| If Stripe only had a brain | |
This video works on two levels.
1) It's the perfect song and song title.
2) It's a strawman singing it.
about Bob's article on absolute or relative time
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
This video works on two levels.
1) It's the perfect song and song title.
2) It's a strawman singing it.
For some reason I have a picture in my head of LH pointing a shotgun at a 4 inch PVC pipe with a propane tank duct taped to it.
The above was NOT an instruction manual.
Stripe asked the perfect question last night, I'll try to get back here as soon as I finish explaining the birds and the bees to the pro-aborts.
I certainly stand corrected.
So really, then, we'll just go round and round about whether or not the math involved actually describes reality. And since neither of us has an excellent grip on the math involved, and one of us has almost no grip on the math involved (from what I can see), we'll probably get as far as two blind men in a maze.Stripe said:
I'm interested in whether any part of relativity clashes with your beliefs either as a Christian or as an open theist. I asked Lighthouse twice, but on both occasions he avoided answering the question.
Why would you say that? I can understand how mathematics relate to the real world even if I cannot understand how to manipulate the symbols and get the right answers all the time.
The basis of the issue is, no matter how accurate or helpful a mathematical model is, the name of such a model does not impose any physical reality upon the universe.
dan1el
New member
It's nice that you can find humor in your own idiocy being pointed out, but couldn't you try actually replying seriously for once? This is at least the second time in this thread that you've answered a serious objection to your reasoning with a smiley. Why, it almost seems as if you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
Andrew Lee
New member
You have been doing a great job here Johnny, and I very much admire your patience!
I believe that it is indeed entirely correct and proper to refer to time as a "physical" quantity. Same with space. Apples can be seen, but that does not make them more "real" than something that cannot be seen. The wind cannot be seen but it is clearly real. I am not entirely what you mean by "showing" something, but I do not think it is a good criteria for establishing physicality.
I suspect that you believe that time is some kind of immutable, unchangeable "thing" that, in a sense, "sits outside" physical reality. I suggest that such a view simply does not square with the observational evidence.
Time, of course, is a tricky concept. But whether it be the hands of clock, the oscillations of some nuclear particle, the sequence in which two particles decay, or whatever, one thing seems pretty clear - the way these "mechanisms" mark time is influenced by gravity. So this is pretty powerful evidence that time itself is being affected by gravity.
Consider the twin paradox. From wikipedia:
"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity, in which a twin who makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket will return home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth."
Now there are lots of things one could say about the paradox, but for our present purposes the following should be noted. All physicists (or at least the overwhelming majority) believe that, indeed, the travelling twin will return younger than the one who stays at home.
The travelling twin will look younger, he will feel younger, he will have less grey hair, more strength, etc., etc. The point being that, compared to the earthbound twin, all the physical processes in his body will have slowed down.
Do you not see how this suggests that, for the travelling twin, time itself has slowed down. Sure, the travelling twin's watch will also show an earlier time than the watch on the arm of the earthbound twin. But relativity has done more than slow down the watch, it has slowed down the very biological processes in the travelling twin (at least relative to the earthbound twin).
I know wind is real air and matter in motion and I can directly observe it.
Can you observe time or space in motion? I know you can use a ruler to determine the distance between objects and a clock to measure the distance between events, but those acts are related to physical and observable things.
If you measure the space between a chair and a table you are not interacting with space, you are interacting with matter and describing the absence of matter according to a given standard (centimetres or inches, perhaps). That standard is a mathematical model that we can talk about and understand. That does not make the space a real thing.
The same with time. We can note the instance of one heartbeat and use a clock to measure how long it takes for 60 more to occur. We are not interacting with the gap between the two marker events, but we are describing that gap according to a given standard (seconds). That does not make the thing we call time a part of the physical universe.
Similarly we can determine an average family size for a nation and arrive at some fraction that might be descriptive and useful. That does not mean there are fractions of people walking around.
I do? No, I don't think I do. Why would you say that?
No, it's not. It's not even circumstantial evidence until you can describe the physical nature of time. Until you can describe the physical nature of time I have no reason to accept your notion that moving parts on machines are evidence that gravity affects anything but those moving parts.
Considered and rejected as a paradox. The space twin would likely live less time (as measured from Earth) given the adverse conditions he would have to endure.
Funny, as a scientist that is the last thing I would describe as "notable".
They would all be affected, but, as Johnny has so vigorously pointed out, they would not all be affected in the same way or to the same degree. Thus your claim is always going to be insubstantial because there is no way you will ever be able to account for the myriad of processes all being degraded by the adverse conditions.
This "paradox" is only a paradox if one first accepts relativity. And it is certainly no evidence for your side.
No. The space twin will be more likely to die first (all else being equal).
andrewh said:
No. The space twin will appear to be younger than the earthbound, not older as you are suggesting. The earthbound twin will die first, not the space twin.
You may hold the opinion that you do about this - that is your right. But it is clear that you stand against the overwhelming majority of trained physicists who will hold that the space twin will come back "younger" than the earthbound twin.
The reason why this is considered a paradox is not directly relevant to what we are talking about. The paradox lies in the inclination to believe that we can think of the earthbound as moving relative to the space twin just we can think of the space twin as moving relative to the earth twin. So why wouldn't we expect the earthbound twin to be younger than the space twin, just as the space twin is expected to be younger than the earthbound twin if we adopt the position that it is the space twin that has moved.
And indeed, the paradox is not real for reasons I will not get into. But the reason why this is not a real paradox is emphatically not that relativity effects are not real.
And despite your claim, there is literally tons of empirical evidence supporting the predictions of the theory of general relativity - decades worth, in fact.
What I'm laughing at, you moron, is the fact that there can not be any definitive proof for any of that, and yet you believe it. You believe something that is completely unfalsifiable. With the only evidence being that clocks are effected.
Because there are no proof's in science
lain::duh:Science can only gather a convincing body of evidence to suggest the validity of a claim. And thus why explanations with consistent predictive power, and large bodies of evidence to support them, are still labeled "theories" and not "proofs".
It has been explained a few times on this thread alone how you could falsify relativity. I even gave you a testing procedure to which fool gave you an idea for a model that you could put together with some stuff lying about your living room.
Soooo...Congratulations, LH King of the stupid. Here is your cookie. Oh sorry... I eated it.
:chew:
"I believe stuff without any proof."Because there are no proof's in science
-pozzolane
And you consider the fact that a clock acts differently in differing levels of gravity to be enough evidence to believe time dilates?
And if there is no proof in science, why is anything considered a scientific fact?
That doesn't falsify anything. There is no way to falsify time dilation if we are also supposed to be affected.
P.S.
In the mountains I should have sped up, no slowed down, as you postulated earlier.
You ate it because it was yours.
Indeed. Like any scientific theory, relativity is falsifiable. The theory makes predictions that are subject to empirical verification / falsification. Many experiments have been conducted, each with the possibility of showing that the theory is incorrect. So far, the theory has performed admirably.
Such as?
From Brittanica:
Soon after Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity was published in 1916, scientists set to conducting a number of experimental tests to verify or disprove various predictions of the theory. One prediction was that the dark (absorption) lines known as Fraunhofer lines in the spectrum of sunlight should be redshifted (i.e., shifted toward longer wavelengths) by a precise amount because of the Sun’s gravitational field. Astronomers failed initially to find this shift, so in 1918 the validity of the general theory was still in some doubt.
The general theory also predicted that a ray of light emanating from a distant star and passing near the Sun should be deflected a measurable amount by the Sun’s gravity. If the ray just grazes the edge of the Sun, the angular deflection should be 1.75 arc seconds, and the deflection should decrease in proportion to the distance of the ray from the Sun’s edge. (For comparison, the average solar diameter is 1,922 arc seconds.) Einstein suggested that astronomers should observe this effect at a total eclipse as another test of his theory.
British astronomers, including Arthur Eddington, took up the challenge. They organized two expeditions to observe the five minutes of totality afforded by the eclipse of May 29, 1919, one in Sobral, Braz., and the other on the island of Príncipe, off the African coast. From Sobral the astronomers obtained a series of photographs on glass plates of the stars around the Sun at mid-totality. The expedition also photographed the same stars that had appeared during the eclipse but without the presence of the Sun. By comparing the relative positions of the stars on the two sets of plates, the astronomers obtained a figure of 1.98 arc seconds for the deflection of starlight at the edge of the solar disk. The expedition to Príncipe, led by Eddington, encountered clouds during the eclipse and was able to photograph only four stars on five plates. From these, Eddington derived an estimate of 1.61 arc seconds for the deflection at the edge of the Sun. The combined results from the two expeditions were close enough to the predicted 1.75 arc seconds to lend support to Einstein’s theory but not to establish it unconditionally. Nevertheless, they had tremendous popular appeal and helped establish Einstein as one of the foremost physicists of his time.