Einstein on the train

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm

Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:17 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:15 pm
Either a 'fact' is a fact or it is NOT.

If it is a 'fact', then it is proven to be true in ALL circumstances. If a 'fact' has NOT yet been proven true in ALL circumstances, then it is just a relative truth, AND this is a fact, which is much better to be made aware of and KNOWN.
There is no room for such idealism in this universe.
When "you" write "this" Universe, are "you" implying that there could be another one or are "you" just stating a FACT that there is NO room for such "idealism" in "this" one and only Universe?

Then, how small do you THINK/BELIEVE "this" Universe is, if, as you say, there is "NO ROOM" for some thing?

Also, if there is NO room for "such" idealism, as I propose, would I be off target asking if there WAS room for 'idealism' that you have and hold?

'Idealism', after all, is just relative to one's perspective.

By the way I was just SHOWING how CORRECT "you" are. You suggested that I still have an all-or-nothing attitude. I SHOWED this by providing EXAMPLES of HOW accurate you actually were.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:17 pm
If you don't like it - write your complaints to god@nobodycares.com
But I do NOT have any complaints here. I just express things, from my perspective.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:17 pm
Find a new Universe maybe. I don't know.
Are you suggesting that "this" Universe only fits around "your" IDEALS?

Is that WHY there is NO room for "such" "idealism" as mine? If an idea does NOT fit in with "logik's" ideas, then to "logik" there is NO room for any thing other, than "logik's" ideals alone.

This helps a lot to explain the way "you" write and talk, here in this forum.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:17 pm
I think that I can confidently say that the number of 'facts' that match your criteria for 'universality' is exactly zero.
Is this another EXAMPLE of one of those BELIEFS, which "you" dearly love to hold onto with all that you have?

Besides the fact that you have NO idea what these 'facts' are YET, you have just SHOWN through "your" own words, that "you" have still MISSED what my actual VIEW IS in relation to this. Although I have expressed it some times already, "you" still have NO idea yet on what it actually IS.

Although the cause of WHY "you" are continually MISSING my main points and actual claims is ALREADY clear and KNOWN, the one who this REASON would be best known by unfortunately does NOT yet KNOW.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:17 pm
Q.E.D
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:03 pm
2. Age's intellectual journey is still at its infancy. He is focused entirely on consistency.

He still has an all-or-nothing mindset. If it's not perfect it's junk.
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:15 pm
Either a 'fact' is a fact or it is NOT.
The very REASON WHY I wrote that was so that "you" could be SEEN to be ACCURATE and CORRECT here. You are RIGHT in that:
I am still in the infancy stage of the journey. I have a LONG way to go yet. I continually express how lacking in communication skills I am, and thus the very reason I am here in this forum is to learn how to express better. Again, a VERY LONG WAY TO GO, yet.
I am focused on consistency.
There is a all-or-nothing tendency in relation to some things. And,
If it is not perfect, then it is not perfect.

So, although this does NOT happen that much, "you" are RIGHT in ALL four judgmental views of "me".

Logik
Posts: 3801
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Logik » Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm

Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
When "you" write "this" Universe, are "you" implying that there could be another one or are "you" just stating a FACT that there is NO room for such "idealism" in "this" one and only Universe?
I am stating it as facetiousness.

Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. If you don't like this universe - look for another. You might find it, but the odds are against you.
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
Then, how small do you THINK/BELIEVE "this" Universe is, if, as you say, there is "NO ROOM" for some thing?
Quite the contrary. The universe is big. HUUUGE. HUMONGOUS.

It's your mind that is quite cramped.
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
Also, if there is NO room for "such" idealism, as I propose, would I be off target asking if there WAS room for 'idealism' that you have and hold?

'Idealism', after all, is just relative to one's perspective.
It's relative to all sets of perspectives which operate under the limits of the human mind.

Those limits have been well established by science.
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
By the way I was just SHOWING how CORRECT "you" are. You suggested that I still have an all-or-nothing attitude. I SHOWED this by providing EXAMPLES of HOW accurate you actually were.
Like I said - I am good at guessing. It's just statistics.
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
Is this another EXAMPLE of one of those BELIEFS, which "you" dearly love to hold onto with all that you have?
No. It's just a good guess.

Age
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:19 am

Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
When "you" write "this" Universe, are "you" implying that there could be another one or are "you" just stating a FACT that there is NO room for such "idealism" in "this" one and only Universe?
I am stating it as facetiousness.

Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. If you don't like this universe - look for another. You might find it, but the odds are against you.
Why TRY TO deflect away from the issue?

You have diverted so far off track again. There was NEVER any issue about IF I like or do not like the Universe.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
Then, how small do you THINK/BELIEVE "this" Universe is, if, as you say, there is "NO ROOM" for some thing?
Quite the contrary. The universe is big. HUUUGE. HUMONGOUS.
So, is there room for more than just "YOUR" ideals?

Is it okay at all with "you" that other human beings share their views on things around?

Or, do you really BELIEVE that there is NO room for "other's" views?
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm
It's your mind that is quite cramped.
But, as I have repeatedly informed you, there is NO "your mind". There is only ONE Mind.

Unless of course "you" can point to, define, and/or SHOW what the 'mind' is, and then explain how "that" can be in relation to a "your".
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
Also, if there is NO room for "such" idealism, as I propose, would I be off target asking if there WAS room for 'idealism' that you have and hold?

'Idealism', after all, is just relative to one's perspective.
It's relative to all sets of perspectives which operate under the limits of the human mind.
But there is NO human "mind".
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm
Those limits have been well established by science.
Have they really?

Do you have any sources or links to WHERE EXACTLY science has established that the so called "human mind" has limits? And, any links to WHAT those so called "limits" are EXACTLY?
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
By the way I was just SHOWING how CORRECT "you" are. You suggested that I still have an all-or-nothing attitude. I SHOWED this by providing EXAMPLES of HOW accurate you actually were.
Like I said - I am good at guessing.
But "you" are only "good" at guessing SOMETIMES, and very, very rarely from what I have noticed. Other times you are absolutely hopeless and useless at guessing. As can be witnessed throughout this forum.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm
It's just statistics.
But "your" views that "you" have made about me and about what I do are based solely on my OWN writings. Your views are NOT based on statics.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:12 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:07 pm
Is this another EXAMPLE of one of those BELIEFS, which "you" dearly love to hold onto with all that you have?
No. It's just a good guess.
But it is NOT a good guess at all.

In FACT it could be a rather dismal and completely WRONG guess, if the actual Truth be KNOWN. But not until I SHARE my views will you ever KNOW the actual and real Truth regarding this.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1179
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:59 am

Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:15 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:03 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 4:57 pm
F = (Gm1m2)/d^2


(...)
Now, while this precision is more correct, it is intimidating and unimportant to deal with the constants when one is learning the logic-side of the issue. So you aren't helping. That is the insignificant 'facts' that were muddling the issue Age was trying to express, as I understood.
Only two things I want to point out.

1. Observe how you chose Newton's equation, not Einstein's one. And so my point (as before) stands. Context!

You have constrained yourself to contexts in which Newton's equation works and thus you implicitly exclude all contexts in which they don't.
Einstein's equations are generalisations of Newton's equation. They reduce down to Newton's equations with a margin of error so trivial that nobody cares.

Still: you ignore my point. Every scientific theory so far comes with a fine-print that we call 'domain of applicability' a.k.a context of validity.

2. Age's intellectual journey is still at its infancy. He is focused entirely on consistency. He pursues consistency religiously and idiomatically. He nitpicks at any and all inconsistencies - both small and big, to the point that if he were aware that Newton's equations were 'imprecise' he would insist that you used Einstein's equations - even here. On Earth even though the margin of error is insignificant.

He still has an all-or-nothing mindset. If it's not perfect it's junk.
Either a 'fact' is a fact or it is NOT.

If it is a 'fact', then it is proven to be true in ALL circumstances. If a 'fact' has NOT yet been proven true in ALL circumstances, then it is just a relative truth, AND this is a fact, which is much better to be made aware of and KNOWN.
Go to logik's thread then and debate your shared confusion on 'facts'. I already exhausted sufficient examples of what the "g" stands for and how it is determined FROM the universal gravitational constant, G, that IS true everywhere and that will not change for any practical concerns. The arbitrary choice...

Age
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:59 am
Age wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:15 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:03 pm


Only two things I want to point out.

1. Observe how you chose Newton's equation, not Einstein's one. And so my point (as before) stands. Context!

You have constrained yourself to contexts in which Newton's equation works and thus you implicitly exclude all contexts in which they don't.
Einstein's equations are generalisations of Newton's equation. They reduce down to Newton's equations with a margin of error so trivial that nobody cares.

Still: you ignore my point. Every scientific theory so far comes with a fine-print that we call 'domain of applicability' a.k.a context of validity.

2. Age's intellectual journey is still at its infancy. He is focused entirely on consistency. He pursues consistency religiously and idiomatically. He nitpicks at any and all inconsistencies - both small and big, to the point that if he were aware that Newton's equations were 'imprecise' he would insist that you used Einstein's equations - even here. On Earth even though the margin of error is insignificant.

He still has an all-or-nothing mindset. If it's not perfect it's junk.
Either a 'fact' is a fact or it is NOT.

If it is a 'fact', then it is proven to be true in ALL circumstances. If a 'fact' has NOT yet been proven true in ALL circumstances, then it is just a relative truth, AND this is a fact, which is much better to be made aware of and KNOWN.
Go to logik's thread then and debate your shared confusion on 'facts'. I already exhausted sufficient examples of what the "g" stands for and how it is determined FROM the universal gravitational constant, G, that IS true everywhere and that will not change for any practical concerns. The arbitrary choice...
I do NOT care if the number is 1 or 1 trillion or anywhere in between. My point was and still is whatever number you, human beings, choose on THAT number does NOT mean that it is a 'fact', as I keep saying. So called "facts" like that one, keep changing. Those "facts" are NOT actual Real and True facts, which last forever more. And this is what I am saying is best to come clean on and better to make "others" aware of, instead of just inferring, as is done in the book, that these so called "facts" are unchangeable.

If people Truly WANT to be able discover, find, and/or SEE the Truth, then they have to start expressing the actual Truth, FIRST.

I could NOT care one bit what g stands for. I am only interested in the Truth of things, including the Truth of facts.

A book was written. Feedback was asked for. I gave feedback. You misconstrued what I was saying. That is all.

Age
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:27 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:59 am

I already exhausted sufficient examples of what the "g" stands for and how it is determined FROM the universal gravitational constant, G, that IS true everywhere and that will not change for any practical concerns. The arbitrary choice...
Is there an actual universal gravitational constant, which IS true EVERY where and that will NOT change?
OR, is the term 'universal gravitational constant' just a term used to reference a particular number, which is also known as and symbolized by G?

If the former, then so do you dispute that the figure at sea level at the equator will change and be different as the one 4000 miles straight out from sea level at the equator?
If the latter, then we are in agreement.

Just because the term 'universal gravitational CONSTANT' is used this does NOT mean that it is actually CONSTANT at all. That is only WHAT I, and I think "logik", are pointing out.

That figure used for the symbol G, is NOT a fact that is NOT changeable. Even at sea level at the equator that so called "factual" figure WILL also change. The Universe is NOT static so, so called, "facts" like these are NOT fixed also.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1179
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:35 am

Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am
I do NOT care if the number is 1 or 1 trillion or anywhere in between. My point was and still is whatever number you, human beings, choose on THAT number does NOT mean that it is a 'fact', as I keep saying. So called "facts" like that one, keep changing. Those "facts" are NOT actual Real and True facts, which last forever more. And this is what I am saying is best to come clean on and better to make "others" aware of, instead of just inferring, as is done in the book, that these so called "facts" are unchangeable.

If people Truly WANT to be able discover, find, and/or SEE the Truth, then they have to start expressing the actual Truth, FIRST.

I could NOT care one bit what g stands for. I am only interested in the Truth of things, including the Truth of facts.

A book was written. Feedback was asked for. I gave feedback. You misconstrued what I was saying. That is all.
:?: :? Define "fact"; define "true"; define "real"; define "discover"
I don't know how you use these words as they are either unconventionally interpreted by you. And I'm guessing you don't think these need 'defining', but then again you'd no doubt tell me my guess is 'wrong'. [I smell gas.]

Age
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:54 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:35 am
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am
I do NOT care if the number is 1 or 1 trillion or anywhere in between. My point was and still is whatever number you, human beings, choose on THAT number does NOT mean that it is a 'fact', as I keep saying. So called "facts" like that one, keep changing. Those "facts" are NOT actual Real and True facts, which last forever more. And this is what I am saying is best to come clean on and better to make "others" aware of, instead of just inferring, as is done in the book, that these so called "facts" are unchangeable.

If people Truly WANT to be able discover, find, and/or SEE the Truth, then they have to start expressing the actual Truth, FIRST.

I could NOT care one bit what g stands for. I am only interested in the Truth of things, including the Truth of facts.

A book was written. Feedback was asked for. I gave feedback. You misconstrued what I was saying. That is all.
:?: :? Define "fact"; define "true"; define "real"; define "discover"
If you really WANT me to, then I WILL
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:35 am
I don't know how you use these words as they are either unconventionally interpreted by you.
If you do NOT yet KNOW how I use these words, then there is NO use making any ASSUMPTIONS at all, regarding this.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:35 am
And I'm guessing you don't think these need 'defining', but then again you'd no doubt tell me my guess is 'wrong'. [I smell gas.]
Well "your" guess is WRONG. If things are wanted to be understood, from another's perspective, then DEFINITION and MEANING is NEEDED.

Do you want to understand, from another's perspective? If yes, then I think defining is needed.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:56 am

No scientific fact can or indeed should be regarded as absolutely true because of the problem of induction
Even theories which are the highest classification in science could be potentially falsified by new evidence
Facts and laws and theories are approximations which are incredibly accurate but are still just approximations
The goal in science is therefore to be less wrong over time instead of omniscient which is not actually possible

uwot
Posts: 4070
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am

Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am
A book was written.
So it was. Thank you for reminding us: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am
Feedback was asked for. I gave feedback.
Thank you again for your feedback, but bear in mind it's basically a cartoon strip. It was designed to show how the majority of mainstream physicists think the universe works to people who have little interest in mathematics.
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am
You misconstrued what I was saying. That is all.
Hmm, pot/kettle. I really don't think that an introductory cartoon strip is the place for a torturous dissection of epistemological minutiae. I made it as clear as I could in the introduction that there is a difference between what actually happens (you might not like my use of the term, but that's what I call facts) and the models we create in order to explain those things that actually happen.

Introduction

“When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them.”
Thomas Kuhn

Once upon a time, Isaac Newton was sitting under an apple tree, trying to work out what makes the planets go round the sun. Suddenly, an apple fell from the tree and hit him on the head. Somehow, it shook his brain in such a way that Newton realised that the same force that makes apples fall on people’s heads is the very one that keeps planets in their orbits. Isaac Newton had discovered gravity. That at least is the story. How much of it is true isn’t clear.
What we do know is that Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, is one of the most influential science books ever written. It shows how gravity works very accurately. What it doesn't do is explain why. When Newton published a second edition, he had to admit that he couldn’t work it out and, brilliant though it was, as time went on, it became clear that Newton’s description of how gravity works isn’t the whole story - some facts about how planets actually move were discovered that Newton can’t explain.
Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which includes a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff. Relativity explains all the known facts that Newton could, and the ones he couldn’t. So does that mean the story is true? Not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories.

Consider the rabbit/duck illusion. What scientists know, in effect, is the size and shape of many of the marks that make up the picture; those are the facts - they are real, you can see them and measure them and say all sorts of things about them which are demonstrably true. The thing is, those facts are the same whether you think the overall picture is a duck or a rabbit.

The same sort of thing is true about the laws of nature. We know a lot of facts about how gravity makes things move, but is it caused by warped spacetime or gravitons? There’s a lot we know about what electrons and photons do, but is that because they are waves or particles? We can measure time extremely accurately, but is it something that ‘exists’ in its own right, or is it simply clocks ticking?

Understanding why the universe behaves as it does would be a lot simpler if such questions were always either/or, but they’re not. Suppose you want to find out whether the picture is a duck. You need to see more of the image, so you might think of a way to see whether it has webbed feet. Eureka! The experiment works and you know the creature has webbed feet - so it’s a duck. Well, maybe. All you know for certain is that it isn’t any kind of rabbit you’ve heard of, but it could still be a goose, a swan, even a duck-billed platypus or something we’ve never seen before, like a sea rabbit. Richard Feynman, one of the great 20th century physicists, put it like this: “Every theoretical physicist that’s any good, knows six or seven different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics.”

The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them. “Theoretical representations” are stories about why they work, but there are lots of different stories. Some physicists believe one thing, some another, some don’t have any strong opinion and some couldn’t care less.

That in a nutshell is what sometimes makes physics so bewildering, because depending on which theoretical physicist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories. Many of them might seem absurd, but assuming the physicist is ‘any good’, the story will be based on solid facts. This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how physicists think the universe actually works. In a way, it’s like imagining that the reason why a particular law of nature works is because it is a duck. Bear in mind though, it could be a rabbit.

Age
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am
A book was written.
So it was. Thank you for reminding us: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am
Feedback was asked for. I gave feedback.
Thank you again for your feedback, but bear in mind it's basically a cartoon strip. It was designed to show how the majority of mainstream physicists think the universe works to people who have little interest in mathematics.
And it does SHOW what some physicists THINK about how the Universe works. There is nothing to dispute here.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 am
You misconstrued what I was saying. That is all.
Hmm, pot/kettle. I really don't think that an introductory cartoon strip is the place for a torturous dissection of epistemological minutiae.
Personally I do NOT think that is even necessary in a place like this forum.

IF one person did NOT TRY and speak for me, and get it so WRONG, then I would NOT have said anything to THAT person.

I was talking to someone else when I wrote that remark. NOT "you" "uwot".

Your cartoon strip has NOTHING at all, in real terms, to what some person THOUGHT I was saying. I was replying to the person WHO misconstrued and misunderstood what I was saying. I was NOT saying anything in relation to YOUR cartoon strip here.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
I made it as clear as I could in the introduction that there is a difference between what actually happens (you might not like my use of the term, but that's what I call facts) and the models we create in order to explain those things that actually happen.
BUT WHY would a "model" be NEEDED IF 'what actually happens' is ALREADY KNOWN?

WHY would a human being create a model if 'what ACTUALLY happens' is ALREADY KNOWN?

The difference between 'what actually happens' and the "models" you human beings create is ALREADY SO OBVIOUS.

WHAT the difference IS?
HOW the difference IS perceived?
WHY the difference IS created?
WHERE the difference IS exactly? And,
HOW the difference IS made?

Are ALL questions that can be very simply, easily, and quickly ANSWERED and RESOLVED.

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Introduction

“When reading the works of an important thinker,


"Important thinker" is a very relativistic term.

To me, ANY and EVERY young person is a far more 'IMPORTANT thinker' than so called adult "important thinkers" are. Young people LOOK FROM a Real and True perspective, that is; Sadly, BEFORE they are corrupted to LOOK FROM and SEE FROM a distorted perspective.

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them.”
Thomas Kuhn
Which is EXACTLY what I did. I SAW the "apparent" absurdities in your writings, and then gave you feedback, which is what you were asking for.

The only difference is I would NOT be so self-centered to perceive myself to be a "sensible person". I just express my views, and then wait for the WRONGNESS in them be pointed out and SHOWN.

Just like I continually ask to be SHOWN WHERE the "apparent" absurdities are in my writings, and then wait to be TOLD WHY they are absurdities.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Once upon a time, Isaac Newton was sitting under an apple tree, trying to work out what makes the planets go round the sun. Suddenly, an apple fell from the tree and hit him on the head. Somehow, it shook his brain in such a way that Newton realised that the same force that makes apples fall on people’s heads is the very one that keeps planets in their orbits. Isaac Newton had discovered gravity. That at least is the story. How much of it is true isn’t clear.
What we do know is that Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, is one of the most influential science books ever written.
So what if any book is more influential than another. It is only because of the collective assortment of books that the Real and True KNOWledge of things become Truly KNOWN. NO book is more nor less important than another in REAL TERMS. Although some human beings will say otherwise.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
It shows how gravity works very accurately. What it doesn't do is explain why.
WHY gravity works, the way is does, is just because it could NOT work in any other way. A body of physical mass MUST attract physical things. Just like the Universe works the way it does, that is; Two opposites, constant in Equilibrium, could NOT work in any other way. The Universe could NOT exist in any other way than It does HERE, NOW. This really is just that SIMPLE.

WHY ALL of this IS the way It IS is another matter. But also just as SIMPLE and as EASY to explain ALSO.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
When Newton published a second edition, he had to admit that he couldn’t work it out and, brilliant though it was, as time went on, it became clear that Newton’s description of how gravity works isn’t the whole story - some facts about how planets actually move were discovered that Newton can’t explain.
Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which includes a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff.
LOL.

WHAT EXACTLY is 'some sort of rubbery fabric'?

'Empty space' IS empty space. 'Empty space' IS NOT some sort of rubbery fabric. 'Some sort of rubbery fabric' IS some sort of rubbery fabric. 'Some sort of rubbery fabric' IS NOT empty space, OBVIOUSLY.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Relativity explains all the known facts that Newton could, and the ones he couldn’t. So does that mean the story is true? Not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories.
'Some fact' could also NOT actually be facts at all. And, a 'story' is just 'that' - a story.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Consider the rabbit/duck illusion. What scientists know, in effect, is the size and shape of many of the marks that make up the picture; those are the facts - they are real, you can see them and measure them and say all sorts of things about them which are demonstrably true. The thing is, those facts are the same whether you think the overall picture is a duck or a rabbit.
These so called "facts" can and do change. That is the Nature of the Universe, Itself.

The size and shape, however, of the Universe, Itself, does NOT change even though human being's stories about the Universe are continually changing.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
The same sort of thing is true about the laws of nature. We know a lot of facts about how gravity makes things move, but is it caused by warped spacetime or gravitons?
Well it certainly is NOT the former. And, could the answer be because of something else other than these two rather silly ideas?
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
There’s a lot we know about what electrons and photons do, but is that because they are waves or particles? We can measure time extremely accurately, but is it something that ‘exists’ in its own right, or is it simply clocks ticking?
"you" can NOT measure "time" because there is NO such thing to measure.

IF "you" human beings could measure "time" "extremely accurately", then it would be a rather strange thing to then question IF "time" is something that exists in its own right. If "it" could be measured accurately or even inaccurately, then it would HAVE TO EXIST, "in its own right", OBVIOUSLY.

What "you", human beings, are measuring is how long it took for one object to get from one place to another place. In other words "you" are measuring the length calculated, by agreed upon measurements, from one event to another event.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Understanding why the universe behaves as it does would be a lot simpler if such questions were always either/or, but they’re not.
WHY do "you" propose such a thing?

The Universe, SIMPLY, behaves the way It does because It could NOT behave in any other way. That is; There are physical things, with empty space between and around them. The empty space allows the physical to move freely. This is HOW the Universe ALWAYS exists AND ALWAYS behaves the way It does. There is absolutely NOTHING hard NOR complex to understand here regarding this.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Suppose you want to find out whether the picture is a duck.
But NO human being can "FIND OUT" whether the picture is a duck. Absolute EVERY thing is relative to the observer. If a human being SEES some thing or other is depended upon their past experiences. NO picture can be one thing or another. Human beings SEE what they SEE. If a human being SEES a "duck" or a "rabbit", then that IS what they SEE. A picture does NOT stand in its own right. It really is that simple.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
You need to see more of the image, so you might think of a way to see whether it has webbed feet. Eureka! The experiment works and you know the creature has webbed feet - so it’s a duck.
NOT necessarily so. That is just 'another' ASSUMPTION, that you are making here.

The actual Truth is that is WHAT the human being CONCLUDED, that is; "it is a duck". But what human beings CONCLUDE is NOT always True nor Right, which has been EVIDENCED for countless of centuries.

uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Well, maybe. All you know for certain is that it isn’t any kind of rabbit you’ve heard of, but it could still be a goose, a swan, even a duck-billed platypus or something we’ve never seen before, like a sea rabbit. Richard Feynman, one of the great 20th century physicists,
Just because "you" SEE that human being with that label as being "great" does NOT necessarily mean that that person is nor was GREAT. "Your" interpretation of things does NOT make things thee actual Truth. Have "your" conclusions ALWAYS been True and Right? If yes, then the chances that some person with that label is GREAT might be MORE correct than a human being who's conclusions are NOT always True and Right, but I would still NOT jump to any ASSUMPTION, just yet.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
put it like this: “Every theoretical physicist that’s any good,
The term "good" is just another example of a human being putting their OWN relativistic perception onto things.

Are human beings known by the letters "physicists" that "you" do NOT agree with "any good"?

If either yes or no, WHY SO?
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
knows six or seven different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics.”
So, OBVIOUSLY, there is some thing WRONG going on here.

What happens if a so called "physicist" knows of four or five different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics, are they "any good", "somewhat good", "just good", or "no good" at all? Or, some thing else?

'Relativity' really can play a part in ALL things.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work
The "physics" described at any particular moment, that they are prescribed, might explain for some human beings how the laws of nature work. But EXACTLY HOW Nature, Itself, works does NOT need human beings to make up models. The human made up "physics" may describe SOME apparent facts, at some particular moments, but HOW Nature, Itself, ACTUALLY WORKS is just so SIMPLE and EASY to understand that the majority of human beings, when this is written, are unable to COMPREHEND the simplicity of It ALL.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
- the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them. “Theoretical representations” are stories about why they work, but there are lots of different stories. Some physicists believe one thing, some another, some don’t have any strong opinion and some couldn’t care less.
Just because some human beings have been given the label "physicists" in NO WAY should infer that they KNOW MORE than any "other" human being.

The one and only actual True STORY holds the actual and real True FACTS anyway.

The SIMPLICITY of HOW the Universe/Nature actually works goes straight past MOST adult human beings, because they are LOOKING FOR things that are NOT even here. They, especially "physicists" prefer to MAKE UP "models" of what COULD BE, instead of just LOOKING AT what IS, which is what IS actually just True and Right anyway.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
That in a nutshell is what sometimes makes physics so bewildering, because depending on which theoretical physicist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories.
Thus a reason to NOT really be to concerned with what they say. If what they say does NOT make sense almost instantly, then that probably says more about their made up stories than I ever could.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Many of them might seem absurd, but assuming the physicist is ‘any good’,
Who/what decides on a "good" so called "physicist" from a NOT "good" one?

And, WHAT is the "good" going to be based on EXACTLY?
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
the story will be based on solid facts.
The WHOLE POINT that I have been saying from the outset IS; The so called "solid facts" that "you" prescribe to ARE NOT even necessarily facts to even begin with, let alone being 'solid facts' at all.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how physicists think the universe actually works.
Yes that is exactly what this book does. But how does that differ from what the writers' of most books have been TRYING TO do since writings have been put into books?

The so called "best" stories, the "general ideas", "how physicists think', and "how the Universe works" are ALL only "YOUR" interpretation of things, which may or may NOT be true and right at all.

Just because "you" BELIEVE that what "you" have written is a compilation of the "best ideas", from the "best physicists", about the "best description of how the Universe works", does NOT mean that it is the best, or even close to being the best at all. "YOUR" interpretation could be WRONG, from the VERY outset.

Those human beings with the label "physicist", in those times of when this is written, still actually have NO idea of 'what actually happens', in regards to the Universe, Itself.
uwot wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
In a way, it’s like imagining that the reason why a particular law of nature works is because it is a duck. Bear in mind though, it could be a rabbit.
Yes, what "YOUR" interpretation of HOW Nature works, could in FACT be completely different from what "YOU" think "you" see now. In fact HOW the Universe/Nature actually works could be so SIMPLE and EASY that, at the moment, "you" could NOT even fathom it, let alone imagine just HOW simple and easy the Universe Truly IS to understand and know.

What "you" SEE as being COMPLEX and HARD may in FACT actually be just really VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed.

Logik
Posts: 3801
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 23, 2019 2:00 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
What "you" SEE as being COMPLEX and HARD may in FACT actually be just really VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed.
It may be very simple and very easy. Just not for a human with finite knowledge, time and resources.

For somebody omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent - it's trivial.

uwot
Posts: 4070
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
BUT WHY would a "model" be NEEDED IF 'what actually happens' is ALREADY KNOWN?
Everybody already knows that lightning actually happens, for example. You don't need a model of lightning, because you can see it. The model is for the stuff you can't see - the cause of the phenomenon. That's where the stories come in. Someone comes up with the idea that thunderbolts are thrown by Zeus from the top of Mount Olympus. So someone climbs to the top of the mountain and, whaddya know? There's no gods up there. Then someone else (Jean-Antoine Nollet as it happens) thinks that lightning might be huge electrical sparks. To find out, Benjamin Franklin flies a kite into a thundercloud. (There's no evidence that he did the experiment, but that's stories for you.) Guess what? Lightning is great big electrical sparks. Great. So what is electricity? 'Well,' says someone (a bloke called William Brookes), 'maybe there's some itsy-bitsy particle thingy that carries a charge. Wassa charge? Who knows, but let's arbitrarily call it negative-ya gotta give your characters names. Fair enough. So why are these particles called electrons? Ah. Well, they make your hair stand on end; a bit like when you rub amber. Amber? Yeah; well, the Greek word for amber is elektron. Oh right-so what are electrons made of? Blimey, that's a toughie-tell ya what; let's build a machine the size of a small city and find out.

But you can ignore all of that if you think you already know it all, or think it is "OBVIOUS".
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
WHY would a human being create a model if 'what ACTUALLY happens' is ALREADY KNOWN?
Because some of them are curious buggers who want to know why it happens. Not many people would be satisfied with this though:
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
The Universe could NOT exist in any other way than It does HERE, NOW. This really is just that SIMPLE.
Oh?
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
What "you" SEE as being COMPLEX and HARD may in FACT actually be just really VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed.
Damn, I've wasted my life then. Oh well. So what is this very simple and easy answer?

Age
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by Age » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:27 pm

uwot wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 1:03 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
BUT WHY would a "model" be NEEDED IF 'what actually happens' is ALREADY KNOWN?
Everybody already knows that lightning actually happens, for example. You don't need a model of lightning, because you can see it. The model is for the stuff you can't see - the cause of the phenomenon. That's where the stories come in. Someone comes up with the idea that thunderbolts are thrown by Zeus from the top of Mount Olympus. So someone climbs to the top of the mountain and, whaddya know? There's no gods up there. Then someone else (Jean-Antoine Nollet as it happens) thinks that lightning might be huge electrical sparks. To find out, Benjamin Franklin flies a kite into a thundercloud. (There's no evidence that he did the experiment, but that's stories for you.) Guess what? Lightning is great big electrical sparks. Great. So what is electricity? 'Well,' says someone (a bloke called William Brookes), 'maybe there's some itsy-bitsy particle thingy that carries a charge. Wassa charge? Who knows, but let's arbitrarily call it negative-ya gotta give your characters names. Fair enough. So why are these particles called electrons? Ah. Well, they make your hair stand on end; a bit like when you rub amber. Amber? Yeah; well, the Greek word for amber is elektron. Oh right-so what are electrons made of? Blimey, that's a toughie-tell ya what; let's build a machine the size of a small city and find out.

But you can ignore all of that if you think you already know it all, or think it is "OBVIOUS".
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
WHY would a human being create a model if 'what ACTUALLY happens' is ALREADY KNOWN?
Because some of them are curious buggers who want to know why it happens. Not many people would be satisfied with this though:
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
The Universe could NOT exist in any other way than It does HERE, NOW. This really is just that SIMPLE.
Oh?
Age wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:35 pm
What "you" SEE as being COMPLEX and HARD may in FACT actually be just really VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed.
Damn, I've wasted my life then. Oh well. So what is this very simple and easy answer?
To WHAT exactly?

If you want an answer, you first have to be curious, ask a question.

uwot
Posts: 4070
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Einstein on the train

Post by uwot » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:45 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:27 pm
If you want an answer, you first have to be curious, ask a question.
Okie-dokie. What is the easy explanation for the apparent galactic redshift?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests