about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[chair]

For a number of reasons. Metabolic rates are dependent upon a large number of independent chemical and electrochemical reactions that all must work together. A scientist can carry out experiments from inside the frame not only on mechanical clocks but on biological clocks and thoughts as well. The scientists will be able to communicate at those rates inside the scientist's frame to other time frames outside that scientist's frame at the same time and visa versa. There's nothing better than an intelligent first hand witness when one is available. Be creative... what else could you do in a different time frame? And last but not least, and certainly the most important to scientists - it would be cool.

So; how fast can we go?

I guess this is the email that explains why this is a good experiment to do. And I guess that this is the line that I don't agree with:

There's nothing better than an intelligent first hand witness when one is available.

The above is often not the case. In scientific matters, it is nearly always not correct. Including in our current example.

The reason I am upset is that I see a lot or criticism of scientific matters here from people who don't really know much about it. I apologize if I have directed this at you personally. Much of my anger is really at Stripe, who is completely absurd on this type of thing.

 

[Stripe]

The reason I am upset is that I see a lot or criticism of scientific matters here from people who don't really know much about it. I apologize if I have directed this at you personally. Much of my anger is really at Stripe, who is completely absurd on this type of thing.

:baby:

 

[chair]

:baby:

.

 

[Yorzhik]

There's nothing better than an intelligent first hand witness when one is available.

The above is often not the case. In scientific matters, it is nearly always not correct. Including in our current example.

I'm sure you don't mean that. What you mean is that it is not always feasible or practical to put a human inside the experiment. Which is what I would have meant with "when one is available".

I mean, certainly, you want to get a witness as close to the results as possible.

 

[chair]

I'm sure you don't mean that. What you mean is that it is not always feasible or practical to put a human inside the experiment. Which is what I would have meant with "when one is available".

I mean, certainly, you want to get a witness as close to the results as possible.

I mean exactly what I said. Much of science is not done by human observers witnessing what they see. It is usually done by instruments. Humans are not capable of 'witnessing' much of what we measure. Human observers are often not objective.

Sure, humans analyze the data, but they don't need to be "as close to the results as possible." Not merely because it is unfeasible.

Even when we send humans to remote locations (outer space, for example), it is usually so they can do maintenance on the instruments that do the measuring. Not so they can be close to the instruments, or so they can write down in their notebooks what they see.

A camera is usually better than a human, whether or not a human is holding it.

 

[Yorzhik]

I mean exactly what I said. Much of science is not done by human observers witnessing what they see. It is usually done by instruments. Humans are not capable of 'witnessing' much of what we measure. Human observers are often not objective.

Sure, humans analyze the data, but they don't need to be "as close to the results as possible." Not merely because it is unfeasible.

Even when we send humans to remote locations (outer space, for example), it is usually so they can do maintenance on the instruments that do the measuring. Not so they can be close to the instruments, or so they can write down in their notebooks what they see.

A camera is usually better than a human, whether or not a human is holding it.

First, I'm sure we agree. You don't need to be contrarian just because I'm a Christian. Really. For instance; When you say, "Humans are not capable of 'witnessing' much of what we measure." it's the same as when I say "as possible". You certainly don't mean that scientists would put even one extra unneeded layer between them and the results just because humans cannot be within an experiment, do you?

-or- to say it another way, you would agree without reservation or equivocation that scientists put as few varibles as possible between them and the experiment, right?

 

[chair]

First, I'm sure we agree. You don't need to be contrarian just because I'm a Christian. Really. For instance; When you say, "Humans are not capable of 'witnessing' much of what we measure." it's the same as when I say "as possible". You certainly don't mean that scientists would put even one extra unneeded layer between them and the results just because humans cannot be within an experiment, do you?

-or- to say it another way, you would agree without reservation or equivocation that scientists put as few varibles as possible between them and the experiment, right?

I am not sure what you are driving at.

I do not think that there is any reason to go to extra effort in order to have a human as close as possible to what ever it is we want to measure. Direct human observations in general do not offer any advantage. They are often less good than the observations made indirectly through instruments.

The case under discussion, where you suggest having a human go at relativistic speeds is an example, and it is why I think we don't agree. The human observer in this case does not add anything to the experiment. A simpler, more accurate clock does the job better.

 

[Yorzhik]

I am not sure what you are driving at.

I do not think that there is any reason to go to extra effort in order to have a human as close as possible to what ever it is we want to measure. Direct human observations in general do not offer any advantage. They are often less good than the observations made indirectly through instruments.

The case under discussion, where you suggest having a human go at relativistic speeds is an example, and it is why I think we don't agree. The human observer in this case does not add anything to the experiment. A simpler, more accurate clock does the job better.

Firstly, you are reading way too much into what I'm saying. I'm not "driving" at anything. The statements that scientists don't add extra layers of complexity for no reason to an experiment SHOULD be self evident. That's it. I'm not even thinking much about the relativity experiment. It's just a general principle. In this idea you are fleeing, though no-one is pursuing you.

Secondly, the only reason a human wouldn't be inside the relativity experiment is because of the cost, not because a human shouldn't do it for the integrity of the experiment. If it weren't for the weight, there is nothing that would cause the experiment to be worse because there is a scientist experiencing and observing what would happen in the relativity experiment. Or do you think if a human is in the relativity experiment a clock *cannot* be?

 

[dan1el]

Cost is the only reason? What about the whole part about not getting any extra info?

 

[chair]

... The statements that scientists don't add extra layers of complexity for no reason to an experiment SHOULD be self evident....

And this is exactly what putting a human into the experiment does. added complexity for no reason.

 

[Yorzhik]

Cost is the only reason? What about the whole part about not getting any extra info?

Info about how metabolism is affected in different time frames isn't more info?

 

[Yorzhik]

And this is exactly what putting a human into the experiment does. added complexity for no reason.

You have a better way to test metabolism than to put a living thing in the test? what better than a scientist?

 

[chair]

To test time dilation.

Do you have any idea how fast we can go?

This goes back again to the purpose of the experiment. What is it that we want to test or measure? According to your previous post (quoted above), we wanted to test time dilation. Accelerating a human to the speeds required is a lousy way to do it. There is no reason to have a human experience this personally.

Now, if the point is to check how metabolism works at relativistic speeds (which your last post indicates is the purpose), I would suggest sending a bunch of bacteria on the trip. You can get a whole population with identical genetics, and you will have some statistics. There is nothing to be gained by doing this with humans.

 

[Memento Mori]

This goes back again to the purpose of the experiment. What is it that we want to test or measure? According to your previous post (quoted above), we wanted to test time dilation. Accelerating a human to the speeds required is a lousy way to do it. There is no reason to have a human experience this personally.

Now, if the point is to check how metabolism works at relativistic speeds (which your last post indicates is the purpose), I would suggest sending a bunch of bacteria on the trip. You can get a whole population with identical genetics, and you will have some statistics. There is nothing to be gained by doing this with humans.

How fast can we accelerate bacteria before they tear in half (die, I just wanted to be more vivid)?

 

[chair]

How fast can we accelerate bacteria before they tear in half (die, I just wanted to be more vivid)?

I honestly don't know. I would suspect that they can handle larger accelerations than humans.

 

[Yorzhik]

This goes back again to the purpose of the experiment. What is it that we want to test or measure? According to your previous post (quoted above), we wanted to test time dilation. Accelerating a human to the speeds required is a lousy way to do it. There is no reason to have a human experience this personally.

Now, if the point is to check how metabolism works at relativistic speeds (which your last post indicates is the purpose), I would suggest sending a bunch of bacteria on the trip. You can get a whole population with identical genetics, and you will have some statistics. There is nothing to be gained by doing this with humans.

We want to test time dialation using metabolism. We've already used a clock. It's interesting, but not nearly as interesting as testing life in different time frames.

Not that having a human in the experiment excludes a clock. I don't know why you keep thinking that.

We should get as close to humans as possible, but if bacteria is the best we can do, then that's what we'll be forced to use.

 

[Flipper]

Assuming such an experiment was even possible, what's going to stop Stripe and Lighthouse from informing us that gravity affects the mutation rate of living organisms?

 

[chair]

....

We should get as close to humans as possible...

This is what I don't agree with. There is no reason to get as close to humans as possible, unless the purpose of the experiment is to test specifically how human metabolism behaves at relativistic velocities. One would do this if there was reason to doubt that information gained from other experiments is not applicable to humans for some reason.

This is commonly done in medicine, when checking new medications, for example. They may test them on single celled organisms at first, then do mammals, like mice, and maybe try it on chimpanzees. In the end clinical trials need to be done on humans.

 

[Stripe]

Assuming such an experiment was even possible, what's going to stop Stripe and Lighthouse from informing us that gravity affects the mutation rate of living organisms?

Can't speak for LH, but my prediction is already that changes in the gravity environment will affect negatively the condition of living organisms. I'm not sure that has anything to do with mutations. Atheists seem to love talking about mutations as if they are a good thing for some weird reason...

 

[Yorzhik]

This is what I don't agree with. There is no reason to get as close to humans as possible, unless the purpose of the experiment is to test specifically how human metabolism behaves at relativistic velocities. One would do this if there was reason to doubt that information gained from other experiments is not applicable to humans for some reason.

This is commonly done in medicine, when checking new medications, for example. They may test them on single celled organisms at first, then do mammals, like mice, and maybe try it on chimpanzees. In the end clinical trials need to be done on humans.

Whatever. Even noting that all the medical trials leading up to humans is because ultimately you want humans in the experiment. That doesn't prove my point, but it's just a bad example.

If you don't like humans in the experiment, I'm sure the scientists involved in such an experiment would disagree with you. I think you miss the power of "coolness" on scientists.