, itself, accepts that the 'scientific method', works within limits, is this correct?

If this latter is correct, then what exactly are those limits, which the scientific method works within?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 pm
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.
Do you have any ideas or suggestions of what the 'some method' might be?

It would help if we have language, terms, or words we can use to talk about what it is that we are trying to talk about.
Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 pm
And, as with science, that method cannot be self-justifying. It will always be 'X is true/real....if....'
Is there any thing wrong with a self-justifying statement?

If 'X is true/real.... if...', then WHY would scientific method be needed after that was discovered? If no scientific method was then needed, then would that be a self-justifying statement?

If, 'X is true/real.... if....', then has that not expanded past just being science, or scientific method? And if so, then as I asked previous WHEN does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?

If not, then do human beings who practice scientific methods think or believe that there is NO thing that can actually become true and/or real, and/or KNOWN?

Is it somewhat impossible for those people who are called and/or labelled as "scientists" to see the actual true and real world because to them every thing is under scrutiny of science and/or the scientific method?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 pm
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.
But you did not really give reasons for what you wrote above. You just gave some of your views, of things, which you also just did now. You just wrote what you 'think'.

By My clarifying questions above, obviously to Me anyway, your replies above need to be looked into much deeper and far more thoroughly, for the true and/or real truth to be fully discovered and seen by others.
Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 pm
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'.
What do you mean by, 'some thing more than an observation of 'what is'?

Are you suggesting that there could be a way of, like, KNOWING, which goes beyond observing, or beyond just observing?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 pm
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.
And is there some thing wrong with doing that?

It is, after all, a very easy thing to do.

The only thing is if you argue some thing 'must be', then you 'must have' a very good argument, or in other words just a sound, valid argument, which would just be an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed.

And, is science, or a scientific method, needed for an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:19 pm
(Either that or the hypothesis would turn out to be some sort of a tautology)
Depending on your sense of 'tautology' is this some sort of negative thing?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:30 pm

ken wrote:
is science or a scientific method needed for an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed
Science is an inductive discipline that uses evidence to demonstrate the validity of hypotheses. It does not deal with unambiguous
indisputable facts since they are proven and science does not deal in proof [ apart from null hypotheses or disproof ] Even theories
which are the highest form of classification there is in science are not proven. They are taken to be true by the amount of evidence
supporting them but are not regarded as absolutely true. In science everything is capable of potential falsification including theories

Londoner
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Londoner » Mon Jan 01, 2018 7:41 pm

ken wrote:
Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:44 am

Me: 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?

Are you now asking Me a question?
No, I was just trying to make my point in a non-confrontational way, in the hope of it leading to an exchange of views rather than one liners and insults!
Me: 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.

So, to you, the scientific method, (which is what exactly to you?), is not within science, itself, but taken as science, itself, is this correct?

And, to you, science, itself, accepts that the 'scientific method', works within limits, is this correct?

If this latter is correct, then what exactly are those limits, which the scientific method works within?
For what the scientific method is, I am happy with the many descriptions you will find online. As an example of the limits, science deals with measurable phenomena. But it cannot validate phenomena as such; you cannot use observations of phenomena to validate phenomena.
Me: I think that you can say something is true/real using a different method to science, but it will still hang on some method.

Do you have any ideas or suggestions of what the 'some method' might be?

It would help if we have language, terms, or words we can use to talk about what it is that we are trying to talk about.
That the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 would be an example of something that is true, but not in the sense that we accept a theory is science as being (provisionally) true. I would say we do have words, but exactly how we understand them depends on context. Of course in philosophy the context is not always clear.
Me: And, as with science, that method cannot be self-justifying. It will always be 'X is true/real....if...

Is there any thing wrong with a self-justifying statement?
I'm saying that there is no such thing.
If 'X is true/real.... if...', then WHY would scientific method be needed after that was discovered? If no scientific method was then needed, then would that be a self-justifying statement?

If, 'X is true/real.... if....', then has that not expanded past just being science, or scientific method? And if so, then as I asked previous WHEN does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?
I'm saying that all claims about what is true/real are always dependent on other assumptions. 'True/real' does not have an 'actual' sense, that is independent of all our other beliefs. They always have an 'if' attached. We do not normally need to spell it out because it is understood. So my observation about triangles would normally be understood to have the qualification '...within the system of Euclidean geometry'
If not, then do human beings who practice scientific methods think or believe that there is NO thing that can actually become true and/or real, and/or KNOWN?

Is it somewhat impossible for those people who are called and/or labelled as "scientists" to see the actual true and real world because to them every thing is under scrutiny of science and/or the scientific method?
I cannot speak for other people, but I think serious scientists understand what science does and doesn't deal with. As to whether anyone believes they 'see the actual true and real world', we need to sort out what is meant by that description. Is it a metaphysical claim; that they can 'see' beneath all phenomena and all concepts to some sort of noumenal essence?
Quote: But just because a hypothesis can be potentially falsified does not mean it will be for it could also be verified.

Me: I don't think it can, for the reasons I give above.

But you did not really give reasons for what you wrote above. You just gave some of your views, of things, which you also just did now. You just wrote what you 'think'.
We are discussing the status of a hypothesis in science, so it is not my personal view, I'm saying it is what scientists think. So it is true/real if it correctly reports their view.
Me: 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'.

What do you mean by, 'some thing more than an observation of 'what is'?
'What is' are phenomena. I can observe that all the phenomena I have observed follow certain rules. But to say they must follow those rules (i.e. that the hypothesis cannot be wrong) is to go beyond phenomena and claim knowledge of the rule itself. For example, Newton noted that falling bodies all behave according to the rule he called 'Gravity'. But that is only the name of the rule. He did not claim knowledge of a metaphysical force called 'Gravity', that forced falling bodies to behave in a particular way. He could not observe (or measure) why the phenomena were the way they were. That is outside science; see below.
Me: 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.

And is there some thing wrong with doing that?

It is, after all, a very easy thing to do.

The only thing is if you argue some thing 'must be', then you 'must have' a very good argument, or in other words just a sound, valid argument, which would just be an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed.

And, is science, or a scientific method, needed for an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?
I do not think there are any such facts.

As to a metaphysical hypothesis, I agree it is easy to come up with them. The problem is deciding between them. The reason objects obey 'Gravity' could be that they each contain a spirit that is seeking unity with the other spirits, or because God individually wills it, or because it is an illusion fed to us by The Matrix...and so on. All of these metaphysical hypotheses are compatible with our observations of phenomena, so all are equally 'sound'.
Depending on your sense of 'tautology' is this some sort of negative thing?
I would say it is neither positive or negative, because it does not assert anything.

Having answered your questions, I get the impression that when you write: And, is science, or a scientific method, needed for an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed? and for the true and/or real truth that you have something in mind, that such a thing is possible.

If that is right, can you say more about it?

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Tue Jan 02, 2018 2:59 pm

Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
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.
But what about the unconscious biases, or even the sub-conscious biases?

If people are not even yet aware of their own biases, then they can not very well eliminate them.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Double-blind tests are a great example of this. Bias is recognized and the double-blind procedure eliminates it.
But confirmation biases will eliminate that which disposes of what it is that is wanted to be confirmed. This can happen sub-consciously and unconsciously.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
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.
So, if a model predicts that a traveler will take longer to travel over any distance, in any frame, than what the speed of light could travel, then is that useful to science?

Is science only about making accurate predictions?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Science is not in the business of discovering what actually is, however much they might phrase their findings that way.
So, what is science in the business of actually?

Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
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.
There was NO intention at all in My wording to imply that an invalid hypothesis must be wrong.

My wording was just a question only, asking for clarification. My wording was NOT implying any thing at all.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Not so. It is invalid as a hypothesis is all. It may very well describe what is.
Okay.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
What IS, has nothing to do with science.
Thank you for being honest.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
What do you mean by 'unambiguous'?
Not open to more than one interpretation.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
If you mean it cannot be questioned, then all hypotheses are ambiguous since they question things.
That is not what I mean.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
If you mean it is what actually is,
That is not what I mean.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
then science doesn't concern itself with what cannot be known.
Are you saying what actually is can not be known?

If not, then what are you saying here?

What are you suggesting 'can not be known', which you say science does not concern itself with?

Also, the way 'science' (or the scientific method) is said to be conducted science is more concerned about and in relation to what IS falsifiable rather than what IS verifiable, which is a bit like getting rid of the unknowns until only what IS known is left.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
What if flat-Earth is actually true?
Then a flat earth is actually true, obviously.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
I can make a case for it by stepping outside the bounds of methodological naturalism and propose a solipsistic view of what actually is.
Will you give us an example of this?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
No test can falsify that, but no prediction is made. It is a valid interpretation, but an invalid hypothesis.
Until we see your example we do NOT know if it is a valid interpretation or not. We also do NOT know if it is an invalid hypothesis or not. Neither do we know if there is a test or not that can falsify "your example." And, if you do NOT make a prediction then yes no prediction is made.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
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'?
Sort of, but I am more asking could some thing ever be just an accurate model of what actually IS?

I am, more or less, asking if human beings can ever move past just hypothesis? If so, when is that, and, what do they call that 'thing', which explains what actually IS the case instead of just being a model of what actually IS the case.

For example if a model is conceived and all of its hypothesized predictions are found to be 100% accurate, then what do we call 'that'? What is the name for that 'thing' which is found to be a 100% accurate description of what IS actually true and real?

When, and if, ALL the conceptualized model's false predictions are found and eliminated and there is just ONE combined left, which forms one whole completely accurate picture of, let us say, Life, Itself, or ALL-THERE-IS, or what IS, then what is the name for that 'model'.

Or in other words, when some of the predictions of one model are falsified, and what is left are predictions, or newly found information, which have been demonstrated by 'empirical data', then what is the name of 'that thing'?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
This seems to be the crux of this attitude you're taking.
Again, you have jumped to a WRONG conclusion about the "crux of the attitude I am taking". If you stop assuming things and/or stop making assumptions, then you will also stop jumping to wrong conclusions.

I am just asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified' BECAUSE ALL the previous predictions from other models have been falsified, and what is left is a model that has already had ALL predictions demonstrably shown to be accurate with empirical data?

If that is possible, then when there is a model where ALL of its prediction have been demonstrably shown to be accurate, then I just want to now know what will that "model" be called?

If that model does not make any new predictions, because on a whole-istic level ALL the predictions have already been shown to be accurate enough, then obviously that model could not be called a hypothesis, so what is, or will be, the name given to 'that model'?

The reason 'that model' could not be falsified is because it is already an accurate description of what IS.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Is it possible that Earth will ever be demonstrably flat, and we're all sheep for believing the round model?
Are you actually asking that as a real and true question posed for answer?

That question appears to Me as though you are not really looking for an answer at all, because you already have the answer, is this correct?

If not, your beliefs show otherwise.

My answer to the first part of your question is yes, and, My answer to the second part of your question is 'sheep are sheep', which are NOT human beings who believe in things. Human beings who believe the round model, or in fact believe any thing at all, are NOT sheep. Human beings who believe things are just non-open human beings.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Are we closed minded for actually accepting that, or just stubbornly remaining sufficiently ignorant of the evidence that you consider it a viable possibility?
Your assumptions really do lead you so far off what is the real and accurate truth that you are completely missing the mark and missing the point.

To Me;
There is NO such thing as closed minded.
You are NOT closed for accepting a spherical earth.
The second part of what you wrote is NOT what I observe at all.

In fact, if we were to look at this fully, and in depth, I think what will be found IS, it is;
You who believes that I am "closed minded" for actually accepting some thing which you do NOT and will NOT accept.
You who believes that I am stubbornly sufficiently ignorant of some evidence, which you also consider makes Me consider, what you say is true, not viably possible.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
This seems to be the point you've been taking against us, but correct me if I'm wrong.
You are so far wrong. From your first point here to your last point here.

Stating that, I am asking if a model could ever be deemed 'not possibly falsified'?, but disguised with a question mark.
1. I was NOT asking that at all. I was actually asking; Through scientific method could some thing ever become not subject to potential falsification?

The conclusions you have wrong jumped to of Me, which are based on the actual assumptions that you, your self, make up, being completely wrong in the first place.
2. What you presume was the crux of the attitude I was supposedly taking was wrong. The actual essence of what I am doing is finding out, through simple open clarifying questions, if you think or believe if a model, statement, description (whatever, some thing) could ever be made from or through scientific methods in which it was accurate enough that it could become not a subject to or of potential falsification?

The third one was just a question you asked, so I can not really correct a question you ask. But I can, however, point out, which I have already, that your question was not really asked from an open clarifying point of vision but rather from your already sustained beliefs instead.

The fourth was also just a question you asked, and I have already shown how I see that as more of just a projection of you, thinking that I would view things the same way as you do.

The point you seem to think that I am taking against 'you', us has been corrected. I have already explained many times the best way and HOW you can gain a clear and accurate view of the point/s I make.

By the way, who are the 'us' that you refer to here?

Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
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?
Why would you even think or assume that, based on what I have actually written here?

1. I never said 'absolute', although without clarification I do not see it really matters anyway. However,
2. There is NO thing beyond dispute. I used the words " 'can not' be disputed" in a certain context. I NEVER said any thing about being "beyond dispute".

Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Anybody is free to dispute.
Agreed.

Does any body, would any body, disagree that any body is free to dispute?

I hope the contradiction is almost instantly noticed.

Could any person dispute, that they are free to dispute?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Can it be known through the scientific method? Not all of the facts, no.
Finally. That, or a 'yes' was the answer I was looking for, or a clarifying question.

Are you talking about 'all of the facts' of absolutely every thing?

Because I was talking about the actual Truth, which as I have already explained are those things that we ALL accept and agree with.

Knowing all of the facts of all things, would be about as impossible as possibly could be.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
The more we progress, the more things become matters of interpretation.


Is that THE Truth or just 'your' interpretation of things?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
It should be the other way around if we're expected to approach some kind of actual truth.
And, are you saying it is not the other way around?

Is that your interpretation or the actual truth?

Hopefully this contradiction here is also noticed just as quickly?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
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.
If I recall correctly it was not I who brought that up.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
All of them proposed things that are still taught as fact (not just history) today.
Is that an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed?

Or just a fact, which may or may not be true?

What kind of "fact" are those proposed things taught as?

Absolute facts, real and/or true facts, or some thing else?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Their models grow more unfalsifiable over time, but each of them was incomplete.
So if and when new models are proposed which grow more unfalsifiable over time also, is it possible that eventually there will be just one unfalsifiable model that is actually complete? Or, is that impossible?

Seems to be if models are growing more unfalsifiable over time that there might be a time when models "out grow" themselves?

That time might be when human beings STOP just making up predictions and models of what they THINK things are like, and instead just look at and observer what actually IS.

But who am I to be listened to?

In this thread 'I' am just a troll that understands nothing.

By the way, that making up models, hypothesis's, and predictions and waiting to do tests, experiments to find so called "empirical data", which supposedly falsifies and/or verifies things is one way of doing things, but it is a very clumsy, complicated, slow, and open to being conflicted and contaminated with and by biases or there is another, much simpler, quicker, and easier way to find the Truth of things. But again, 'I' am certainly NOT worthy of being listened to, correct?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
Einstein and relativity is like that.
Of course the so called "relativity" is incomplete. That is already very obvious. I do NOT think einstein is or was incomplete though.

Where "relativity" is incomplete and where and how to make it complete, WITH others, is also already very obvious.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
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.
That is the way, stay as closed as you possibly can. I am sure you agree that being closed as much as you can, and not being open at all, is the better way to discover and obtain new and further knowledge of things, correct?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
In other words when does some thing expand past scientific method and become actually true and/or real?
Outside science I guess.
What do you mean outside of science?

What is outside of science?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
It doesn't become true or real because it always was.
Are you suggesting that what is true and/or real was NOT always true and/or real?

If yes, then when do things become true and/or real?

If no, then what do you mean here?

I would have thought if some thing 'it' was always true and/or real, then that would give more support to 'it' being actually true and/or real.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:31 pm
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.
Okay. I accept that that that is what you believe is true.

ken
Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken » Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:47 pm

Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
gaffo wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:51 am
why 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.
I would really enjoy hearing those views.

No view is controversial, in any sort of negative sense. EVERY view, to Me anyway, is worthy of being heard, shared, and listened to. EVERY person has different views, naturally, because of HOW ALL views are naturally obtained and gained. If ALL people had the exact same views, then human beings would NOT be where they are now. It is the sharing of, or more correctly the being allowed to share, ALL views in a truly free, unjudgemental, non-fearing, and non-ridiculed way, that is how human beings as a whole learn more and create more.

If you do not like to put your views out here for discussion, and you would like to share in private messages I would really like to see them. But as you already know you will have to keep the language and terminology very simple indeed, for Me.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
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.
I do NOT see being open is in conflict with any thing, except maybe one thing. But that has nothing directly to do with science nor empiricism
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
So ken, what is your point?
In regards to what exactly?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
You are on record for emphatically denying belief that the world is round.
It is ALREADY on record Me emphatically denying belief not just that the world is round but belief AND disbelief of every thing. I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
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.
You have obviously completely missed the point.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
From the questions you've been asking about the relativity examples, it is clear that your education never got started on it.
If that is what is CLEAR to you, then so be it.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
So why take your stand there?
Why take My stand where?

Where you think or believe it is, OR, where it actually IS?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
Defend why one should not blindly believe the books about the position of the Earth being round.
More to the point WHY do you believe that that is My position?

Is there some thing I have written that led you to jump to that conclusion? If so, then would you like to bring that to light so we can take a look at it and discuss it further?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
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.
Again, if this is what you CLEARLY believe is the case, then so be it.

If, however, you think you might be somewhat puzzled about what My actual view is, then I have already described how you can better understand that, or any thing else for that matter.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
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.
Again, BOTH assumptions are so far off track that it could be seen as "unbelievable". That is if I was NOT somewhat involved in MAKING YOU make assumptions.
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
People far more familiar with the subject would have done so long ago.
So, to you, sounds like there is NO inconsistency at all in relativity, and that there is NO point in continuing to falsify relativity, correct?

If yes, then that would imply that relativity is about as solid as some thing could be, right?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
None of us, certainly not you, is smart enough to do that.
Do you feel smarter by openly saying that I am certainly NOT as smart as you and some others, (whoever they may be)?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
Ignorance is not the way to falsify a theory.
So, do you still BELIEVE this is the case?
Noax wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:29 pm
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.
Yes I already KNOW that. And, it is of no real importance anyway.

Learning how to showing you human beings WHY you as a species are consistently inconsistent in your models, hypothesises, predictions, and findings is what is far more important to Me.

Explaining HOW to see WHAT the ONE consistently accurate "model" IS, and how to look at and observe THAT so that the real and actual accurate findings are clearly seen, and understood, may be easier for one who is labelled a "physicist", but it is much harder for one who is labelled "certainly not smart enough". But, by the way, if you really want to KNOW what IS My point, then My point is to do and achieve what I set out to do and achieve, by being looked at as the most unlikely of ones who could possibly do it. For the very reason that if one person could do and achieve, what will be done, that is with every one against that person, then imagine what ALL human beings could do, and achieve, if they worked together, and in peace?

The inconsistencies and inaccuracies in ALL made up conceptions like "relativity", et cetera, can be very quickly and easily seen, that is once you learn how to do it.

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

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:31 pm

ken wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:47 pm
Learning how to showing you human beings WHY you as a species are consistently inconsistent in your models, hypothesises, predictions, and findings is what is far more important to Me.
Except you've shown no inconsistencies in the relativity model. It's also funny how you insist on writing as though you aren't human. Are you a chat bot?
The inconsistencies and inaccuracies in ALL made up conceptions like "relativity", et cetera, can be very quickly and easily seen, that is once you learn how to do it.
Why don't you spell out in detail what those alleged inconsistencies and inaccuracies are, then, that a genius like you can "quickly and easily" see but boobs like us can't? Because in all your word wallpaper you've yet to identify a single one.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest