Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Oh, right. High-school science.

    The issue you are avoiding is that relativity is a mathematical model. If it has not been established mathematically, it does not exist.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
    You seem to be avoiding the argument by trying to redefine a common English word again. You made clearly wrong statements and want a distraction. It's your MO.

    It won't work Stripe. We can all see you are scientifically illiterate, and you are just digging yourself a deeper hole here.


    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

    Comment


    • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
      You seem to be avoiding the argument.
      If you don't know how relativity is established, feel free to say so.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
        If you don't know how relativity is established, feel free to say so.
        Couldn't you read my post where I told you how it was established by experiment?

        Creationists can't (won't) read.

        Don't for have anything constructing to add, or are you going to carry on with your uneducated non sequiturs?


        Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

        Comment


        • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
          Couldn't you read my post where I told you how it was established by experiment?

          Creationists can't (won't) read.

          Don't for have anything constructing to add, or are you going to carry on with your uneducated non sequiturs?
          Sorry. Theories aren't established by experiment. Your scientism is showing. The best an experiment can do is fail to falsify an idea.

          Now, even if we have a slight semantic or philosophical disagreement over a distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, that does nothing to address the issue.

          Relativity is a mathematical model. If it was not established mathematically, it does not exist.

          If you don't know, feel free to say so.

          Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Sorry. Theories aren't established by experiment. Your scientism is showing. The best an experiment can do is fail to falsify an idea.

            Now, even if we have a slight semantic or philosophical disagreement over a distinction between a hypothesis and a theory, that does nothing to address the issue.

            Relativity is a mathematical model. If it was not established mathematically, it does not exist.

            If you don't know, feel free to say so.

            Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
            No, experiments can support or refute theories. It is an either/or. Certainly they do not prove correctness, but every well constructed experiment that produces results that accurately match the predictions does establish the theory more convincingly.

            There are plenty of mathematical descriptions that bear no relation to reality, so describing the mathematics of an idea does not mean it becomes established as a useful and reliable scientific theory. Established science is not defined by the mathematical derivations, but by whether the outputs of the maths matches reality. That is, until the theory passes the tests of criticism by other experts and by the trial by fire that is experimental verification, then it is not established.

            This is the reason that string theory is not established science: it has real trouble making any sort of predictions that can be tested. It is the reason that newtonian physics, mathematically very secure, is not established as the state of the art, while it is established as a useful low speed/weak gravity approximation to relativity.

            So, no. A mathematical critique is unlikely to be able to dis-establish Einstein's Relativity Theories, because the maths is not the critical reason for them being established in the first place. The assumptions, along with the mathematical logic WAS the reason that they were given serious consideration, but for GR it was only Eddington's confirmation of a key prediction that gave it wide acceptance.


            Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

            Comment


            • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
              experiments can support or refute theories. It is an either/or. Certainly they do not prove correctness, but every well constructed experiment that produces results that accurately match the predictions does establish the theory more convincinglyere are plenty of mathematical descriptions that bear no relation to reality, so describing the mathematics of an idea does not mean it becomes established as a useful and reliable scientific theory. Established science is not defined by the mathematical derivations, but by whether the outputs of the maths matches reality. That is, until the theory passes the tests of criticism by other experts and by the trial by fire that is experimental verification, then it is not established.
              That's nice.

              This is the reason that string theory is not established science: it has real trouble making any sort of predictions that can be tested. It is the reason that newtonian physics, mathematically very secure, is not established as the state of the art, while it is established as a useful low speed/weak gravity approximation to relativity.. A mathematical critique is unlikely to be able to dis-establish Einstein's Relativity Theories, because the maths is not the critical reason for them being established in the first place. The assumptions, along with the mathematical logic WAS the reason that they were given serious consideration, but for GR it was only Eddington's confirmation of a key prediction that gave it wide acceptance.


              Wake us up when you're ready to answer the question.

              Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Wake us up when you're ready to answer the question.

                Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                Once you have learned how to ask one that hasn't already been answered several times, PM me.


                Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                  Once you have learned how to ask one that hasn't already been answered several times, PM me.
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  How do you establish relativity? Have you even read Einstein's paper that claims to do so?
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Relativity is a mathematical model. If it was not established mathematically, it does not exist.
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Some pertinent quotes from the paper:
                  We shall raise this conjecture (whose content will be called "the principle of relativity" hereafter) to the status of a postulate and shall introduce ... the postulate ... that in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity V which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

                  Now we have to prove that every light ray measured in the moving system propagates with the velocity V, if it does so, as we have assumed, in the system at rest; for we have not yet provided the proof that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with the relativity principle.

                  If you don't know, feel free to say so.

                  Or you could keep wailing about what it means to "establish" something and insist on talking about something else.

                  Up to you.
                  Last edited by Stripe; December 6th, 2017, 02:02 PM.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION]: you asked how relativity was established and I answered. It is not my problem if you don't like the plain and clear answer I gave.

                    Now then, I asked you one question, that you have avoided: since you mentioned a book I don't have and can't read online, I asked you to pick the best argument from the book and tell me what it is. You have avoided answering, so I think that you haven't read it. So let's just carry on as if you never mentioned it at all, shall we.

                    So, what would you like to talk about now now your relativity disproving book reference turns out to be nothing but hot air?


                    Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                      You asked how relativity was established and I answered.
                      Your answer ignores the conversation.

                      Try rational discourse.

                      Now then, I asked you one question, that you have avoided: since you mentioned a book I don't have and can't read online, I asked you to pick the best argument from the book and tell me what it is. You have avoided answering, so I think that you haven't read it. So let's just carry on as if you never mentioned it at all, shall we.
                      What mathematical working did Einstein present to establish relativity?

                      So, what would you like to talk about now now your relativity disproving book reference turns out to be nothing but hot air?
                      We know.

                      You're not interested in a discussion. You're only interested in protecting your beliefs.


                      Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        Sorry. Theories aren't established by experiment. Your scientism is showing. The best an experiment can do is fail to falsify an idea.
                        Well, technically, you are wrong. In science, you start with a hypothesis. The hypothesis is usually arrived at through observation of something that is happening, like an apple falling and somebody wondering why that apple fell. They offer a hypothesis and then create an experiment to test their hypothesis. If the predicted results do not math the hypothesis, they ask why and either revise the hypothesis or experiment. If enough experiments are done that end up supporting the hypothesis, it becomes a theory, like the theory of gravity.

                        That is how real science is done, observe, hypothesize, test, repeat. It never really ends.
                        Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                        But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                        What are my fruits today?

                        Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                        "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          Your answer ignores the conversation.

                          Try rational discourse.


                          What mathematical working did Einstein present to establish relativity?


                          We know.

                          You're not interested in a discussion. You're only interested in protecting your beliefs.


                          Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                          Einstein proposed a hypothesis. It was not immediately accepted, but when observations matched his predictions better than the alternatives then it started to very established. There had now been a great number of ever more exquisitely sensitive experiments whose results accurately match the predictions, so you find that relativity is very well established in physics circles and beyond.

                          Any refutation of the theory must come from experiments, since the only real test of a physics theory is how good the predictions are when compared to experiment.

                          Now, I know you'd love to play word games AM's mangle the concepts to try to find a chink, but of got don't have experimental falsification then you haven't falsified the theory. As you say, that's how you do falsifications.

                          So have you got any falsifying experimental results? No? Thought so.


                          Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                            Einstein proposed a hypothesis.
                            Nope.

                            Read the quotes I provided. He sought to prove his postulate mathematically.

                            Any refutation of the theory must come from experiments, since the only real test of a physics theory is how good the predictions are when compared to experiment.
                            Nope.

                            A claimed mathematical proof can be shown wrong with more math.

                            Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              Nope.

                              Read the quotes I provided. He sought to prove his postulate mathematically.

                              Nope.

                              A claimed mathematical proof can be shown wrong with more math.

                              Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                              Proofs are not part of science. The only thing that ultimately matters is whether it works. And it really does no matter what mathematical disproof you mistakenly think you have found.

                              You said it yourself - falsification takes physical evidence, and you have none. You have failed before you even start. Not that I ever thought you'd get around to actually proposing an actual disproof - you're all mouth and no trousers, as they say around here.


                              Self appointed representative of the reality based community. [Send complaints to /dev/null.]

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
                                Proofs are not part of science.
                                Of course they are.

                                Unless you think math isn't science.

                                The only thing that ultimately matters is whether it works.
                                Nope.

                                Plenty of things work without being designed based on a rigorous scientific theory, and plenty of perfectly reasonable ideas have no practical outworkings.

                                And it really does no matter what mathematical disproof you mistakenly think you have found.
                                You mean of the math Einstein presented?

                                So you do think he presented a proof?

                                You said it yourself - falsification takes physical evidence.
                                I said nothing of the sort.

                                It looks like you're not interested. Keep believing what you believe.

                                Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
                                Last edited by Stripe; December 7th, 2017, 07:31 PM.
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X