Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) yes gravitational redshift measurements is your experimental evidence. So your wrong in assuming its not measured. Its much the same as Doppler shift just requires the addition of the Lorentz transforms to be treated as relativistic Doppler. So, then, you don't understand the question, I see. This response is a complete non sequitur. And the example it came from was dealing with light clocks, NOT the measurement of a (irrelevant) doppler shift. So that's just a second way in which you demonstrate your lack of understanding. A third misconception is that "gravitational" redshifts are even involved. At best it would be redshifts caused by a difference in relative motion, not gravity. But, again, even that is not relevant. For a second time I'll give you a hint. The question is about raw sense perception versus deductions therefrom. Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) No you refuse to understand any argument against you. The argumetn I posted applies if you think about it. start with the term INTERVAL via ct. I have tried explaining how the at rest principle applies. You ignored that in regards to that quote. Its relations between one frame to the other. It does not matter about being at rest or moving. When it comes to any measurement comparision between two frames. You are comparing one geometry to the other. Established baseline is unimportant.Experimental evidence shows the two are symmetric for the ratio of changes between them. It also shows the reversibility while under constant velocity. Hence M and M. and Redshift. That is some of the experimental evidence Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 No you refuse to understand any argument against you. The argumetn I posted applies if you think about it. start with the term INTERVAL via ct. Sorry to have to say it, but once again you merely demonstrate your confusion and lack of understanding. You don't even understand what the topic is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) You can surf the vacuum without locally violating the speed of light, why can you not understand this? I never said I couldn't "understand" the concept, Dubbo. I merely said that it is not an interpretation which I would readily accept. And, a fortiori, I would never claim that I know it to be a "true fact," as you do. Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Sorry to have to say it, but once again you merely demonstrate your confusion and lack of understanding. You don't even understand what the topic is. No I do you keep changing goal posts hence 57 pages vs everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 No I do you keep changing goal posts hence 57 pages vs everyone else. If you really think you understand the question, then answer it, not some irrelevant question that was never asked. It's been like me asking you what time it is, and you "answering" by saying "my wife has red hair." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Math has great insight too... sometimes a theory can write itself. Only someone with no mathematical knowledge could think it is essentially useless. I never said I couldn't "understand" the concept, Dubbo. I merely said that it is not an interpretation which I would readily accept. And, a fortiori, I would never claim that I know it to be a "true fact," as you do. Under philosophy define truth. What is a true fact ? Everything you experience is an interpretation of signals. Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) I never said I couldn't "understand" the concept, Dubbo. I merely said that it is not an interpretation which I would readily accept. And, a fortiori, I would never claim that I know it to be a "true fact," as you do. Yes, if you create a wave-function in space-time you can locally violate the speed of light dubbel is correct, but it does not change the speed of light for the entire universe being a speed limit by you changing the structure of time-space in a localized region. I think is what dubbel is saying. By you changing the structure of time-space in a region the entire universe is not effected by the structure difference in the region you have generated. Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Math has great insight too... sometimes a theory can write itself. Only someone with no mathematical knowledge could think it is essentially useless. Got any more straw men to build up, Dubbo.. I have NEVER said that math was "essentially useless." In fact I have often said the exact opposite. But it is only useful when applying it for the purposes it is helpful in serving. And, no, math can never write a scientific theory by itself. Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Got any more straw men to build up, Dubbo.. I have NEVER said that math was "essentially useless." In fact I have often said the exact opposite. But it is only useful when applying it for the purposes it is helpful in serving. And, no, math can never write a scientific theory by itself. That is why you build math around evidence and, don't just blindly write math, using knowledge gained from experimentation to guide you on your model building using math that truly is descriptive of the universe. Most of the math used in dubbel and my models have been used in other and have a experimental basis to say that they are correct to use in that situation thus to generate an equation that truly explains the "Real Universe". Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Under philosophy define truth. What is a true fact ? Everything you experience is an interpretation of signals. Changing the topic and avoiding the question again? I'm not the one using terms like "true" and "fact" in the discussion we're referring to. Dubbo is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 Its also very common to prove a model wrong under different mathematical treatments. No theory is restricted to itself, Vmedvil2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Its also very common to prove a model wrong under different mathematical treatments. No theory is restricted to itself, What you speak here is the absolute truth no theory is restrictive only to itself it has to obey known laws and models of physics that work and agree with them, just as my theory agrees with GR and QM, without that agreement of those models it would be useless and incorrect. Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Changing the topic and avoiding the question again? I'm not the one using terms like "true" and "fact" in the discussion we're referring to. Dubbo is. No it seems to apply You have been provided experimental and mathematical evidence but claim were not on topic. You ignored the points we made in those regards. Those arguments support the premises of SR. Then simply claim you cannot accept any claim of a fundamental true fact. So I ask you what do you define as a true fact. In furtherance of that in a previous post you mentioned Objective reality. how can you have an objective reality by arbitrarily ignoring pieces of the puzzle. Edited July 20, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 .truly is descriptive of the universe... truly explains the "Real Universe Say what? I'll quote Einstein on this topic again, eh? As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. (Einstein) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) . Those arguments support the premises of SR. Then simply claim you cannot accept any claim of a fundamental true fact. They do not SUPPORT the premises of SR. They merely assume the postulates are true, ab initio, and then put the necessary implications in symbolic form. You can never prove, or support, a theory merely by presupposing that it's "true." Mathematical consistency adds nothing, in itself. It is an easy task to concoct a self-consistent mathematical system to "support" the most patently absurd premises. Edited July 20, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vmedvil2 Posted July 20, 2018 Report Share Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) Say what? I'll quote Einstein on this topic again, eh? That is misquoted he was talking about pure math not always being useful in physics not that all math is wrong and doesn't agree to reality but there is some truth in that when you dig deep that math doesn't always 100% describe all the kinks of the universe that is why theories are changed and new models take the front, there will always be one model that most accurately describes the universe better than the others, but all use math, but in this case you are wrong SR does most accurately describe moving objects on time-space deal with it moronium. Edited July 20, 2018 by VictorMedvil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts