Relativity of Science

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Calrid » Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:58 pm

Prove it. Show me an experiment that disagrees with realitivity, actually show me anything other than a priori logic word salad and that would be a start?

:D

Evolution is more of a religion even than relativity, since there is almost 100% agreement with that. Hence all science is about religious convictions not evidence. Relativity is a religion, if I agree with you will you shut up with all this preposterous tosh?

Probably not, but ho hum. :-"
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Xunzian » Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:42 pm

James S Saint wrote:
For three pages, PhysBang, Calrid, and Xunzian spouted pejoratives concerning me, yet not one shred of thought actually went into the actual setup or following logic posted in the OP other than to say, "SR doesn't work like that, you are "ignorant", "insane", "mentally ill", "crackpot".... Creating ill repute was the obvious aim.


Actually, it was demonstrated several times in that thread that 1) you fundamentally did not understand the system you were trying to discredit and 2) given 1, the "contradiction" you identified did not apply. In keeping with a trend also seen in this thread, you then engaged in revising the original paradox without acknowledging it, going so far as to edit the original post fundamentally changing the paradox while claiming the entire time that is what you actually meant. On top of that, even with the disingenuous edit, you still did not understand the system you were objecting to as evidenced by numerous citations which you rejected as "appeals to authority". It would seem as though the only "science" you recognize comes from your own brain. That is a rather limiting perspective and not one that engenders fruitful conversation.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10367
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Farsight » Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:33 pm

Carleas wrote:Farsight, I don't know what physicsforums policies are about what merits banning, but if what you say is true they are draconian and probably stifle potentially fruitful discussions. My guess, though, is that they probably get a lot of genuinely disruptive posters insisting that some out-of-mainstream idea is going to revolutionize physics, and that as a result they are hyper-sensitive to removing those posters before they become a problem.
I'm not sure how they are these days, but they seemed to make full use of the wackier posters and the tender-young-minds card as an excuse to stifle sincere discussion. The impression I got was that no questioning of consensus was tolerated, no challenge to the mainstream was permitted, and that the moderators didn't so much ensure civil discourse as serve as thought-police. Perhaps we could test this out with an experiment? Here's a thread concerning the speed of light. Try posting up the quoted section of this post along with what I said about Shapiro and light clocks here, and gauge their response. If your post is deleted and you find yourself banned, I'm probably right. If you receive a rational counter-argument with references and experimental evidence, I'm probably wrong.

Carleas wrote:I assume the second link was supposed to go to the article by Josephson?), while suggestive of a strain of thought within the physics community, are not necessarily evidence that it is a major strain, let alone the predominant strain.
Apologies, no, it was a link to a hostile piece in the Guardian by Simon Jenkins drawing a parallel between science and religion. Here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... of-science

Carleas wrote:...Even if, for example, the review process for posting on arXiv.org is extremely accurate, and the reviewers are reasonably open to challenges to some foundational tenet of a discipline, the flow of truly useless theories could quite easily be so large that some legitimate proposals would be lost in the deluge. Most of the time, when the scientific bureaucracy attempts to "defend science against the crackpots," they will be right to do so, because most theories labeled 'crackpot' are truly not scientifically interesting in the least.
That's the given reason, but there have been some issues re blacklisting, see for example this physicsworld item, and this "archive freedom" case histories. By chance I emailed one of the names on the list in July asking him why he had no recent papers, and his reponse was "I have been trying hard but unsuccessfully to get a couple of important paper published". This is a professional physicists, an academic, not just some kid with an ill-considered notion.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Farsight » Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:47 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Farsight wrote:don't rock the boat or you'll never make full professor. The overall theme seems to be go against the mainstream and you've got problems, so you'd better hang fire until you're emeritus.
That is exactly my experience. A documentary was made about that very thing showing the condemning evidence. I spoke directly to a person pointed out in the film as one of the "conspirators". While talking to him, not realizing this publication manager was in fact the person in the film, he proved his own guilt of pre-judging and selecting people based on whether they ever spoke out of line. "We have to defend Science against the crackpots and religious people" - his very words. Yet provable "crackpots" are the ones getting the most publicity.
I agree with your sentiment, but feel you should be attacking things like time travel and parallel worlds and the other examples from your previous post, not relativity. Only this week New Scientist presented parallel worlds as fact. The latter is arguably a science media issue rather than a science establishment issue, but I'd say there is a grey area here.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby PhysBang » Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:58 pm

This limited perspective on science is a very common occurrence with those who object rather strongly to science or specific sciences: they object to science that they have clearly not read.

Before Internet 2.0, such people were limited to writing letters to people who worked in the sciences, letters to conferences about the sciences, and then later emails to people who worked in the sciences. (I was late enough on the scene that I only received the latter two.) Now internet forums are the place to go.

The standard reply on these people is that they are being kept out of the scientific discourse because of some social institution. Though, in truth, the social institution that they could be involved with is their local library; the library would provide the material they need to actually answer their questions.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby PhysBang » Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:02 pm

I'm not sure about PhysicsForums, but another good example of Farsight's behaviour when people who actually know science are involved can be found at the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums. Farsight was also banned there.

Farsight's thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... highlight=

Final offence:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ost1642935

Suspensions:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ost1628425
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ost1632224
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ost1643015

In general, many people too often the supposed presence and extent of some cabal of censors is used in the place of actually delivering analysis.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Carleas » Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:53 pm

Caldrid, why do you care if he keeps posting? If there truly is a flaw in his argument, explain what it is. If you're sick of explaining, simply walk away from the thread in question. Nothing is compelling you to continue dealing with his "preposterous tosh," why not just add him as a foe and be done with it?

PhysBang, sometime, somewhere, a question will be posed first on an internet forum that has real merit, and which can't be answered in a library. If you can't provide the explanation for why a theory is wrong, aren't you taking it on faith that the answer is in the library? I agree with you that almost all (something like "all-1") theories proposed to radically revise science, whether on a forum or elsewhere, will be proven to be wrong, and adequate research would lead any reasonable individual to reject them. But there's value in discussing an incorrect theory. In researching James' Clock Paradox, I refreshed my memory of relativity, and learned about new positions worth considering (like four-dimensionalism). Conversely, there doesn't seem to be any harm in proposing an incorrect theory, and certainly it's better than believing it and never discussing it, thereby never being corrected.

Farsight, arXiv gets about 6000 submissions a month, about 200 a day. With that volume, there are bound to be some mistakes made. In a year, if 5 submissions are mistakenly rejected, their process is still accurate to four decimal places. Since few if any write editorials to explain the system that accurately evaluated their paper, the press will overvalue these 5 mistakes, but to suggest that it can be otherwise is dubious.

Jenkins' article is more about the politics of science, balancing science as a national priority against other goods. But the question of if or how government should fund science is very different from the question of whether the institution of science excludes legitimate theories because they go against the mainstream. Jenkins does touch on the latter, but the brunt of his argument, and virtually all his evidence, goes to the former.

Matthatter, as simple as science is, I think it's legitimate to refer to the institutions of science as "science". And there is a legitimate question as to whether the institution is effectively producing reliable statements of the type "A (reliably) results in B," and not illegitimately excluding other reliable statements.

That said, it seems clear to me that institutional science is doing an adequate job.

James, the major difference between scientific faith and religious faith is that, where religion is set up from top to bottom to bolster such faith and actively and openly discourage dissension, science is set up from top to bottom to shun faith. Of course, as you have said, people are by nature religifiers, but that doesn't support the contention that science and religion are similar because of it any more than does the observation that both religious and scientific beliefs are both written in ink.

As to your proof (and straying off topic), you assume that the flash occurs simultaneously for both frames of reference, but such simultaneity is relative, and won't be the same for both the station and the train. A possible resolution is that the clock on the train is stopped, and the observers at the station are wondering why the flash went off late (early?). If you assume simultaneity, you have assumed an internally inconsistent premise, and as a result you arrived at an inconsistent conclusion.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 4258
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:20 pm

Carleas wrote:As to your proof (and straying off topic), you assume that the flash occurs simultaneously for both frames of reference, but such simultaneity is relative, and won't be the same for both the station and the train. A possible resolution is that the clock on the train is stopped, and the observers at the station are wondering why the flash went off late (early?). If you assume simultaneity, you have assumed an internally inconsistent premise, and as a result you arrived at an inconsistent conclusion.

Well thank you and that is the exact argument that I was first expecting someone to make. And if they had, I would have presented my reply which clearly (I think) displays that the simultaneity is unquestionable.

The fact that we couldn't even get to such a point (although for a moment I thought that is where PhysBang was headed) is what inspired this thread. My response to that reply is only vaguely mentioned during the thread because I thought PhysBang was going there. My entire explanation addressing that concern is still not posted, because no one seemed to be interested in the reasoning or Science, but rather mere "religious fanaticism" techniques already well known in anti-religion debates.

I would disagree that "from top to bottom" Science is setup to resist faith. That was the obvious original altruistic version of Science. You and many are not aware of just how much that prior state has been so corrupted that it is no longer the case in reality.

But thank you for pointing out that even if my proposed paradox was in error, the whole point to such posts is to bring out the actual logic involved no matter who is wrong or right, not merely blindly point to the holy scriptures ("Go drink our coolaid and you will begin to begin to see the same colors that we see.").
Last edited by James S Saint on Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby James S Saint » Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:07 pm

Xunzian wrote:Actually, it was demonstrated several times in that thread that 1) you fundamentally did not understand the system you were trying to discredit and 2) given 1, the "contradiction" you identified did not apply. In keeping with a trend also seen in this thread, you then engaged in revising the original paradox without acknowledging it, going so far as to edit the original post fundamentally changing the paradox while claiming the entire time that is what you actually meant. On top of that, even with the disingenuous edit, you still did not understand the system you were objecting to as evidenced by numerous citations which you rejected as "appeals to authority". It would seem as though the only "science" you recognize comes from your own brain. That is a rather limiting perspective and not one that engenders fruitful conversation.

As to your implication of me being a liar by altering the scenario;

The only editing done was in effort to make things more clear sense it was obvious to me that the actual scenario wasn't being seen. I corrected typos, moved commas, added parentheticals, adjectives, and a final "Summary of the Setup", and made many attempts to get the pictures more clear. The actual paradoxical situation wasn't changed a bit. And frankly even if it had been, a paradox is a paradox and needs attention.

But then seeing that no one was willing or apparently qualified to actually address the paradox, I decided to go ahead and resolve it myself. As it turned out, that didn't take quite as long as I was expecting and quickly realized that the issue was merely that the observed speed of light cannot be perfectly constant, although can easily be mistaken as such. Science has noted that Einstein equations get them closer than the QM had proposed, but still not perfectly on.

As a result, I then modified my own proposed solutions as outlined in the logic table list of possible outcomes to change the reference to the general term "relativity" to the more specific term, "the speed of light" as it turned out that the assumed consistency of the observed speed of light was at the bottom of the conundrum. I can now even correct for the real time dilation with more precision than what Einstein had proposed. The new time dilation equations would correct for the tiny bit of error still noted in actual experiments. Even Einstein knew that something was still not entirely right.

But the proposed paradox never changed at all.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby rasava » Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:15 am

The OP is not about Science? What about the title of your topic?

I can't help watching someone bravely taking on all comers, regardless of whether he's right or wrong.
Dread is a sympathetic antipathy and an antipathetic sympathy.
-- Soren Kirkegaard

In the geometric proof of life you don't always get the Given.
-- Some kid from my high school days
User avatar
rasava
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:38 am
Location: Here

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Farsight » Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:46 am

PhysBang wrote:I'm not sure about PhysicsForums, but another good example of Farsight's behaviour when people who actually know science are involved can be found at the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forums. Farsight was also banned there.

Farsight's thread:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... highlight=

Final offence:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ost1642935

Suspensions:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ost1628425
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ost1632224
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php ... ost1643015

In general, many people too often the supposed presence and extent of some cabal of censors is used in the place of actually delivering analysis.
My behaviour can be assessed by reading the threads, PhysBang. It's good behaviour.

All: for the record, this is the only other place I've been banned from, and it's a particularly graphic example of online censorship. Check the offence/suspension links above and you'll see I was suspended for "refusing to answer questions" thence banned for being "uncivil". But when you read the posts, you can see I answered over 100 questions, and was a model poster faced with a barrage of insults. Here's where I got up to the 75th question from just one poster: post #103. I was warned in advance that the trick at Baut when faced with a serious challenge backed with evidence and references is to to hurl a barrage of specious questions then give infractions for not answering questions, and to hurl abuse and penalise any retort in kind. But I decided to go ahead, and feel it was a useful exercise.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby PhysBang » Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:22 am

James S Saint wrote:
Carleas wrote:As to your proof (and straying off topic), you assume that the flash occurs simultaneously for both frames of reference, but such simultaneity is relative, and won't be the same for both the station and the train. A possible resolution is that the clock on the train is stopped, and the observers at the station are wondering why the flash went off late (early?). If you assume simultaneity, you have assumed an internally inconsistent premise, and as a result you arrived at an inconsistent conclusion.

Well thank you and that is the exact argument that I was first expecting someone to make. And if they had, I would have presented my reply which clearly (I think) displays that the simultaneity is unquestionable.

This is exactly the argument I made again and again. You must know this, since you claimed again and again in reply to my posts that the flashes were nonetheless simultaneous in all reference frames. You offered no argument as to why this would be the case that included details of the motion of your flashers. All this is there in the thread, so we can see just how wrong your statement above is.
The fact that we couldn't even get to such a point (although for a moment I thought that is where PhysBang was headed) is what inspired this thread. My response to that reply is only vaguely mentioned during the thread because I thought PhysBang was going there. My entire explanation addressing that concern is still not posted, because no one seemed to be interested in the reasoning or Science, but rather mere "religious fanaticism" techniques already well known in anti-religion debates.

Sure, because in every religious debate, one side wants to see the mathematical details of the other side.

But as I said before, one cannot debate someone who will simply ignore what an opponent writes or change his or her response inconsistently between questions.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Farsight » Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:29 am

Carleas wrote:Farsight, arXiv gets about 6000 submissions a month, about 200 a day. With that volume, there are bound to be some mistakes made. In a year, if 5 submissions are mistakenly rejected, their process is still accurate to four decimal places. Since few if any write editorials to explain the system that accurately evaluated their paper, the press will overvalue these 5 mistakes, but to suggest that it can be otherwise is dubious.
With respect Carleas, the issue is one of orthodoxy and censorship rather than mistakes. You should read up on this, starting with say Brian Josephson's story. That's Brian Josephson of Josephson junction fame, Nobel Laureate. He's a member of the Institute of Physics. You should email him and ask him about it.

Carleas wrote:Jenkins' article is more about the politics of science, balancing science as a national priority against other goods. But the question of if or how government should fund science is very different from the question of whether the institution of science excludes legitimate theories because they go against the mainstream. Jenkins does touch on the latter, but the brunt of his argument, and virtually all his evidence, goes to the former.
True, but don't forget that the title of the piece is "Martin Rees makes a religion out of science so his bishops can gather their tithe". The content includes "justified by faith not reason", "no scepticism is admitted to this new orthodoxy", "to criticise science teaching is little short of blasphemy", and "Rees stuck to the party line that forbids him to say that £7bn and thousands of scientists buried under a Swiss mountain might have been better employed on energy research." It doesn't concern censorship in physics but it definitely draws parallels between science and religion, and in the light of scant progress within fundamental physics in recent decades, I fear things could go very badly downhill from here. So whilst I think James has picked the wrong target in relativity as opposed to say branes and the holographic universe, I feel he has a very serious point in highlighting mainstream dogma. I'd venture to say that attempts to discredit him rather than address his case only reinforce this point.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 01, 2010 6:08 am

rasava wrote:The OP is not about Science? What about the title of your topic?

It is not about what Science is or isn't by its definition, but rather how the online arguments are identical in form to the religious arguments against the atheist.

Farsight wrote:My behaviour can be assessed by reading the threads, PhysBang. It's good behaviour.

All: for the record, this is the only other place I've been banned from, and it's a particularly graphic example of online censorship. Check the offence/suspension links above and you'll see I was suspended for "refusing to answer questions" thence banned for being "uncivil". But when you read the posts, you can see I answered over 100 questions, and was a model poster faced with a barrage of insults. Here's where I got up to the 75th question from just one poster: post #103. I was warned in advance that the trick at Baut when faced with a serious challenge backed with evidence and references is to to hurl a barrage of specious questions then give infractions for not answering questions, and to hurl abuse and penalise any retort in kind. But I decided to go ahead, and feel it was a useful exercise.

That was my experience as well, although I didn't get banned, but was warned that if I kept arguing, I would be banned. Doc Al is the most obvious culprit. When he enters a thread, once he gets tired of arguing, regardless of how many others might want to continue (as one stated to me on my thread), he just locks the thread and/or bans the person. Its a little hard to tell for sure whether it is due to him sensing that he is about to lose or he just feels that the site is only there for him so when he is tired, he just shuts it down (narcissism).

Again, many other smaller religious sites do that quite often.

PhysBang wrote:This is exactly the argument I made again and again. You must know this, since you claimed again and again in reply to my posts that the flashes were nonetheless simultaneous in all reference frames. You offered no argument as to why this would be the case that included details of the motion of your flashers.

No, that is what you first merely asserted, no argument. And that is why I first thought you were going to follow that train of logic, so I asked you to explain why you thought that and gave a little of why I thought it would have to be so (should have been enough of a clue). But the only argument you could give was that your holy scriptures proclaimed it and I should go drink the coolaid and come back when I could see your colored lights. I began to propose my version of why they had to be in sync when you came up with the absurd notion that the reason your chemistry class experiment got different results than the others was because their desks were in a different locations in the room. With THAT, you proved with certainty that you have no idea what the reasoning behind relativity of simultaneity actually is.

I asked you to show me exactly what you think Einstein said that led you to believe such an absurd idea. And exactly like a Bible literalist, you quoted an out of context verse that you misunderstood to mean that no two events could never be in sync if they are separated by any distance or time, "spacetime". That is not what he meant by what he was saying in your quote. And frankly even if it was, merely by trying to apply his equations to the scenario, you would discover that your version could not be correct. As Carleas pointed out, the point to discussion is to get into the reasoning of what you believe, not merely quote passages and attempt to condemn the unbelievers.

After that point any arguing with you was obviously going to be pointless. I asked you to show your math/logic. You apparently couldn't, just as I confidently suspected. You had merely memorized certain ideas that you misunderstood and some equations that you have plugged in to some prepared homework problems and thought you actually knew something. Calrid and Xunzian had to come and help you try to save face, again merely defending the realm with attempts at slander and obfuscation.

If you seriously want to continue that debate in a civil manner, I suggest that you find the real math/logic that leads up to the conclusion that you suggest without merely quoting your scriptures, because you misunderstand what you have memorized (religious people do that a lot). If you follow them accurately, I won't have to say much more, if anything at all.

If you are going to drink the coolaid and pass it around, find out what is in it.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Calrid » Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:23 am

If you seriously want to continue that debate in a civil manner, I suggest that you find the real math/logic that leads up to the conclusion that you suggest without merely quoting your scriptures, because you misunderstand what you have memorized (religious people do that a lot). If you follow them accurately, I won't have to say much more, if anything at all.

If you are going to drink the coolaid and pass it around, find out what is in it.


Real logic apparently contradicts all available experiment in the real world too. Your logic is nonsense and you've been repeatedly told why (I explained in terms of experiment how your logical assertion was out of kilter with actual observation, I also explained why all things being equal relativity would also agree that simultaneity is the result, hence your whole argument being based on a particular case that does not apply to the whole theory) but you continue to ignore me and any other point that contradicts your specious nonsense. You claim your questions haven't been answered but they have several times by several different people on several different threads. When faced with a refutation though you just ignore it, presumably because it's inconvenient.

Again this is all just a waste of time you can't answer any questions without making excuses but I'll ask again: if your logic is so airtight why does it contradict all real world experiment? Why does the Michelson-Morley experiment show a lack of accordance with aether theories, why do atomic clocks on fast moving vehicles show discrepancies in time. Why do clocks placed on tall buildings go out of synch with those closer to the Earth. Why is everything you say out of kilter with actual science? Logic without a foundation in reality is just sophistry, and frankly that's all you have. Show us the money, talk is cheap. Relate to me any experiment in science that supports your view? This isn't quoting scripture this is fundamentally what science is, showing how there is a consensus amongst experiments that shows that your views are not subjective.

The only dogma here is yours and it is a cult of one, don't need to prove anything, don't need to challenge current experiment, just saying things are so is all that is needed according to some faulty axioms. This isn't science this is proselytising.

That was my experience as well, although I didn't get banned, but was warned that if I kept arguing, I would be banned. Doc Al is the most obvious culprit. When he enters a thread, once he gets tired of arguing, regardless of how many others might want to continue (as one stated to me on my thread), he just locks the thread and/or bans the person. Its a little hard to tell for sure whether it is due to him sensing that he is about to lose or he just feels that the site is only there for him so when he is tired, he just shuts it down (narcissism).

Again, many other smaller religious sites do that quite often.


The forum is first and foremost an educational tool, the last thing students or those learning about the subject need is people relating specious theories that bare no relation to reality and confusing the issue. It's not censorship its just having standards. You were just failing miserably to make a case and repeatedly making stupid assertions despite being shown to be in error. There was no educational purpose to watching you show us your lack of understanding of the subject, and no point in you repeating your faulty assumptions. Why should people indulge you anyway? Patiently explaining why you are wrong, only to have you ignore their points or fail to understand them over and over again.

Your martyr complex doesn't help your case here.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:54 am

Calrid wrote:Real logic apparently contradicts all available experiment in the real world too.

Oh yeah? I haven't found that to be true.

Calrid wrote:Your logic is nonsense and you've been repeatedly told why, but you continue to ignore me and any other point that contradicts your specious nonsense.

Go to that thread and explain your REASONING. Stop saying that you already have, because you have not shown ANY "reasoning", only quoted scriptures or testimonials (what you are calling "real experience").

Calrid wrote:Again this is all just a waste of time you can't answer any questions without making excuses

As usual, you acuse the other of your own guilt. What excuse have I ever made concerning anything?

Calrid wrote:.. but I'll ask again: if your logic is so airtight why does it contradict all real world experiment?

Like I said, "testimonials". You could have said the same thing to Einstein and probably would have.

Calrid wrote:Why is everything you say out of kilter with actual science?

Maybe for the same reason everything everyone has said was "out of kilter" until they eventually "saw the light"?

Calrid wrote:Logic without a foundation in reality is just sophistry,

Yes, but you just keep repeating it anyway.

Calrid wrote:Show us the money, talk is cheap. Relate to me any experiment in science that supports your view?

Interesting constraint. Did you say that to Einstein? Do you somehow think that all he said was absolute non-sense until someone eventually found a way to prove it? Does his logic change upon empirical evidence? They don't even bother to experiment to prove something until AFTER they go through the logic. All I am asking is that any one of you sheeple go through the logic and stop misquoting holy scriptures.

Calrid wrote:The only dogma here is yours and it is a cult of one

And there you go again. This is the thread for that non-sense demonstrating your religious mindset. What dogma have I stated at all?? You and the other cultists are the ones doing all of the dogmatic quoting.

Calrid wrote:This isn't science this is proselytising.

Exactly my point. That is why I asked for you to show the math/logic of your objection. You don't seem to be able to do so. You are too interested in merely spreading the "good word" of scientism and chasing out the unbelievers (even if they are actually supporting the cause).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Calrid » Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:57 am

James S Saint wrote:
Calrid wrote:Real logic apparently contradicts all available experiment in the real world too.

Oh yeah? I haven't found that to be true.


Then you haven't seen the experiments and are in no position to comment.

Calrid wrote:Your logic is nonsense and you've been repeatedly told why, but you continue to ignore me and any other point that contradicts your specious nonsense.

Go to that thread and explain your REASONING. Stop saying that you already have, because you have not shown ANY "reasoning", only quoted scriptures or testimonials (what you are calling "real experience").


Clocks placed on tall buildings go out of synch. Clocks placed on fast moving planes go out of synch. Global positioning systems have to be adjusted to special and general relativistic concerns or they go out of synch. Explain to me why this is the case? Is that real world enough for you? Experiments like yours that experience lack of simultaneity in co moving vehicles are in accordance with special relativity. The Michelson Morley experiments which have been done countless times dispute aether theoreis.



Calrid wrote:Show us the money, talk is cheap. Relate to me any experiment in science that supports your view?

Interesting constraint. Did you say that to Einstein? Do you somehow think that all he said was absolute non-sense until someone eventually found a way to prove it? Does his logic change upon empirical evidence? They don't even bother to experiment to prove something until AFTER they go through the logic. All I am asking is that any one of you sheeple go through the logic and stop misquoting holy scriptures.


I've gone thorugh the logic as it relates to both theory and real world experiment as have several other people but you ignore it and go on making the same specious points and ignoring all available evidence.

Calrid wrote:This isn't science this is proselytising.

Exactly my point. That is why I asked for you to show the math/logic of your objection. You don't seem to be able to do so. You are too interested in merely spreading the "good word" of scientism and chasing out the unbelievers (even if they are actually supporting the cause).


already done, your logic isn't supported by any real world experiment and is thus guff. It only applies to very specific situations that are also explained by relativity. Hence they do not reflect anything or enable you to make any conjectures on the general cases.

This is very poor.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:07 am

Calrid wrote:Then you haven't seen the experiments and are in no position to comment.

Oh, and you have?

Calrid wrote:Clocks placed on tall buildings go out of synch. Clocks placed on fast moving planes go out of synch. Global positioning systems have to be adjusted to special and general relativistic concerns or they go out of synch. Explain to me why this is the case?

Actually I did already. I suspect you are too impetuous to read all of the posts.

Calrid wrote:Experiments like yours that experience lack of simultaneity in co moving vehicles are in accordance with special relativity. The Michelson Morley experiments which have been done countless times dispute aether theoreis.

"And there were dozens of witnesses that SAW Jesus walk on the water and walk out of the garden."

Calrid wrote:I've gone thorugh the logic as it relates to both theory and real world experiment

Absolute bull.

Calrid, try to realize that your brain is actually designed, by whatever means, to do far more than merely run your mouth.

Get on that thread and show YOUR step by step logic that would require that the two clocks MUST experience asynchronous flash. Quoting holy scriptures and prophets or appealing to testimonials does nothing to help your brain do what we call "thinking". Try it (over there). It is supposed to be SCIENCE, not faith or religion. Can you spell that word, "S-c-i-e-n-c-e"? You might learn to enjoy the experience.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Mad Man P » Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:10 am

James S Saint wrote:Interesting constraint. Did you say that to Einstein? Do you somehow think that all he said was absolute non-sense until someone eventually found a way to prove it? Does his logic change upon empirical evidence? They don't even bother to experiment to prove something until AFTER they go through the logic.


I think you're missing the point here... you don't propose a hypothesis out of the blue and then go and look for ways to test it.
You propose a hypothesis to explain things you have ALREADY observed and then test it against competing theories in areas where they would predict different outcomes.

So think of the question as "What observable phenomena is it that you want to explain? What observable phenomena are you adressing?"
Hypethetical events don't count... of course.
"I'm just saying that if we want to have a fruitful discussion, we all need to know what the fuck we're talking about" - Carleas

There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
User avatar
Mad Man P
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:32 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby PhysBang » Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:09 pm

James S Saint wrote:That was my experience as well, although I didn't get banned, but was warned that if I kept arguing, I would be banned. Doc Al is the most obvious culprit. When he enters a thread, once he gets tired of arguing, regardless of how many others might want to continue (as one stated to me on my thread), he just locks the thread and/or bans the person. Its a little hard to tell for sure whether it is due to him sensing that he is about to lose or he just feels that the site is only there for him so when he is tired, he just shuts it down (narcissism).

The only narcissism here is yours. You were not actually arguing with Doc Al or anyone else there; multiple people pointed out your basic mistakes in reasoning and you refused to listen to them.
PhysBang wrote:This is exactly the argument I made again and again. You must know this, since you claimed again and again in reply to my posts that the flashes were nonetheless simultaneous in all reference frames. You offered no argument as to why this would be the case that included details of the motion of your flashers.

No, that is what you first merely asserted, no argument. And that is why I first thought you were going to follow that train of logic, so I asked you to explain why you thought that and gave a little of why I thought it would have to be so (should have been enough of a clue). But the only argument you could give was that your holy scriptures proclaimed it and I should go drink the coolaid and come back when I could see your colored lights.

No, I said that you could make up any bizarre scientific theory that you wanted, but that your peculiar theory would not be special relativity. I then directed you to a reference that demonstrated exactly what special relativity said and exactly how one derives the relativity of simultaneity. I provided references with simple explanations of the relativity of simultaneity because you haven;t read anything about it. It is clear that you have never actually read anything on the subject of the relativity of simultaneity because you are so amazingly ignorant of it in your writings.

It is narcissistic to argue against a theory that you have never read.
I began to propose my version of why they had to be in sync when you came up with the absurd notion that the reason your chemistry class experiment got different results than the others was because their desks were in a different locations in the room. With THAT, you proved with certainty that you have no idea what the reasoning behind relativity of simultaneity actually is.

My argument was that people doing the same physical actions at different locations and times got their results at different locations and time. You could not even understand that.
I asked you to show me exactly what you think Einstein said that led you to believe such an absurd idea. And exactly like a Bible literalist, you quoted an out of context verse that you misunderstood to mean that no two events could never be in sync if they are separated by any distance or time, "spacetime".

I quoted you a section from a chapter he wrote demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity. That's about as in-context as one can get! Did you read the chapter? I'm guessing no, since your writing continues to be absurd.
That is not what he meant by what he was saying in your quote. And frankly even if it was, merely by trying to apply his equations to the scenario, you would discover that your version could not be correct. As Carleas pointed out, the point to discussion is to get into the reasoning of what you believe, not merely quote passages and attempt to condemn the unbelievers.

I know that "my version" would not be correct for your scenario because your scenario violates special relativity with its very assumptions. This is because you do not understand how to use the reasoning of special relativity and this is because you have never taken the time to learn it.
After that point any arguing with you was obviously going to be pointless. I asked you to show your math/logic. You apparently couldn't, just as I confidently suspected. You had merely memorized certain ideas that you misunderstood and some equations that you have plugged in to some prepared homework problems and thought you actually knew something. Calrid and Xunzian had to come and help you try to save face, again merely defending the realm with attempts at slander and obfuscation.

I think it's quite clear now that you are simply slinging bizarre and obviously false accusations at me in order to deflect from your own failures in that thread. You should be the one actually presenting a detailed mathematical description of your own scenario. (You have claimed to have almost received a mathematics degree, but you have demonstrated no mathematical ability, even in the very basic mathematics required for your scenarios.) For me, and anyone who has ever read anything about special relativity, it is enough that you violate the relativity of simultaneity with the assumptions of your scenario.

If you have anything besides ignorance to offer in your original "stopped clock" thread, you would deliver on the details of your scenario. However, you have little but insults.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby PhysBang » Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:14 pm

James S Saint wrote:"And there were dozens of witnesses that SAW Jesus walk on the water and walk out of the garden."

So I take it that it is your position that those who did such experiments actually experience delusions when they get their results? Or is it your position that the people who did these experiments actually lied about their results?

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/i2/e020401
Are these people liars?

You can probably do this experiment yourself for under 200 euros. Have you?
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Farsight » Wed Sep 01, 2010 3:28 pm

Calrid wrote:...The only dogma here is yours and it is a cult of one... It's not censorship its just having standards...
It isn't true Caldrid. I'm sorry, but it really isn't. Yes, James is mistaken about relativity, but he isn't mistaken about the time travel and the parallel worlds and the parallels between religion and theoretical physics. It's far worse than you think. What's your field? Would you like to talk about something in particular? On say another thread? Then maybe I can demonstrate how bad it is.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:22 pm

Mad Man P wrote:I think you're missing the point here... you don't propose a hypothesis out of the blue and then go and look for ways to test it.
You propose a hypothesis to explain things you have ALREADY observed and then test it against competing theories in areas where they would predict different outcomes.

You propose a hypothesis to answer a question as long as the question displays logic. Apparently my question displays logic else you would be using logic to answer it (assuming you can use any logic of course.. I have yet to see the evidence).

PhysBang wrote:The only narcissism here is yours. You were not actually arguing with Doc Al or anyone else there; multiple people pointed out your basic mistakes in reasoning and you refused to listen to them.

But note that they were actually attempting reasoning. When you attempt reasoning, you still have to watch for conceptual details that they were missing. I over estimated their ability to see their own concept mistakes. HERE, you guys merely sling mud and claim your own superior education in Science. You are the religious fanatics of scientism, not even knowing what it is that you are worshiping.


PhysBang wrote:It is narcissistic to argue against a theory that you have never read.

You might want to lookup the word "narcissism" before you use it. Although by your history, it is clear that you use far too much imagination when you read anything technical.

PhysBang wrote:My argument was that people doing the same physical actions at different locations and times got their results at different locations and time. You could not even understand that.

No, your argument was entirely about simultaneity and that two events could never be in sync if they were separated by "spacetime". That was the only issue on the table. Again, you skew the facts to protect EGO.

PhysBang wrote:I quoted you a section from a chapter he wrote demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity. That's about as in-context as one can get! Did you read the chapter? I'm guessing no, since your writing continues to be absurd.

EXACTLY like a literalist quoting his misunderstanding of the Bible. And you might want to look up what "out of context" means too.

PhysBang wrote:I know that "my version" would not be correct for your scenario because your scenario violates special relativity with its very assumptions.

The point is for you to prove special relativity, not merely quote chapter and verse from the book being deposed (probably should look up that one too). SHOW YOUR Math/Logic.

PhysBang wrote:
James S Saint wrote:"And there were dozens of witnesses that SAW Jesus walk on the water and walk out of the garden."

So I take it that it is your position that those who did such experiments actually experience delusions when they get their results?
Illusions from presumption, just exactly as they said of Michelson-Morley and all those before them.

Farsight wrote: Yes, James is mistaken about relativity,

Then take the challenge. Everyone is all willing to claim how I am wrong, yet none have the courage to actually prove it with anything other than "But our scriptures say you're wrong. Witnesses SAW him walking on the water. They wouldn't LIE". Farsight, you are good at explanations. You should be able to explain the paradox.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby Farsight » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:43 pm

James S Saint wrote:Then take the challenge. Everyone is all willing to claim how I am wrong, yet none have the courage to actually prove it with anything other than "But our scriptures say you're wrong. Witnesses SAW him walking on the water. They wouldn't LIE". Farsight, you are good at explanations. You should be able to explain the paradox.
I thought I did, James, with this post. We didn't discuss it adequately because PhysBang employed the "hostile barrage" technique as a distraction and to turn off other contributors. If you do respond to the points everybody yawns, if you don't you lay yourself open to accusations. You really must read that Robert Close paper, and relate it to "affectance".
Last edited by Farsight on Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: Relativity of Science

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:49 pm

Farsight wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Then take the challenge. Everyone is all willing to claim how I am wrong, yet none have the courage to actually prove it with anything other than "But our scriptures say you're wrong. Witnesses SAW him walking on the water. They wouldn't LIE". Farsight, you are good at explanations. You should be able to explain the paradox.
I thought I did, James, with this post. We didn't discuss it adequately because PhysBang employed the "hostile barrage" technique to turn off other contributors.

Hmm.. why doesn't anyone understand that you CANNOT presume as premise special relativity in order to prove it for the same reason everyone complains about the religious using the Bible to prove God.

Once again, the similarity between the arguments from public Science and religion are identical in EVERY way.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Gain is obtained by giving a lot and keeping a little.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 18585
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mr reasonable