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 »

davidm wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:49 pm
ken wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:48 am
Do you expect the theory of special relativity is a FAlSE theory?
It has always been a false theory, just not for the reasons that you think.
What reasons do you think, I think?

Could what you think be completely and utterly WRONG?
davidm wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:49 pm Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics and general relativity are also false theories, just not for the reasons that you think.
Again, what reasons do you think I think?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:18 am Theories are not true in any objective sense only a provisional one because they
are based upon evidence that is not absolute and so can at any time be falsified

Newtons Universal Theory Of Gravitation went unchallenged for over two centuries before Einstein developed General Relativity
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the two greatest achievements of twentieth century physics yet are incompatible
Again, WHY do you think they are incompatible?

I do NOT see where nor how they are incompatible. I only see them intertwined and united.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:18 amSo here are two examples of theories not being absolutely true but merely the most accurate approximation of their time
To Me seeing them as being the most accurate approximation of their time was a long time ago, in history.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:18 amAnd that is why theories can never be regarded as facts because then they would not be capable of potential falsification
Yes I have been told this many times already. I wonder WHY people will NOT answer My question about WHY they do NOT just look at what IS instead of making up theories that might be false anyway?

Looking at what IS, properly, can not be falsified. If looking this way only truth is observed, seen, and understood anyway.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:18 amAlthough the more robust that a theory becomes over time then the less likely it can be falsified but it is always possible
When does a 'theory' ever go past, or beyond, being falsifiable and become just plain old 'fact'?

For example ,WHY does 'the theory of evolution' seem to remain always a theory, and thus never gets called 'fact', whereas, 'creation' was never even 'a theory' at all and was/is accepted, by some, as always being 'an absolute, or true, fact'?

Does the continuation of saying the word 'theory', as in 'the theory of evolution' for example, mean that forever more, no matter what, even when the more "robust" this "theory" becomes over time, and the less likely it can be falsified, it will still always be possibly falsified?

If so, then this seems rather ridiculous, to Me, especially considering what is actually true.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:39 am
ken wrote:
You and others propose things as definitive truths
You and others do NOT know if those things are definitely true
Therefore what you and others propose are NOT yet definitive truths
Science is primarily an inductive discipline and so does not reference definitive truth as it deals in falsification not verification
I know you, and others, keep telling Me this.

If it was not clearly noticed, which I do not know how that could actually be possible, I did use the words 'you' and 'and others' propose .... I did NOT use the word 'science' anywhere here.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:39 amAnd to possess definitive truth with regard to physical reality would require omniscience
What are you suggesting here?
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:39 amOnly deductive disciplines such as mathematics and syllogisms reference definitive truth
Okay.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:39 amHowever they are abstract rather than real and so therefore omniscience is not required
Okay.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:01 am
ken wrote:
How do you KNOW that a true vacuum does not exist anywhere
They can exist though only for an infinitesimal period of time because of the manifestation
of quantum fluctuations in empty space [ virtual particles ] due to the Uncertainty Principle
How do you KNOW this?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:07 am
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
So can you please demonstrate it as you have not done so since you actually made the claim
What do you think or believe is the reason they are not already united?

I wish to see your understanding.
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:07 amI wish to see what knowledge you have to impart that no physicist in the world right now has
How are you so sure that NO so called "physicist" in the world, when this is being written, has the knowledge that you say I have to impart?

Also, you may have to wait a while to see what knowledge I have, if any, to impart.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Theories are not true in any objective sense only a provisional one because they
are based upon evidence that is not absolute and so can at any time be falsified

Newtons Universal Theory Of Gravitation went unchallenged for over two centuries before Einstein developed General Relativity
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the two greatest achievements of twentieth century physics yet are incompatible
Again WHY do you think they are incompatible
Electromagnetism and the strong nuclear and weak nuclear are quantised but gravity is not is the reason why
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

Noax wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:43 pm
surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 8:39 am
ken wrote:You and others propose things as definitive truths
You and others do NOT know if those things are definitely true
Therefore what you and others propose are NOT yet definitive truths
Science is primarily an inductive discipline and so does not reference definitive truth as it deals in falsification not verification
And to possess definitive truth with regard to physical reality would require omniscience
Only deductive disciplines such as mathematics and syllogisms reference definitive truth
However they are abstract rather than real and so therefore omniscience is not required
I am trying to identify and break the disconnect that I see going on here. No, we've never claimed any theory to be definitive truth, and if ken is claiming that above (The post, as usual, left 'things' pretty undefined), then he is completely misrepresenting what we're saying.
I have never claimed that any one has claimed any theory to be definitive truth. (By the way, thank you noax for what you wrote in brackets and noticing and catching on to what I am actually doing in this thread.) Still a pity clarification was not or is generally still not being asked for.

Noax wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:43 pmSo Newton's Theory of Gravitation predicted that if twins with identical weight (when in each other's presence) were to separate and one climb to the top of a 500 mile high tower, the one on the tower would weight less there. The theory was eventually falsified, but the prediction of that weight difference never changed, despite nobody actually performing that specific scenario. We seem not to claim that Newton's or Einstein's theory is definitive truth, but that is truth that the twin on the tower will weigh less, despite nobody actually ever having tried specifically that.
Have human beings never taken scales and done experiments at differing distances from the surface of the earth?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:43 pmSo relativity, as it currently stands, is known to be incomplete,
What about 'relativity' is actually supposedly incomplete?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:43 pm but that doesn't mean that the traveler at .999c will not come back with 1/22nd the age change of his brother.
Is this a definitive truth?
Noax wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:43 pm That dilation will be true even under whatever theory replaces the current GRT.
If that dilation is fact, then I am not sure WHY any person here would think that whatever theory replaces it would make that dilation not true.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:19 pm General Relativity falsified Universal Gravitation when it was used to explain the 43 arc second discrepancy in the orbit of Mercury
But UG can still be used as a reliable theory for objects significantly less massive than planets like balls dropping to the ground for
example. And so just because a theory has been falsified does not mean it is redundant rather that a new one has been discovered
And your point is meant to be?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
So here are two examples of theories not being absolutely true but merely the most accurate approximation of their time
To Me seeing them as being the most accurate approximation of their time was a long time ago in history
This is entirely irrelevant with regard to the current incompatibility which exists between them
Because whatever Me thinks is not actually going to help produce a Theory Of Quantum Gravity
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

davidm wrote: Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:14 am
Noax wrote: Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:02 pm I am interested in the necessity of the reality of something beyond just a mathematical model. It seems that this would be a philosophical point yet Minkowski says that experiments would be impossible if spacetime where not really 4D.
Is there an alternative to the block universe view?

Wherein it is argued, persuasively as far as I can see, that relativity entails that all objects (including humans of course) actually exist at all times and not just at what we call the indexical "present" time. Past and future are ontologically real along with the present.

Does what you see or notice exist?

If yes, then for how long does it exist? How long is 'all times'?

If no, then what does actually exist?

Can there really be any thing other than the present?

The answers to all of these types of questions are easy to discover, know, and understand.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
I wonder WHY people will NOT answer My question about WHY they do NOT
just look at what IS instead of making up theories that might be false anyway
Looking at something purely for what it is is not something that comes easy to human beings
For to truly do that would require simply observing something without thinking about it also
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
When does a theory ever go past or beyond being falsifiable and become just plain old fact

For example WHY does the theory of evolution seem to remain always a theory and thus never gets called fact whereas
creation was never even a theory at all and was / is accepted by some as always being an absolute or true fact

Does the continuation of saying the word theory as in the theory of evolution for example mean that forever more no matter what even
when the more robust this theory becomes over time and the less likely it can be falsified it will still always be possibly falsified
Theories cannot ever be falsified because science is inductive. So they can never become facts because then they would no
longer be theories. In science a theory is the highest form of classification there is so nothing including facts are above this
Evolution is the most rigorously supported theory in all of science but like every other theory it will always remain a theory
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
If so then this seems rather ridiculous to Me especially considering what is actually true
Once again what Me thinks is irrelevant here [ assuming that Me actually exists ]
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
So can you please demonstrate it as you have not done so since you actually made the claim
What do you think or believe is the reason they are not already united
I have already answered this more than once the last time eight posts above this one
So can you now show how General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be united
You claim it is easy you should have absolutely no problem in demonstrating it then
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
How are you so sure that NO so called physicist in the world when this is being written has the knowledge that you say I have

Also you may have to wait a while to see what knowledge I have if any
Any physicist who had a Theory Of Quantum Gravity would have it published in a peer reviewed journal
Is there a particular reason as to why I may have to wait a while to see what knowledge if any you have
Post Reply