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

  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Nope.

    Einstein sought to prove his postulate. Math.

    Do try to keep up.

    It doesn't.

    But we can't even start to look at the math, because you think it is irrelevant.

    Maths, remember?

    You're the one insisting that we should regard an idea as sacrosanct because of experiments.

    That's nice.

    Get back to us when you figure out what the conversation is about.



    This whole reading thing is a bit beyond you, isn't it?





    Somebody put this moron out of his misery, please?
    So why do we even bother with experiments if they don't prove anything? No, they do not prove anything in terms of a mathematical or logical, proof, but the do give us data that supports (proves in the colloquial) or refutes (disprove in the colloquial) the hypothesis the experiment was designed to test.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    Since 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".
    Nope.

    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.
    It doesn't.

    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.
    Maths, remember?

    You're the one insisting that we should regard an idea as sacrosanct because of experiments.

    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    I provided you with information regarding universal constants.
    That's nice.

    Get back to us when you figure out what the conversation is about.

    What kind of proof are you looking for?
    This whole reading thing is a bit beyond you, isn't it?

    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    Yes 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:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Your scientism is showing.

    You can't prove anything with an experiment.
    Yes you can. That is why we do them, to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post


    Cabinethead

    But you won't provide the proof.
    I provided you with information regarding universal constants. Did you read it? Do you understand what universal constants are? What kind of proof are you looking for? And lastly, why does c being a constant bother you so very much?

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Your scientism is showing.

    You can't prove anything with an experiment.
    Since 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". And here it is.

    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:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Your scientism is showing.

    You can't prove anything with an experiment.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post


    Cabinethead

    But you won't provide the proof.
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    Interesting how foolish you willing to look to avoid answering a very simple question.


    Cabinethead

    It is a constant.
    But you won't provide the proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post


    Darwinists love nonsense questions when faced with a challenge.
    Interesting how foolish you willing to look to avoid answering a very simple question.

    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 unit-defining 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, , which defines the unit of mass-energy in terms of the unit of inverse time.
    • Newton's constant, which defines the unit of mass-energy 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:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    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?


    Darwinists love nonsense questions when faced with a challenge.

    You postulate the constancy of light speed, you show the proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Nope.

    Incorrect ideas can often produce useful results.

    You're the one postulating the idea; you provide the proof.
    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:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    He 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!
    You expose your scientism every time you speak.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    If c is not constant then everything we have learned fails.
    Nope.

    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.
    You're the one postulating the idea; you provide the proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    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?
    He 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:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    How?
    I answered this. I'm sorry you faild to understand what I said. Feel free to go back and read it again.

    You refuse to contemplate the possibility of the non-constancy of the speed of light.
    No, I don't. That possibility exists. At this moment in time everything that we have derived explains the working of things when c is constant. If c is not constant then everything we have learned fails. You claim that c is not constant but refuse to offer anything other than your opinion that that is the case. There is no reason to take your claim seriously when you offer no alternative nor a way to test your hypothesis.

    Name one.
    Please Google "History of light speed measurement".

    None.
    So why should we accept what you assert?

    As has been pointed out (but you just leaped into the conversation, pretending to be an expert), experiments do not provide proofs.
    Experiments provide data that support or oppose a hypothesis/theory. The theory is "c is a constant." The experiments support this theory.

    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.
    Are you looking for a mathematical proof? Please clearly define what you consider proof. In the meantime I'll see if Einstein "proved" anything about c.

    There has not been one experiment performed that might fulfill your claim that has not assumed the constancy of c.
    . It's kind of tough to construct such an experiment. Maybe someday we'll posses the ability to construct such an experiment. In the meantime, you can play with the math. What happens to all the equations that accurately explain the way things work when c is constant if c is not constant.

    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.
    lets look at how the other universal constants are proved, shall we?

    News flash. Einstein's theory is a mathematical model.
    Yes and we have established that mathematical models are acceptable models for describing how things work. If you do not agree with that, by all means, please explain what your problem is.


    Imagine what would happen if someone demonstrated that the Earth orbits the sun.
    We have.

    Arguments from consequence are logical fallacies.

    We know how much you love those.
    There are no fallacies here. Everything has been defined including any assumptions. Scientists always state their assumptions because those are the weak points of their arguments. That is where future scientists can do more work. If you think there is a fallacy, point it out.

    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:

Working...
X