Hi My Name Is Steve.

[xyz]

Hello all, my name is Steve, I would firstly like to apologise to all of science and all of the science forums and members on the internet although they also owe me an apology. 

My reason for this , the last several year I have been arguing all over the internet that science was wrong.  I was trying to learn some science and the information I was reading did not make logical sense to me or was observed by me. 

I said  they were wrong about various things and explained my ideas which they said were wrong and often we ended in fuming dispute and I was inevitably banned.  

However it has come to my recent attention of why this happened and why we had so much disagreement and I was thought of as a deluded ''troll''. 

It is also of my attention the very reason on the internet there is so many ''trolls''/''crackpots'' who are arguing against science. 

 

The reason is the very simple reason of two words, objective and subjective.  Individuals, including myself do or did not understand these words and the context difference when explaining something as such as a Photon or likewise objective process. 

 

 

The reason I said I am also owed an apology is for the reason that no forums or members spotted this  error in communications between us until recently.  When they were saying I was wrong it was based on objective when I was asking the subjective question and correct for the subjective observation which has lead to an almost state of depression and confusion in my life by them telling me I do not subjectively ''see'' what I see . 

But in due respect they only could see the objective versions by their subjective education.

 

 

Anyway Hi, after several years I now do feel I am an idiot for not clicking in that we were discussing two very different perceptions. 

 

 

 

 

[Essay]

We are designed to be subjectively oriented creatures, and it takes a concerted effort to gain any (partially, at best) objective perspective.  So congratulations, and good luck!

~

[Cascabel]

We are designed to be subjectively oriented creatures, and it takes a concerted effort to gain any (partially, at best) objective perspective.  So congratulations, and good luck!

~

We evolved to be.....

[exchemist]

Hello all, my name is Steve, I would firstly like to apologise to all of science and all of the science forums and members on the internet although they also owe me an apology. 

My reason for this , the last several year I have been arguing all over the internet that science was wrong.  I was trying to learn some science and the information I was reading did not make logical sense to me or was observed by me. 

I said  they were wrong about various things and explained my ideas which they said were wrong and often we ended in fuming dispute and I was inevitably banned.  

However it has come to my recent attention of why this happened and why we had so much disagreement and I was thought of as a deluded ''troll''. 

It is also of my attention the very reason on the internet there is so many ''trolls''/''crackpots'' who are arguing against science. 

 

The reason is the very simple reason of two words, objective and subjective.  Individuals, including myself do or did not understand these words and the context difference when explaining something as such as a Photon or likewise objective process. 

 

 

The reason I said I am also owed an apology is for the reason that no forums or members spotted this  error in communications between us until recently.  When they were saying I was wrong it was based on objective when I was asking the subjective question and correct for the subjective observation which has lead to an almost state of depression and confusion in my life by them telling me I do not subjectively ''see'' what I see . 

But in due respect they only could see the objective versions by their subjective education.

 

 

Anyway Hi, after several years I now do feel I am an idiot for not clicking in that we were discussing two very different perceptions. 

It is usually unwise to tell people they are wrong before you understand the subject. It will not win you friends. Asking them why they say the things they say and then taking issue with what seems not to make sense in their response is a better way to go about it. It is more diplomatic and you leave a way out for yourself, if your initial ideas are shown not to be correct.

 

I think you put your finger on a very important issue with your remarks about subjectivity vs. objectivity. It is certainly true that the impressions of any individual tend to be subjective. One of the things that disciplines such as law and science try hard to do is to overcome this intrinsic subjectivity of human beings, by using methods designed to give as objective a view of an issue as possible.

 

In science, a basic rule is that any hypothesis has to be something that can be put to the test by observation. If an idea is untestable (at least in principle) then it is isn't science.  Another rule is that these observations need to be as objective as possible, so that we can all agree to trust them. To achieve this, it should be possible for them to be repeated by one or more of: different people, in different locations, at different times, using different equipment. We speak of the "reproducibility" of observational results. This is a good way to prevent the bias of an individual - or a set of particular local circumstances - from giving us a distorted view of the physical world. Statistics are also often used, to give confidence that a given result is due to a real phenomenon and not just the result of random chance. 

 

All this is to overcome the intrinsic subjectivity of people's individual experience - and even then it is not perfect, mistakes are made, science goes up blind alleys for a while. 

Edited June 18, 2016 by exchemist

[xyz]

It is usually unwise to tell people they are wrong before you understand the subject. It will not win you friends. Asking them why they say the things they say and then taking issue with what seems not to make sense in their response is a better way to go about it. It is more diplomatic and you leave a way out for yourself, if your initial ideas are shown not to be correct.

 

I think you put your finger on a very important issue with your remarks about subjectivity vs. objectivity. It is certainly true that the impressions of any individual tend to be subjective. One of the things that disciplines such as law and science try hard to do is to overcome this intrinsic subjectivity of human beings, by using methods designed to give as objective a view of an issue as possible.

 

In science, a basic rule is that any hypothesis has to be something that can be put to the test by observation. If an idea is untestable (at least in principle) then it is isn't science.  Another rule is that these observations need to be as objective as possible, so that we can all agree to trust them. To achieve this, it should be possible for them to be repeated by one or more of: different people, in different locations, at different times, using different equipment. We speak of the "reproducibility" of observational results. This is a good way to prevent the bias of an individual - or a set of particular local circumstances - from giving us a distorted view of the physical world. Statistics are also often used, to give confidence that a given result is due to a real phenomenon and not just the result of random chance. 

 

All this is to overcome the intrinsic subjectivity of people's individual experience - and even then it is not perfect, mistakes are made, science goes up blind alleys for a while. 

Thank you for you post. 

 

It is quite strange in a sense, that once one knows subjective and objective , one can resort to the rudiment of thought and ''start again''. 

 

What is science?   Science is the questions and objective answers to a subjective visual experience .  Before science existed only subjective thoughts and a subjective visual ''existed'', but as soon as somebody asked the question , e'g what is light?    science and objective begins. 

 

 

However there is also some irony involved, education then subjectively ''enforces'' the objective thoughts on students. Objective thoughts that  sometimes have no axioms. The student is then subjected by peer pressure to accept the objective that is sometimes not really objective and has flaws in the logic. 

 

I personally think if we are looking for the objective then we must apply axioms or else the science objective and thought  is flawed ?

[exchemist]

Thank you for you post. 

 

It is quite strange in a sense, that once one knows subjective and objective , one can resort to the rudiment of thought and ''start again''. 

 

What is science?   Science is the questions and objective answers to a subjective visual experience .  Before science existed only subjective thoughts and a subjective visual ''existed'', but as soon as somebody asked the question , e'g what is light?    science and objective begins. 

 

 

However there is also some irony involved, education then subjectively ''enforces'' the objective thoughts on students. Objective thoughts that  sometimes have no axioms. The student is then subjected by peer pressure to accept the objective that is sometimes not really objective and has flaws in the logic. 

 

I personally think if we are looking for the objective then we must apply axioms or else the science objective and thought  is flawed ?

You have a peculiar habit of making what look like statements, but then sticking a question mark on the end. I do not know whether you are asking something here or not. Are you and, if so, what is the question? 

[xyz]

You have a peculiar habit of making what look like statements, but then sticking a question mark on the end. I do not know whether you are asking something here or not. Are you and, if so, what is the question? 

Thank you for pointing that out, I was giving my opinion then at the end I put a question mark to signify I was asking what you thought of this opinion and what do you think about the particular mentioned?

 

So in this question - 

 

I personally think if we are looking for the objective then we must apply axioms or else the science objective and thought  is flawed ?

 

 

 

I am asking do you think science is good science and objective if there is no single axioms involved?

Edited June 19, 2016 by xyz

[exchemist]

Thank you for pointing that out, I was giving my opinion then at the end I put a question mark to signify I was asking what you thought of this opinion and what do you think about the particular mentioned?

 

So in this question - 

 

I personally think if we are looking for the objective then we must apply axioms or else the science objective and thought  is flawed ?

 

 

 

I am asking do you think science is good science and objective if there is no single axioms involved?

I don't think any axioms are required in science, in the normal logical sense of foundational statements that do not need justification. Axioms, surely, belong to logic and mathematics rather than the study of nature, don't they?

 

There are postulates in some theories of science, certainly, and from them particular theoretical frameworks (models) are developed, but these are all provisional in nature as they are subject to possibly being falsified by future observations. So these postulates stand or fall according to whether the models built from them fit with observation. That means they are not axiomatic in the traditionally accepted sense.

 

Or so it seems to me. What did you have in mind by way of axioms in science?

[xyz]

I don't think any axioms are required in science, in the normal logical sense of foundational statements that do not need justification. Axioms, surely, belong to logic and mathematics rather than the study of nature, don't they?

 

 

 

There are postulates in some theories of science, certainly, and from them particular theoretical frameworks (models) are developed, but these are all provisional in nature as they are subject to possibly being falsified by future observations. So these postulates stand or fall according to whether the models built from them fit with observation. That means they are not axiomatic in the traditionally accepted sense.

 

Or so it seems to me. What did you have in mind by way of axioms in science?

In answer to your first question it also answers your second question. I consider an axiom is something that is self evidently true ,  the nature of the Universe and statements of the Universe that are self evidently true. 

 

In example if I said a statement ''all able sighted people observe space to be clear in visual appearance subjectively when ''light'' is present''. 

 

 

This one sentence I would class as an axiom, it is self evidently true and all observers who  are able to ''see'' can agree on this without uncertainty. 

 

Other axioms I consider is things like gravity, we can all agree that ''something'' attracts us to the ground and by jumping we can prove we are pulled back to the ground.

 

I have read many things in science, there is many ideas , however some of those ideas no matter how represented in analogy , are not objectively true or subjectively true.

 

In example look at special relativity, the explanation of time dilation is often shown in the form of using rocket ships and laser beams which are sometimes misdirected to create angular paths. 

However subjectively it is impossible to see a laser beam without a medium such as smoke, it is also impossible to angle a laser beam without using such as a mirror.  Mr Einstein's explanation's interweave objective and subjective to create what I consider a ''parlour trick''. 

He uses the fact of the subjective clear space and then adds his objective thoughts on Photons passing through this space using the likes of lasers which are subjectively not seen in reality. 

In example look at this link and explanation , about 4 minutes into the video. 

 

 

 

Subjectively the laser beam is not seen , subjectively we observe the rocket ship through the clear space , so when I look at these examples, they seem very flawed to me and inaccurate with no axiom value or relative truths. 

 

I  must of watched this particular video 100 times, the objective truth is we are viewing the analogy in 2 dimensions, the light is travelling in a straight line from the screen to our eyes,we don't really ''see'' any zig zag lines. 

 

 

From Sarah's perspective she does not see a v-shaped path. Sarah subjectively observes the whole, we can ''see'' the whole and ''see'' the experiment in the whole being performed. 

 

Objectively Mr Einstein did not consider the subjective whole.  Even if you were to make the scenario dark, you still would not observe a laser without a medium such as smoke.  Also you would not ''see' any angular of the beam unless there was mirror angled to reflect the beam. Brick walls do not angle a laser beam which can also be proved by using smoke. 

 

 

Also consider the Keating experiment, both clocks are observed in the subjective whole of clear?

 

The objective thought  a Photon travelling from the Sun to Earth and a Photon travelling from the Earth to the sun rules out the objective thought of time dilation. 

 

+ve=c

 

-ve=c

 

d/t=c

 

net t difference = 0

 

 

Using the constant velocity of the objective photon to record time.   (added - A universal constant clock shows no time dilation )

 

It seems to me contradictory?

 

 

Just to add as after reading that back it sounds a bit of a rant, If I am to think objective I also think critical and try to ''see'' the axioms. 

My thinking process on the above is that if I had a clock that used the rate/speed of light to record a rate of time, knowing the speed of light remains constant anywhere in the Universe, the clock would never change in rate of time anywhere.

Edited June 19, 2016 by xyz

[exchemist]

In answer to your first question it also answers your second question. I consider an axiom is something that is self evidently true ,  the nature of the Universe and statements of the Universe that are self evidently true. 

 

In example if I said a statement ''all able sighted people observe space to be clear in visual appearance subjectively when ''light'' is present''. 

 

 

This one sentence I would class as an axiom, it is self evidently true and all observers who  are able to ''see'' can agree on this without uncertainty. 

 

Other axioms I consider is things like gravity, we can all agree that ''something'' attracts us to the ground and by jumping we can prove we are pulled back to the ground.

 

I have read many things in science, there is many ideas , however some of those ideas no matter how represented in analogy , are not objectively true or subjectively true.

 

In example look at special relativity, the explanation of time dilation is often shown in the form of using rocket ships and laser beams which are sometimes misdirected to create angular paths. 

However subjectively it is impossible to see a laser beam without a medium such as smoke, it is also impossible to angle a laser beam without using such as a mirror.  Mr Einstein's explanation's interweave objective and subjective to create what I consider a ''parlour trick''. 

He uses the fact of the subjective clear space and then adds his objective thoughts on Photons passing through this space using the likes of lasers which are subjectively not seen in reality. 

In example look at this link and explanation , about 4 minutes into the video. 

 

 

 

Subjectively the laser beam is not seen , subjectively we observe the rocket ship through the clear space , so when I look at these examples, they seem very flawed to me and inaccurate with no axiom value or relative truths. 

 

I  must of watched this particular video 100 times, the objective truth is we are viewing the analogy in 2 dimensions, the light is travelling in a straight line from the screen to our eyes,we don't really ''see'' any zig zag lines. 

 

 

From Sarah's perspective she does not see a v-shaped path. Sarah subjectively observes the whole, we can ''see'' the whole and ''see'' the experiment in the whole being performed. 

 

Objectively Mr Einstein did not consider the subjective whole.  Even if you were to make the scenario dark, you still would not observe a laser without a medium such as smoke.  Also you would not ''see' any angular of the beam unless there was mirror angled to reflect the beam. Brick walls do not angle a laser beam which can also be proved by using smoke. 

 

 

Also consider the Keating experiment, both clocks are observed in the subjective whole of clear?

 

The objective thought  a Photon travelling from the Sun to Earth and a Photon travelling from the Earth to the sun rules out the objective thought of time dilation. 

 

+ve=c

 

-ve=c

 

d/t=c

 

net t difference = 0

 

 

Using the constant velocity of the objective photon to record time.   (added - A universal constant clock shows no time dilation )

 

It seems to me contradictory?

 

 

Just to add as after reading that back it sounds a bit of a rant, If I am to think objective I also think critical and try to ''see'' the axioms. 

My thinking process on the above is that if I had a clock that used the rate/speed of light to record a rate of time, knowing the speed of light remains constant anywhere in the Universe, the clock would never change in rate of time anywhere.

But the problem is that what Mr (Dr) Einstein predicted has been shown to be experimentally true. So the mere fact that you, personally, have difficulty taking it in does not, I'm afraid, mean it is incorrect.

 

Both special and general relativity do seem to represent how the world actually works, so far as we can tell at the moment. 

 

Please understand this: in science, what survives is what observation supports.  

[A-wal]

Objectively Mr Einstein did not consider the subjective whole.  Even if you were to make the scenario dark, you still would not observe a laser without a medium such as smoke.

You don't need any medium other than space to see light, that's silly.

 

 

He uses the fact of the subjective clear space and then adds his objective thoughts on Photons passing through this space using the likes of lasers which are subjectively not seen in reality.

Of course you can see photons, you just can't see individual photons. Water is made up of individual atoms but you can still feel it if you jump into the ocean.

 

 

Using the constant velocity of the objective photon to record time.   (added - A universal constant clock shows no time dilation )

 

It seems to me contradictory?

 

 

Just to add as after reading that back it sounds a bit of a rant, If I am to think objective I also think critical and try to ''see'' the axioms. 

My thinking process on the above is that if I had a clock that used the rate/speed of light to record a rate of time, knowing the speed of light remains constant anywhere in the Universe, the clock would never change in rate of time anywhere.

There is no universal clock. The measurement of how much time has past depends on the reference frame it's measured from.

 

The consistency of the speed of light is what proves that time dilation and length contraction is are a real effect.

 

Until you realise that your inability to wrap your head around this is your shortcoming and not the theory's you'll never stand any chance of understanding it and will continue to get frustrated banging your head against a brick wall of your own ignorance.

[xyz]

You don't need any medium other than space to see light, that's silly.

 

 

Of course you can see photons, you just can't see individual photons. Water is made up of individual atoms but you can still feel it if you jump into the ocean.

 

 

There is no universal clock. The measurement of how much time has past depends on the reference frame it's measured from.

 

The consistency of the speed of light is what proves that time dilation and length contraction is are a real effect.

 

Until you realise that your inability to wrap your head around this is your shortcoming and not the theory's you'll never stand any chance of understanding it and will continue to get frustrated banging your head against a brick wall of your own ignorance.

Please try reading the rest of the thread, you are clearly talking about something without knowing what as already been said.   

You are talking about an objective perspective and have not considered the subjective perceived image, things we have spoke about in this thread. 

 

You start by saying '' you don't need any other medium than space to see light, that's silly''

 

Your remark is ignorant when we are talking about ''seeing'' beams of light such as a laser beam from the subjective perspective.  A medium of smoke is used to present a laser show, subjectively you do not observe beams unless there is a medium. 

 

see proof here where I used the medium of water to subjectively see the laser beam. 

 

''Of course you can see photons, you just can't see individual photons. Water is made up of individual atoms but you can still feel it if you jump into the ocean.''

 

 

You can only objectively see photons, you can not subjectively ''see'' photons. 

 

 

''Until you realise that your inability to wrap your head around this is your shortcoming and not the theory's you'll never stand any chance of understanding it and will continue to get frustrated banging your head against a brick wall of your own ignorance.''

 

Clearly you have not  read any of my recent discussion on this forum. 

[xyz]

But the problem is that what Mr (Dr) Einstein predicted has been shown to be experimentally true. So the mere fact that you, personally, have difficulty taking it in does not, I'm afraid, mean it is incorrect.

 

Both special and general relativity do seem to represent how the world actually works, so far as we can tell at the moment. 

 

Please understand this: in science, what survives is what observation supports.  

OK, I understand very well what observation supports survives.  However very few of the objective observations are supported by the subjective observations.   What we see is not what we ''see'' according to theory.    

Science wants people like myself to believe in little tiny particles called photons or curvatures of space-time etc,  yet subjectively I do not ''see'' photons or curves of space. I perceive ''gin-clear' space and if somebody tells me in an objective manner that this ''gin-clear'' space is actually filled with little particles travelling faster than a bullet, I would ask to see some form of concrete proofs.  Without concrete proofs it would be no more than fallacy.

You say that in science, what survives is what observation supports,  however the observation of a photon is none existent, the single slit experiment can be easily discoursed to show it is observer effect and the said particle is no more than causing the light to ''spit'', no different than a dripping tap. 

The radiation pressure on one side of the slit being different to that an the exit side, narrowing the slit causing more ''bottle-necking'' and more ''spit''. 

 

I can't seem to find any concrete evidence for most things I look at, what you call evidence and what I call evidence are seemingly two different things, my evidence required being based on a much more strict process of thought. 

 

If there was a ''time'' dilation, what do you consider is the main proof?  

 

I will happily discourse this proof and objectively review it . 

[A-wal]

I have read the rest of this thread. Time dilation and length contraction are objective reality due to the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference. The measurement of time time and space are subjective because they're subject to the relative motion of the observer.

[xyz]

I have read the rest of this thread. Time dilation and length contraction are objective reality due to the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference. The measurement of time time and space are subjective because they're subject to the relative motion of the observer.

Well objectively the speed of light is only constant to all observers in all inertial frames of reference if there is no medium, mediums slow light down, so if an inertial reference frame has a dense medium, it would be measured to be slower, like when  a satellite signal travels through space then slows down when it enters our atmosphere, If you want to go into the proper objective, I can be very objective and state 100% facts.

Time dilation is flawed and length contraction is of light and not of physical solidity. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

No, your understanding is flawed. Time dilation and length contraction are objective reality because of the consistency of the speed of light through space in all inertial frames of reference. The fact that light moves slower through a medium is irrelevant.

 

Time dilation is not flawed, lol. It's the same as length contraction and the work together to shorten the distance of objects in motion relative to the observer and that's how (the only way they could) all measure the same speed of light.

 

You will never understand if you continue to think it's not your understanding that's wrong. The model is fine, your conceptions aren't. Get over it and realise that you're the one who needs understand or you'll keep going round in circles thinking you know better.

[xyz]

No, your understanding is flawed. Time dilation and length contraction are objective reality because of the consistency of the speed of light through space in all inertial frames of reference. The fact that light moves slower through a medium is irrelevant.

 

Time dilation is not flawed, lol. It's the same as length contraction and the work together to shorten the distance of objects in motion relative to the observer and that's how (the only way they could) all measure the same speed of light.

 

You will never understand if you continue to think it's not your understanding that's wrong. The model is fine, your conceptions aren't. Get over it and realise that you're the one who needs understand or you'll keep going round in circles thinking you know better.

''That fact that light moves slower through a medium is irrelevant. ''

 

Objectively incorrect, to state that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames is untrue , the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and not all inertia reference frames, different medium densities allow for different speed, if a distant planet had a ''thick'' atmosphere, the measurement in the inertia reference frame would be slower than that with a less dense atmosphere. So for 100% accuracy your statement would be incorrect. 

 

''Time dilation is not flawed''

 

You say that without objectively listening to any reason of why it is flawed. You must try to remember that theory does not mean 100% facts and there is always room for improvement or change. 

 

 

''You will never understand if you continue to think it's not your understanding that's wrong. The model is fine, your conceptions aren't. Get over it and realise that you're the one who needs understand or you'll keep going round in circles thinking you know better.''

 

Clearly you have no objective opinion and can only give comments by your subjective education. Please do not take offence by this.   I already understand the present version and models, it is your assumption I do not . 

I have discoursed the information and from a subjective and objective perspective come to strong belief by my discourse  that the information has flaws. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by xyz