Jump to content
Science Forums

Anchovyforestbane

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to AnssiH in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Hi Sluggo,
    Now that you mention this, the original paper for SR (that I linked before) is actually quite nice in that it doesn't really suggest any particular ontology (like Minkowski spacetime), but the reader must be careful to understand it as merely drawing purely logical connections between definitions when reading it. Nowadays people read it with Minkowski's interpretation in mind and tend to take SR as literally an argument for "Minkowski spacetime", even though it doesn't mention such thing anywhere. This misconception leads exactly into my original complaint about people locking themselves into too limited scope of possibilities.
    Many of your comments imply you are also too locked in - there's considerable relaxation of possibilities that are possible without contradicting anything in SR.
    With that;
     
    There's couple of subtle but critical misconceptions here that have to be corrected.
    SR is not about C being "independent of the source", but one step more as C being "independent of the chosen inertial frame". And it certainly is put forward as a convention, not as an argument for objective reality.
    When Einstein is referring to "consistent with experience", he is referring to "what can be deducted from real observations by actual natural observers". That really is the key subtlety to understand; "what is observable" is not the same thing as "what exists". The former can be verified as factual, the latter cannot.
    Make no mistake about this, Einstein understands and describes perfectly well what aspects of this hinge on our definitions of things. Pay attention to some key points of his paper (emphasis mine):
    https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
    "If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of
    its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind
    that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless
    we are quite clear as to what we understand by “time.” We have to take into
    account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments
    of simultaneous events."
    ...
    "We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an
    observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates,
    and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals,
    given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space.
    But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the
    standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience."
    What Einstein is pointing out there is that we must first specify what do we mean and what can we know about the simultaneity of two remote events. He understands perfectly well that we can't actually know whether two apparently simultaneous events are actually simultaneous or not. This problem was well known at the time (1-way problem) and required no further elaboration from him.
    "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the
    time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions
    of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the point B
    of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for
    an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for
    A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
    that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
    requires to travel from B to A."
    "By definition" is also emphasized by Einstein in the original paper. This is very very important to understand absolutely correctly, and not get tangled up into some idea that the logical validity of these definitions somehow makes them mandatory. What he establishes here is a convention for relativistic simultaneity - something we can define for our own convenience for calculations.
    Basically the idea is that instead of transforming "C" between frames and directions, we logically can take it as isotropic if we instead transform the "moments that events actually occurred". That is exactly what Lorentz Transformation does, as is visually also visible from the diagrams you attached (it is what happens when we - by definition - lock the speed of light as exactly C for all the different frame representations of the same system).
    Of course a natural observer cannot tell the difference between events varying, or C varying, as they can't be in two remote locations "at the same time".
     
    I'm interested of hearing in more detail how do you view QED as removing the 1-way issue. I mean, logically speaking yes of course. But how do you view it as not being a case of using Einstein a convention?
     
    Not true, as you can easily verify by going back to the start of my previous post.
    Basically this is an example of locking yourself into too limited scope of possibilities when you assume that LC & TD somehow can only occur under the framework of SR. The observable features of LC and TC of course occur in exactly the same way in Lorentz' aether theory - the only difference is in unobservable features of reality. That's what "their difference is merely philosophical" means. I explained this in quite detail in last post.
     
    Now that's the million dollar question.
    Remember when I said;
    "It is philosophically very naive and cumbersome, but almost no one realizes they are effectively making that argument when they argue that isotropic C is an objective feature of nature. (I bolded parts of previous sentence in anticipation that someone will respond to this post and make exactly that mistake)"
    I'm afraid you are making that mistake, you are making a block universe arguments without realizing it. Now think this through carefully;
    Isotropic C requires that we transform simultaneity of events when moving between inertial frames.
    If we transform simultaneity of events, we cannot make claim about any specific state of the universe - it would be in different state for all observers in different inertial frames, requiring that all future and past states exist "all the time". Likewise, any new choice of reference frame would always imply new state.
    And if you assume that C really is isotropic, that is the same thing as assuming that simultaneity of events really is frame dependent. That is why it requires a static block universe. This is exactly the view what Minkowski was pushing when he presented the idea of spacetime! (Yes, he really meant it literally... And Einstein apparently made comments about what a ridiculous idea Minkowski had)
    At this point everyone always say "hmm yes but I don't literally mean static block universe, I just mean to refer to naturally observable features of this".
    But that means you are not taking SR's philosophical flavor as meaningful, which means you are exactly thinking of Lorentz aether theory! As soon as you assume that reality actually is dynamic, it means you assume it does have an objective state that actually evolves in time - we just don't have the means to observe what that state is - then you also cannot assume isotropic C anymore as anything but a handy mental hack to simplify calculations.
    What that assumption leads into is exactly the same view as in Lorentz' aether theory (the one that originally defined Lorentz transformation). It's logically completely unproblematic assumption being that they produce exactly the same observables.
    So with that in mind, here's that switch;
    The idea that natural observers merely measure C as isotropic if they use Einstein's definitions, is the same thing as noting that C is not necessarily actually isotropic - it just appears so because of how we must define space and time self-consistently.
    I completely agree that Einstein did not - at least initially - make any statements about the supposed "reality" of this thing, Minkowski did, and nowadays almost everyone claims that Einstein made those arguments.
    It's more like;
    Lorentz argued for single universal C in a single background, which is unobservable since we are "in it". This idea yields Lorentz Transformation as a direct logical consequence, which yields LC & TD in exactly same mathematical form as in SR.
    Einstein argued we can remove unobservable assumptions from this by adopting his simultaneity convention, and this can be quite handy for calculations. This is sort of a null-interpretation view.
    Minkowski went straight back to "unobservable assumptions", and proposed a spacetime view, and its direct consequence, a static block reality.
    The problem with c+v is actually purely logical, as any meaningful definition of v becomes dependent on clock synchronization. Lorentz transformation is ultimately about the logical dependencies between space and time definitions.
    -Anssi
  2. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to AnssiH in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Hi Sluggo
    I'm afraid your post exemplifies exactly the confusions I was complaining about in my long post.
    Look, it's very simple to convince yourself of this matter. The mathematics of Lorentz aether theory are exactly the same as using Special Relativity, but instead of transforming from observer to observer, you'd arbitrarily choose some reference frame, and then do all of your calculations from that frame. I'm sure you can trivially accept this as mathematically valid approach. You can always go back to this simple point, if you feel any doubt.
    If the above wouldn't work, that would mean the frame transformation in Special Relativity was invalid - it would mean your results would depend on the frame you analyze them from - the frame transformation would be inconsistent.
    The fact that one-way speed of light cannot be measured, is a cornerstone of Special Relativity. This realization is why the paper can confidently define a unique simultaneity notion for each reference frame.
    See; http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf chapter "Definition of Simultaneity" and "On the relativity of lengths and times" to understand how this is merely a convention, and how this convention yields the exact form of relativistic length and time measurements that everyone likes to use.
     
    These are erroneous assertions. The inability to measure one-way speed of light is very simple and fundamental limitation, and you will do yourself a service if you really think it through. Just think about clock synchronization of spatially separated clocks, and try to establish how moving them would perturb them, and I'm sure you can figure it out. I can see you have not yet done this exercise so as you cite examples of supposed measurements of one-way speed without realizing they must also use an artificial definition of simultaneity.

    I can also see you have not really thought about the ontological meaning of the idea of isotropic speed of light. What is in your opinion the "state of reality" at any given moment? If you insist on the ontological reality of isotropic C, you also insist on static reality. It's a pretty direct link from one to another, and an interesting topic to really think through.
    The clock synchronization convention of Special Relativity allows the physical laws to be written in the same form in any inertial frame, within the framework that they were written in already. This can be very practical in many situations, but it does not imply any specific ontological form to reality. There are many ways to describe the "rules of reality", symmetrically or asymmetrically between frames, in pretty much any chosen ontology (because you always add another metaphysical "space" where you describe your take on the "rules of the universe").
    Basically this argument is often thrown around to try to make the argument that isotropic C is more than just our convention, but actually all the physical laws as we have written them, are bound to our conventions. Isotropic C does not follow from Maxwell, it's rather the other way around. In actual fact, this argument is yet another example of "not thinking it through" and arguing for static universe without realizing it 🤷‍♂️

     
    Yes, but assuming your "SR is incomplete" refers to the problem of SR implying static universe, then you must realize that the solution is very simple - there was never any reason to assume ontologically isotropic C... Basically the arguments you gave above get thrown into the bin, as soon as you assume instead that - ontologically - a momentary state of reality actually exists, beyond our ability to probe what it is.
    Of course this also is an assumption - maybe reality really is static - except for our minds. What I'm saying is that the "static reality" version gets thrown around far more than it deserves. It is philosophically very naive and cumbersome, but almost no one realizes they are effectively making that argument when they argue that isotropic C is an objective feature of nature. (I bolded parts of previous sentence in anticipation that someone will respond to this post and make exactly that mistake)
    Taking the view that C is not objectively isotropic leads effectively to Lorentz' version of all this. Which is exactly the same observationally as SR - it's the same math. Go back to paragraph #1 if in doubt.
    The argument that SR is philosophically more elegant because it doesn't contain ad hoc assumption about preferred frame, is only true for the mathematical simplicity from the starting point it has, and only true until Minkowski spacetime became the preferred view. But from an ontological perspective it's a really hard sell, especially as we have since found that the cosmic background radiation is emanating from a "preferred frame". 

    -Anssi
    ps. personally I don't really subscribe to either of these views, I think they both probably represent gross oversimplification of more complex interactions between what we call "space" and "matter"
  3. Confused
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to TiffanyMariokart in Physics Puzzle!   
    So South Korea have granted legal protection to 60,000 sadists after the Nth rooms. Not only did extremely few perpetrators receive lenient sentences, the rest were granted legal protection from the victims.
    Here's the puzzle; how long until we're all f***ed from corruption, idiocies and sadism?
    I mean at worst the whole 60k reproduces for a few years with probable victims and masses an army of sadists, 3 victims each 4 years 60k*3*3 plus the possible exponentials of them repeating this bs.
    That's the extreme end of it, but as you can see the possibility of this is rather unacceptable.
    This s*** makes Hitler look framed.
    So look, science community. Here's the puzzle;
    A, is Hitler innocent?
    B, Can somebody capture and contain these sadists?
    And well even if they don't make more sadists, letting 60,000 of them have immunity puts society at great risk.
    The only good sadist is a dead one.
    Some of the s*** the 60,000 were into;
    Forcing insects into other's genitalia, Carving words into other's flesh, Raping adults, Raping Children, False Imprisonment, Forcing other's into bestiality and the list goes on.
    Search Nth rooms on youtube for more knowledge on this, and the currently anonymous 60,000 sadists who paid for this apparently include politicians and celebrities.
    And yes this is VERY recent events. I don't see how anyone with smarts can let this slide that could result in worse events than death.
    Footnote: Don't trust ANY government SK's allied with the west.     
  4. Like
  5. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to CountryBoy in Time Substance Concentration.   
    Since you still haven't told us what YOU mean by "physical consistency"- and seem to be using this board to rant about things you do not know, I'm not going to bother responding any more.  This is "science forums" and you do not know what "science" is.
  6. Confused
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to TiffanyMariokart in Time Substance Concentration.   
    "Under Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity can bend time" What's posted is a very basic logical explanation of what this is an attempt at saying, since gravity comes from 3d objects as a whole and not just one part of them it's considered a pooling.
    I don't think this man a fool, I also don't think nuclear weapons are the most destructive conceptions of theirs either.
    But what I do know for sure is, the Nth room aftermath is blatant evidence of government corruption of the highest order and in most messed up regard, it's up to the smartest to F*** them off as I'm afraid everyone else is too stupid to be able to.
    If somebody/s doesn't do something about this suffering will only continue and get worse. Along with the population, numbers of malicious individuals are increasing and the governments involved this time are South Korean, they have a strong relationship with the west and only a retard would trust the western government after this.
    I already didn't since well here's a list + why;
    Calendar based on "superman". = primitive
    Forcing mental health drugs into people which do in fact in some cases cause extreme pain and permanent disability to individuals. = Corruption
    Even if they have a lab, they can't do any reaction tests for unique encounters which are common in everyday life.
    And don't think that they don't know any better.
    Uninformed or no decision circumcisions. = primitive and corrupt.
    Lenient sentences for child pornographers, and paedophiles. = corruption
    Lenient sentences for torturers. (What else to you need?)
    Abu Ghraib = corruption
    Forcing legislation using 5000 page documents in conjunction with from Friday to Monday deadlines with none other than the intellect of Donald Trump. 
    So far that's 7 tells the government is corrupted, and this is just the west and no west, outsourcing to South Korea for torture is still unacceptable, nobody with a significant level of smartness is going to believe it's not outsourcing given A, the judicial sentencing, B, the 60,000 perpetrator count and C, these terror acts were broadcast over the internet.
    Furthermore;
    Chinese organ harvesting,
    Russian assassinations,
    Nuclear pollution, (Russia and Britain.)
    Hisashi Ouchi, (A stand out offense)
    If I don't get murdered, kidnapped or tortured which is unlikely if I keep going, I could write a book on just how bad the governments are.
    We're up to 11 or 12 but I'll continue anyway;
    The governments obscene sureness on their rights to cull and/or exterminate other species.
    The declining environmental stability.
    Persecution of Cannabis users.
    Land ownership without having invented any, the earths neutral territory unless somebody can show me someone creating it.
    Voting on which gang is in charge and not on the legislation details, proposals and counter proposals themselves. Yes political parties are just embellished gangs, very corrupt ones.
    Religious individuals having a say in things they really shouldn't, if someone needs day care enough to worship someone/thing else and can't sort themselves out. Why should they have a say in politics, they'd probably believe these corrupt people spew since they believe in a religion, which is an embellished cult.
    Turning penises inside out and claiming the subject is hence forth female.
    There's 19 serious government issues.
    You know they've covered up the worse of it to avoid losing control.
    And to answer a previous question about time's consistency. Time is always there since it's always around so it's usually overlooked but apparently one can use mass to manipulate gravity to manipulate time to an extent.
    And if you think these government issues aren't your problem, consider A, they'll get round to you eventually, B, Consider the possibility of reincarnation meaning they'll get you eventually again, and C they could in fact already have your other half hostage and you're unaware.
         
      
     
     
     
     
     
            
        
     
        
  7. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to CountryBoy in Time Substance Concentration.   
    I would appreciate it if you would define "time substance".
  8. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to CountryBoy in Time Substance Concentration.   
    Okay, so what evidence do you have, or what reason do you have to believe, that time has a "physical consistency"?
  9. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in Is this a hard question?   
    I think the last symbol should have been / for division instead of the percentage sign.
    Then it could be expressed in words as:
    “The four elements of this cardinal set of basic arithmetic functions are addition, subtraction, multiplication and division”
    But I’m not sure why anyone would want to do this?
     
     
     
     
  10. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane got a reaction from Trithinium in Is this a hard question?   
    This is the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and percentage symbols within the notation of a cardinal set... either this is literally gibberish, or it's simply outside my realm of experience. 
  11. Haha
    Anchovyforestbane got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Is this a hard question?   
    This is the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and percentage symbols within the notation of a cardinal set... either this is literally gibberish, or it's simply outside my realm of experience. 
  12. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Your post is rather long, so I will just pick out this one sentence: "So I would say, you can't be a good scientist if you take things as absolutes"
    And I go further and say that you cannot be a scientist at all if you take things as absolutes, and I don't know any actual scientists who do this. I have worked with many scientists throughout my years with the NOAA and they all operate on the principle of following the preponderance of evidence, as I wrote in my earlier posts. I think the OP's question has been fully answered now by multiple people, multiple times but it seems to me he is wanting a specific black & white answer, namely, that our state of science is either perfect or it is bollocks, and will not be satisfied until he gets it. 
    Our state of science is not perfect and it certainly isn't bollocks; it is excellent but it can never be perfect as it is constantly being refined. That is what science is, constant refinement of ideas based on new evidence, and that is what makes science so different from belief.
    Let's see if the OP is finally satisfied or simply repeats the question again and again and again.
  13. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    I am sooo glad to see you back! This forum has been badly in need of a good dose of sanity.
  14. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to AnssiH in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Let me say I completely share the sentiment in the OP. Especially in popularizations of science, the language used is almost always using much more certain terms than is actually warranted, and I think it is damaging to the students of science. And it is not just the language used, often the people teaching the topics are confusing apples with oranges themselves.
    "Scientific philosophy" (a.k.a. "science") originally arose as a response against the unwarranted air of certainty of various religious philosophies. It is, or at least should be, by its very definition, the attitude of preserving doubt always, and being very clear on things we do not or cannot know.
    And let's be clear about this, there are very few things that can be actually known. It is not about how careful research or how many measurements we have done about something, it is about confusing metaphysical aspects of the theories as if they are known things. All scientific theories are ultimately of the form "given X an Y, then Z", and it is the responsibility of the reader to understand in what terms X and Y and "given", and in what terms they are not.
    Spoiler alert; for theories about nature, those starting points are never "given". What we have are our own definitions which are a result of very complex mechanisms, which themselves are also not understood without forming equally uncertain theory. It's a tough nut to crack that one 😉
    So I would say, you can't be a good scientist if you take things as absolutes. At that point you are just grinding other peoples theories, completely unable to see where there are opportunities for paradigm shifts. The more complete your understanding of a theory becomes, the more you become aware of where it can be completely wrong - often in areas that most popularizers claim are completely "known".
    It is laughably easy to find prime examples of this problem. For example, in the video link you gave;
    https://youtu.be/A2JCoIGyGxc?t=157
    "Einstein taught us that space and time are not separate entities, rather they are two components of a bigger idea, called spacetime".
    That assertion is wrong in every possible way. The concept of spacetime is not a requirement for Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not even define it, Minkowski did, as his own ontological interpretation of Special Relativity. Although Einstein used the concept to conceive General Relativity, but also General Relativity does not require the concept, it just happens to use it. It is a mental concept we can use, not a concept we must use.
    Right after there's an assertion: "The speed of light is the same for everyone"
    Also completely wrong. Special Relativity defines a convention for defining simultaneity, in a way where speed of light is to be plotted at the same propagation speed in every inertial frame. That says exactly nothing about what the speed of light actually is, except that it represents the upper bound for our communication speed.
    You see, simultaneity definition is limited by the upper bound of our communication speed - whatever it might be - and our inability to measure that communication speed, without a priori knowledge of what that speed is. And because most people - professionals and students a like - seem to have such a poor grasp at the logical underpinnings of relativity, they tend to become surprised when they first learn that one-way speed of light cannot be measured. They've been told all their life about *conventions*, as if they are absolutes, and they never ever spend the time to think through these issues themselves, in order to actually understand them (I'm the opposite, I hate to just know but not understand things... 😬)
    It's not that difficult topic to figure out - if your world view already defines macroscopic objects as bound by electromagnetic information, is it not expected that their behavior is likely also impacted by perturbations to the propagation of electromagnetic information? That possibility yields the simple fact that you cannot synchronize clocks without making assumptions about one-way speed of light, or making assumptions of how they behave when you move them spatially, neither of which can be answered without already knowing the speed of light.
    The fact that one-way speed of light us fundamentally unknowable thing was very well known fact in the physics community back when Einstein wrote the paper about Special Relativity. One of the very few things we can know with certainty is that there is uncertainty. You wouldn't believe how many people fight me about that... And in this case people understood exactly why there is this unknowable one-way speed of light. It was so well and widely understood, that this little factoid is seldom even mentioned in the physics papers of that time. I believe it is mentioned in the original paper for Special Relativity though. But, tragically, nowadays this important fact is usually completely omitted from presentations of Special Relativity, because everyone confuses the theory with its most popular ontological interpretation.
    So we have people acting all surprised when they find out:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k
    Since I got started, let me spell out the actual history the way you've probably never heard it before.
    1. The expectation that Michelson & Morley experiment would yield a measurement of aether drift is quite unwarranted - macroscopic objects were already seen as collections of microscopic elements bound by electromagnetic forces. What reason is there to expect that macroscopic objects would be completely unaffected by perturbations to electromagnetic propagation?
    2. On the null result, Hendrik Lorentz developed his theory of how the macroscopic objects might be perturbed. The crux of his theory is Lorentz Transformation for describing the object perturbations. Of course, since all measurement devices are subject to the same perturbations, these perturbations are not directly observable (all of our devices are inside of our reality, we can't place our device outside of reality to observe it)
    3. Since the perturbations are not observable by natural observers, Einstein suggested a clock synchronization convention where each inertial frame uses their own basis for electromagnetic propagation speeds. His theory is mathematically identical to Lorentz's theory - that's why it's still called Lorentz Transformation to this day. The difference between Special Relativity, and Lorentz aether theory is philosophical. We do not know and cannot know if one is more true than another, it's just that some people find one theory subjectively "more pleasing" than the other.
    That's right, Lorentz aether theory is exactly the same as Special Relativity, with the only difference that you must arbitrarily choose one inertial frame as representing the true instantaneous state of reality - which is bothersome since there's no mechanism to actually establish a "true" one.
    Pretty much all the aspects that are usually presented as "proven by Special Relativity", are actually just aspects it defines as a convention, and the "measurements" to validate them over Lorentz theory are just acts of using that convention 🤦‍♂️
    I will take one step further and say that, philosophically the ontological idea of relativistic spacetime is not at all as elegant as some people make it out to be. Examining the actual philosophical difference between Special Relativity and Lorentz aether theory, note that where Lorentz' theory assumes that we are simply unable to measure the objective instantaneous state of reality, Special Relativity - if taken as an ontological claim as oppose to just a physics definition - implies there is no objective instantaneous state of reality. Which would require reality is static, and our mind is not part of it (to reconcile with the fact that our experience is not static, our mind would have to operate on some kind of transcendental meta-reality... which one is more ad-hoc exactly?).
    So, in my opinion really what we are dealing with here is physicists trying to be philosophers and failing really miserably and embarrassingly, to their own harm, and to the harm of their students. Almost every time they use the word "know", it makes me want to make a meme picture of "know - you keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means"
    But, I'm sure the smartest ones realize this and work harder to avoid making ontological implications. They avoid saying exactly the click-baity nonsense that physics popularizers live on. I think Einstein was like that, but lesser minds keep taking the concepts he uses as if they are ontological arguments.

    Oh, one more related example since you brought it up. You asked about faster than light travel. Whenever you wonder about the degree of certainty of assertions like that, what you really must focus on is to form proper understanding of why people make those assertions. That is the only way to find out what they actually mean by it, and to what extend it is true or not. What we know is that, given the ontology of Special Relativity, faster than light travel would imply broken causality. Or perhaps more aptly, it would imply new basis for simultaneity definition. (Yes, there are also connections to the definition of energy via the definition of time, but really the reasoning gets circular there so it's not that interesting one to use as a "why" explanation).
    On the other hand, given Lorentz theory's implied ontology, FTL does not seem as fundamentally impossible at all, because there would be an actually meaningful state to reality beyond our ability to observe it - causality would not become broken.
    So here is an example of a door being closed possibly pre-maturely, if a scientist does not understand that Special Relativity is just a philosophical spin on an Aether theory, and instead assume it is somehow proving the existence of spacetime. Instantaneous communication method would imply broken causality in Special Relativity, which can cause people to stop looking. But in Aether theory version it would just imply ability to measure objective simultaneity of the universe, beyond our electromagnetic propagation speed barrier.

    And btw, it seems to me - with fairly high degree of certainty - that the main reason people have such a hard time to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity is that they are far too stuck on that one ontological story that is not actually even required by General Relativity. Spacetime as temporally dynamic element creates infinite regression for time relationships. But you know, since everyone thinks they "know" that GR "spacetime" is "known", they just keep using that ill-formed concept 🤷‍♂️
    Sorry this post is so long, but I could go on and on for hours about more example of this stuff... 😄
  15. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Moontanman in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    I am saying they require things that might work out mathematically but the reality of things like negative mass is unknown and there is little reason to think they exist. 

    In science everything is subject to new information coming in, science is a self correcting process, it becomes ever more precise but will never, by design, reach a 100% conclusion. This "design" is what allows science to be self correcting and moves it closer and closer towards reality.  
  16. Confused
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Trithinium in What does this mean?   
    how can you explain this in words?
    (+, -, *, %)
    Can you write this out in words please?
  17. Confused
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Trithinium in Is this a hard question?   
    how can you explain this in words?
    (+, -, *, %)
    Can you write this out in words please?
  18. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to sluggo in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Stupid implies foolishness. A better word is ignorant (not aware of).
    The mind is an amazing organ and as mentioned it allows us to form concepts that represent the unknown world with a high degree of accuracy.
    Without light, the universe is invisible to us, we only know it indirectly.
  19. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to sluggo in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    OceanBreeze;
    Yes, the entire universe has to be the closed system.
    The two laws of thermodynamics are too simple.
    Science is still discovering the universe and its parts are more complicated than originally thought.
    Where is the evidence that after 14 billion yrs, the universe is running down?
    Chaos is disorder, yet has a range of energy, and a lattice of particles each with uniform energy has a high degree of order. It seems entropy and order have an uncertain relationship.
    Shuffling a new deck of cards supposedly puts them in a state of disorder, but what does that actually mean, when the 'order' is by definition?
    Science is too young to completely understand the universe with its abstractions.
    Like viewing the last microsecond of a movie and knowing the entire story.
     
     
  20. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Moontanman in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    This site has fallen on hard times I see! Do you not know what a theory is in scientific context? In science a theory is as good as it gets, or to use your terminology as "solid" as it gets. In science the word you might be looking for is hypothesis but theories are solid, from heliocentric theory to evolutionary theory they are the best explanation we have for explaining a phenomenon. 

    Yes, faster than light is impossible, an object cannot be accelerated to a speed equal to or in excess of the speed of light in a vacuum. It must be remembered that the speed of light limit is not really about light but about information. Information cannot be exchanged faster than light, this includes physical objects. 

    Schemes to exceed the speed of light like warp drives and wormholes require other impossibilities like negative mass.  
  21. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    The second law doesn't claim that the entropy of all parts of a system must always increase. Rather, the second law says that the total entropy of an entire closed system must always increase. Often, the biggest challenge is to correctly determine what the entire system consists of.
    For example, the gas cloud collapsing under the force of gravity, forming stars and galaxies, does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The total entropy must always increase when you consider the entire system. It is true that stars have more structural order than the original cloud of gas, but as the cloud collapses the kinetic energy of the gas particles increases and the cloud gets hotter and radiates away a tremendous amount of heat. This radiation gets stronger the more organized the particles become which is most evident when stars are formed. When you add up all of that heat and light radiating into another part of space, you find that the total entropy of the entire system has increased.
    As for living things, once again it is necessary to define the total system to see that living things actually cause an increase in total entropy. It is true living things  reduce the local entropy in one place by creating structure such as DNA, protein, bone etc. inside the organism, but all this local entropy decrease comes at the expense of a larger increase in the global entropy, caused by such things as feeding on other living organisms and breaking down those structures during digestion, then excreting waste products and heat during respiration. When all the bookkeeping is done, we find that total entropy is always increased.
     
  22. Confused
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Omnifarious in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    I find this comment interesting. When I looked into entropy I was told that it was one way, not because that's it's an absolute but because that the overwhelming odds of it. That the only way for things to move towards order is for intelligent life to move it themselves. I didn't know that new galaxies can be formed and even now I'm still having a hard time believing this.
  23. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to sluggo in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Omnifarious;
    As long as there is gravity and large clouds of gas, stars are formed (see Hubble photos).
    Genetic code produces plant, animal, and human life forms. Chemistry forms compounds from simpler elements.
    These processes in place produce more order, while there is decay and cooling.
     
  24. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to sluggo in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Omnifarious;
     
    [Those people trust in the scientific method to explain the world we live in, based on limited success. They can lose perspective when predicting based on current knowledge. An example would be TOE, a 'theory of everything'. How do we know science has experienced or is aware of everything? As you mentioned, new things are discovered continuously. Judging by history, we can never be in that condition.
    The end of the universe via 'increase in entropy' (all forms of energy ultimately converting to heat) assumes a continuing trend without anything new and ignores the decrease in entropy via plant and animal generation, star and galaxy formation, etc.
    Tomorrow's weather is more important.
    Nothing like a good dictionary!
    'philosopher'
    14th century. Formed from Old French philosophe via Latin from Greek philosophos , literally “lover of knowledge,” from sophia “learning, wisdom.”
    'philosophy'
    examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
    Just from these definitions, we can define 'science' as philosophy augmented with a system of measurement, its verification tool.
    The next analogy:
    A person attempts to teach his pet dog how television works. A station converts video and audio into em signals, transmits them through the air to devices that convert the signals back to video and audio. The dog watches his owners mouth make sounds, but doesn't hear anything familiar. The dog does not have the ability to understand abstract concepts of a complex nature.Replace the dog with the person and the person with a super intelligent being.The being would explain how the universe came into existence, but the person would lack the fundamental concepts to understand, since they would be foreign to any previous knowledge.
    The human mind has limited abilities, and must rely on theories. Theories are based on postulates that are assumed to be true without proof. Thus all theories are conditional and open to revision. They are not on tablets that are carried down from high places.
    That the ground is solid, based on the chemistry of atoms bonding to one another is factual and reassuring to the general public, but conditional depending on the situation, such as the earthquake scenario.
    Newton's ideas were sufficient for his era, but limited. With the discovery of finite light speed, and no absolute reference frame, Relativity explained physical phenomena in areas where Newton couldn't. Experiments revealed light speed was constant and independent of its source making it unique and different from matter in motion.]
     
  25. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in Global Warming   
    Hello KarenLee and welcome to Hypography Science Forum.
    While I do agree with you that humans do need to “look into their actions and help to take care of our planet”, I do not agree with your claims that “the sea levels are at an all time high” and  “Green house gases which trap heat in the atmosphere is at a high time”.
    During the last interglacial, (the Eemian period) which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago, temperatures were about 2-4 °C higher than today and sea levels were about 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today. During that time most of the Greenland ice sheet was gone and ice at both the poles was much less than today.
    By comparison, the present interglacial period, the Holocene, is fairly mild with relatively stable temperatures. There is considerable uncertainty if this current interglacial has already passed through its peak warming period or the peak has not yet been reached.
    Whatever the cause, the climate is warming and no rational person can dispute that. The question is about how much of the current climate trend is actually anthropogenic, and how much is due to the normal cyclical trends which have been going on for many hundreds of thousands of years, long before there was any human influence on climate.
    I personally prefer to keep an open mind on this question and evaluate the evidence without any bias.
    As for CO2, for most of the Cenozoic Era (66 mya to today) carbon dioxide would have been measured in many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of ppm higher than today.

     
     
     
    Keep in mind that, rather than being a toxic pollutant, as some alarmists portray it, CO2 is vital for all life on earth. Indeed, at a level of 150 ppm photosynthesis shuts down and pretty much all multicellular life would go extinct.
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...