Originally posted by Stripe
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute
Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X


Originally posted by gcthomas View PostSince you know that proofs are only for formal logic asks mathematics, not for science, I have to assume to mean by proof, "strong evidence for".
Einstein sought to prove his postulate. Math.
Do try to keep up.
As you have been shown, relativity is established as the best description of the universe's behaviour suit top the fact that it provides the best fit for tie actual data.
But we can't even start to look at the math, because you think it is irrelevant.
The trouble with faith based positions such as yours is that you can't objectively pick from the millions of difference assertions of Truth.
You're the one insisting that we should regard an idea as sacrosanct because of experiments.
Originally posted by CabinetMaker View PostI provided you with information regarding universal constants.
Get back to us when you figure out what the conversation is about.
What kind of proof are you looking for?
Originally posted by CabinetMaker View PostYes you can. That is why we do them, to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis.
Somebody put this moron out of his misery, please?Last edited by Stripe; December 24, 2017, 02:28 PM.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by Stripe View PostYour scientism is showing.
You can't prove anything with an experiment.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by Stripe View Post
Cabinethead
But you won't provide the proof.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by Stripe View PostYour scientism is showing.
You can't prove anything with an experiment.
As you have been shown, relativity is established as the best description of the universe's behaviour suit top the fact that it provides the best fit for tie actual data.
And of the alternative to scientism (whichever of the various meanings of it you intend) it rather more reliable than 'personal revelation' or 'faith' or whatever it is you are relying on. The trouble with faith based positions such as yours is that you can't objectively pick from the millions of difference assertions of Truth. You will claim logic, of course, but you never did answer my question as to how well that worked out for the Greeks' attempts to describe the world without physical evidence and testable hypotheses.Last edited by gcthomas; December 24, 2017, 06:44 AM.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
You can't prove anything with an experiment.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by Stripe View Post
Cabinethead
But you won't provide the proof.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by Stripe View Post
Darwinists love nonsense questions when faced with a challenge.
You postulate the constancy of light speed, you show the proof.
It is a constant. Like the other universal constants, it has been determined to be constant as constants are sometimes needed to make mathematical models match observed conditions (data). Here is something that explains it in a bit.
One should separate the question into two parts, the first of which is philosophical, and the second physics. The philosophical question is resolved by understanding that there are "constants" which are just those that set the system of units, and these are constant for the simple reason that they define our conventional units.
The unitdefining constants philosophically cannot change. They can only be determined relative to physical measurements using physical atoms and light, and these measurements serve to fix our units. The constants which are philosophically incapable of changing are listed below:
 The speed of light c, which defines the unit of space given the unit of time.
 Planck's constant, ℏℏ, which defines the unit of massenergy in terms of the unit of inverse time.
 Newton's constant, which defines the unit of massenergy in terms of the unit of space (and in conjunction with the other two, fixes a unique unit of mass, length, and time, the Planck units)
 Boltzmann's constant, which defines the Kelvin in terms of the Joule.
 electromagnetic constants, which define the unit of charge
In terms of Plack units, all physical constants are dimensionless. These are the quantities which are philosophically capable of changing (see this question: units and nature )
So the gravitational constant simply cannot change. It is philosophically meaningless to say that it does change. What you would really be saying is that atoms are changing size relative to Planck units.
Here are some constants that can, in principle, change:
 The charge of the electron in Planck charges (the square of this is called the fine structure constant).
 The mass of the proton in Planck masses (this is more or less the exponential of the strong coupling at the Planck scale)
 The Higgs VEV: this is one unnaturally small parameter in Planck units.
 The cosmological consntant: this is the other unnaturally small parameter.
Hope that helps your understanding of universal constants.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by CabinetMaker View PostIgnoring everything above, I really only have one question that I would like you to answer: What difference does it make to you whether c is constant or not?
Darwinists love nonsense questions when faced with a challenge.
You postulate the constancy of light speed, you show the proof.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by Stripe View PostNope.
Incorrect ideas can often produce useful results.
You're the one postulating the idea; you provide the proof.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by gcthomas View PostHe feels that modern Physics makes accepting his brand of Biblical Fundamentalism rather difficult, so he must think that he has found a cunning way to claim that Physics is unreliable. He won't listen to arguments that these theories live or die by how well they model reality as tested by experiment. He thinks that you can prove or disprove physical theories by thought experiment like the ancient Greeks did. And look how well it worked out for them!
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by CabinetMaker View PostIf c is not constant then everything we have learned fails.
Incorrect ideas can often produce useful results.
You claim that c is not constant but refuse to offer anything other than your opinion that that is the case.
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by CabinetMaker View PostIgnoring everything above, I really only have one question that I would like you to answer: What difference does it make to you whether c is constant or not?
Leave a comment:

Originally posted by Stripe View PostHow?
You refuse to contemplate the possibility of the nonconstancy of the speed of light.
Name one.
None.
As has been pointed out (but you just leaped into the conversation, pretending to be an expert), experiments do not provide proofs.
The claim is made by your side that this proof has been provided, although GC denies it. Show us that you are willing to join the discussion and name the maths construct that Einstein claimed to be a proof that light speed is a constant in any reference frame.
There has not been one experiment performed that might fulfill your claim that has not assumed the constancy of c.
Neither shows how the constancy of c is proved. The first assumes it as true and points to the second, which glosses over the experiments and maths behind the idea.
News flash. Einstein's theory is a mathematical model.
Imagine what would happen if someone demonstrated that the Earth orbits the sun.
Arguments from consequence are logical fallacies.
We know how much you love those.
Ignoring everything above, I really only have one question that I would like you to answer: What difference does it make to you whether c is constant or not?
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: