Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[sluggo]

 

 I had said:

 

 

Then you akaed:

 

---

 

 

That's not point of my statement, and is an entirely different issue.  Do you agree with this part?:

 

"What it "is" is a question of objective empirical fact, which my measurements of it can neither influence or dictate."

 

Put another way, do you agree with the claim, or do you think otherwise?

 

No one says your measurement makes anything 'what it is'. It does determine what you know.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method. 

Excluding 'divine revelation', how else do you know 'what it is'?

Edited May 1, 2018 by sluggo

[Moronium]

No one says your measurement makes anything 'what it is'. It does determine what you know.

 

 

 

OK, thanks for that.  I was beginning to wonder you actually believed otherwise.

 

But I would add one minor correction, as follows:  "It does determine what you THINK you know."

 

It would be hard to count all the "scientific" experiments whose conclusions were later rejected due to "measurement errors."

 

But you've still never responded to my questions and comments about "probability."  Do you plan to?

 

Edit: I now see that you made a prior post that I overlooked.  I'll check it out now.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

OK, now I see your response.  But it doesn't really really address the question.

 

 

It's about what you know concerning the state of the coin. No one argues there are only 2 states H or T. The reality is: you  don't know until you look. Science requires observation vs speculation!

 

It seems to me that you continue to implicitly equate epistemology with ontology, which is basically a positivistic view.

 

Which is just a long-*** way of saying that one is confusing "what is" with what what we can or do "know."

 

Did the coin I flipped come up (and remain) either heads or tails, even if I don't "look?"  If no, then we're back to "probabilities" which are less than 100% (certainty).

Edited May 1, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 Science requires observation vs speculation!

  Observation is only a (sometimes small) part of scientific theory, which absolutely requires "speculation," so I don't entirely agree with this statement either.

[Moronium]

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. 

Excluding 'divine revelation', how else do you know 'what it is'?

 

 

Empirical evidence only records "what you see."  The explanation for what we see (i.e., what it is, or what it means) comes from scientific hypotheses (which are by no means infallible or "proven").  That's the best we can do.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

#190

Did the coin I flipped come up (and remain) either heads or tails, even if I don't "look?"  If no, then we're back to "probabilities" which are less than 100% (certainty).

 

 

While the coin is in the air rotating, it's H and T. When it comes to rest on the ground, it is H or T. No one knows which state until some one looks. You can guess with a probability of .50 being correct. That's why probability is the basis for many games of chance because of the player not knowing the outcome.

Forget the classification of philosophies, concentrate on behavior of physical phenomena.

[Moronium]

 

#190

 

While the coin is in the air rotating, it's H and T. When it comes to rest on the ground, it is H or T. No one knows which state until some one looks. You can guess with a probability of .50 being correct. That's why probability is the basis for many games of chance because of the player not knowing the outcome.

Forget the classification of philosophies, concentrate on behavior of physical phenomena.

 

  

I agree with what you say here, Sluggo, but you still haven't directly or unambiguously answered the question I asked.

 

1.  The coin has been flipped.  It has come up either heads or tails, as you say.

2.  For the sake of this hypothetical, let's say it came up heads.

3.  What are the chances of it being heads?  100%, right?

4.  What are the chances of it being tails?  0%, right.

5.  What are the chances of us knowing what it is, without looking? 0%, right?

6..  As you say, the chances of us correctly guessing which it is are 50%, we agree there.

 

Originally, you basically disputed my assertion that the odds of it being what it is were 100%, arguing instead that those odds were only 50%.

 

Now you finish by saying:

 

Forget the classification of philosophies, concentrate on behavior of physical phenomena.

 

 

 

Is there some reason that you think we should "forget" about what it is, as you seem to suggest here?

 

My basic purpose in bringing it up in the first place was to highlight the difference between what a thing is and what we can or do know about it.  We had been generally talking about measurement.  Your claim then seemed to be that what we measure it to be is what it is.  Do you still adhere to that position?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It was your post 172 that kinda got us off on this sidetrack.  First you quoted me as having said:

 

But it's the same football field and it's actual length does not change every time a yardstick of a different length is used by somebody to measure it. The measurements are different, that's all. The field remains constant.

 

 

To which you responded:

 

 

The length of a thing is what the measurement is...It’s subjective..

 

.

Is that still your position?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Let's say there are two posts planted firmly in the ground in a field.  They are not moving with respect to each other, and they will not move under their own volition.

 

I won't even try to say what the distance between them "really" is, because is doesn't even matter.  I could be 1 mile.  It could be 1/2 mile.  It could be 10."  It could be 10 feet.  It doesn't matter in the least for the purposes of this question.

 

Does that distance, whatever ever it is, change if some rocket flies past near the speed of light?  Would that cause  the two posts to move closer together or farther apart from each other, do you think?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

I agree with what you say here, Sluggo, but you still haven't directly or unambiguously answered the question I asked.

 

1.  The coin has been flipped.  It has come up either heads or tails, as you say.

2.  For the sake of this hypothetical, let's say it came up heads.

3.  What are the chances of it being heads?  100%, right?

4.  What are the chances of it being tails?  0%, right.

5.  What are the chances of us knowing what it is, without looking? 0%, right?

6..  As you say, the chances of us correctly guessing which it is are 50%, we agree there.

 

 

2. that's no longer a probability, but a certainty. You would have had to look to KNOW.

You are misconstruing the meaning/definition of probability.

[sluggo]

Let's say there are two posts planted firmly in the ground in a field.  They are not moving with respect to each other, and they will not move under their own volition.

 

I won't even try to say what the distance between them "really" is, because is doesn't even matter.  I could be 1 mile.  It could be 1/2 mile.  It could be 10."  It could be 10 feet.  It doesn't matter in the least for the purposes of this question.

 

Does that distance, whatever ever it is, change if some rocket flies past near the speed of light?  Would that cause  the two posts to move closer together or farther apart from each other, do you think?

Not for a person on the field. It would change the measurements of the anaut in the rocket, since motion alters perception and subsequent measurements.

[exchemist]

Let's say there are two posts planted firmly in the ground in a field.  They are not moving with respect to each other, and they will not move under their own volition.

 

I won't even try to say what the distance between them "really" is, because is doesn't even matter.  I could be 1 mile.  It could be 1/2 mile.  It could be 10."  It could be 10 feet.  It doesn't matter in the least for the purposes of this question.

 

Does that distance, whatever ever it is, change if some rocket flies past near the speed of light?  Would that cause  the two posts to move closer together or farther apart from each other, do you think?

I am utterly astonished that someone who has seemingly devoted so much time to the subject would ask a question like this. 

 

The answer obviously depends on whether the posts are observed from the rocket or from the ground. There is no single answer to this, any more than there is to the speed of clocks. 

[Moronium]

Not for a person on the field. It would change the measurements of the anaut in the rocket, since motion alters perception and subsequent measurements.

 

You didn't answer the question I asked.  I didn't ask about the perceptions or measurements of the rocket.  I asked if it's flying by made the posts move.

 

You say, not for the guy in the field, which implies they DO move for the guy on the ship.

 

Do you actually think they actually, literally, move?  Do you think that a fact of objective reality.  Are you claiming that the distance between the posts REALLY changes.  In other words, are you denying that A = A.  Are you claiming that subjective perceptions can actually alter physical objects in the phsyical world?  Yes, or no?

[Moronium]

I am utterly astonished that someone who has seemingly devoted so much time to the subject would ask a question like this. 

 

The answer obviously depends on whether the posts are observed from the rocket or from the ground. There is no single answer to this, any more than there is to the speed of clocks. 

  OK, I finally got your answer (which you posted while I was composing this one).

 

Contrary to your previous denials, you are obviously a hard-core solipsist.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium

[sluggo]

You didn't answer the question I asked.  I didn't ask about the perceptions or measurements of the rocket.  I asked if it's flying by made the posts move.

 

You say, not for the guy in the field, which implies they DO move for the guy on the ship.

 

Do you actually think they actually, literally, move?  Do you think that a fact of objective reality.  Are you claiming that the distance between the posts REALLY changes.  In other words, are you denying that A = A.  Are you claiming that subjective perceptions can actually alter physical objects in the phsyical world?  Yes, or no?

"Does that distance, whatever ever it is, change if some rocket flies past near the speed of light?"

That is your question. This too was covered already, motion of an object does not change remote objects, only itself via lc. You don't understand or don't like the idea of motion altering perception, but that's the REALITY of human experience.

If clock processes slow from high speeds, so do mental processes. The mind is matter in motion. SR effects aren't limited to inanimate objects.

You don't understand SR completely as evidenced by your answers, and have a personal agenda for unknown reasons. It makes no difference if you are a solipsist or a  democrat or a pharmacist. Both forms of Relativity theory have 100+ yeas of experimentation to validate it's predictions,with few exceptions. No scientist expects it to be a final theory, but one in a series of refinements to a better understanding of the world. Contrary to your twisted interpretation, SR does not require or mandate you adopt a rest frame attitude. I am not compelled to accept it, but do so because it provides it works!

[Moronium]

Can you explain the difference between the Lorentz Transforms, which Einstein took from Lorentz, and those same transforms as used by Lorentz himself?  Put another way, can you explain the difference between absolute simultaneity and relative simultaneity, Sluggo?

[Moronium]

. Contrary to your twisted interpretation, SR does not require or mandate you adopt a rest frame attitude.

   You say this, and then have the gall to tell me that I don't understand SR?  Try again.

 

Being told by every guy and his brother who has some vague and incomplete understanding of SR that I don't understand SR gets kinda old, ya know?

Edited May 3, 2018 by Moronium