|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 3:40:08 GMT
You have. I'm sorry I'm not seeing a difference. So that's your excuse for not following the scientific method. I didn't say religion proved anything, I haven't said it recently anyway. I said science never disproved anything in religion. A lot could happen in 4.5 billion years and all the evidence disappear. I didn't ignore anything. I explained to you already that the percentage of change per year is statistically insignificant and that in twenty (or twenty five) years way too many things change way too much for anyone to claim any one factor is responsible for anything. You not only failed the science, you failed statistical analysis, and you still don't know the difference. Why not? It's because you have too much faith in science. No, I'd just have to believe that you never met any, which is rather obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 3:41:38 GMT
Ah, so your position is faith based. Little wonder. Hint for you Arlon : Faith is not a path to truth. Not at all. I think he's suggesting that your position ("There is no such omniscient point of view. There is no one correct measure of time.") is faith based. That's Arlon's whole shtick; to try to convince people that "faith in science" is the the equivalent of "faith in religion." He's basically argued that since none of us have the ability to directly test Relativity ourselves, we're just taking what science says about it on "faith." I've been trying to explain to him how these "faiths" are not remotely comparable. Oh look! Someone has faith and didn't realize it! How could something like that happen?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 3:48:42 GMT
Ah, so your position is faith based. No, yours is.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 28, 2018 4:39:42 GMT
You have. I'm sorry I'm not seeing a difference. So that's your excuse for not following the scientific method. I didn't say religion proved anything, I haven't said it recently anyway. I said science never disproved anything in religion. A lot could happen in 4.5 billion years and all the evidence disappear. I didn't ignore anything. I explained to you already that the percentage of change per year is statistically insignificant and that in twenty (or twenty five) years way too many things change way too much for anyone to claim any one factor is responsible for anything. You not only failed the science, you failed statistical analysis, and you still don't know the difference. Why not? It's because you have too much faith in science. No, I'd just have to believe that you never met any, which is rather obvious. 1. How? Where? 2. How can you not see the difference? An experiment is done. It follows the scientific method. It's published in a journal. It's peer-reviewed and other scientists agree it followed the scientific method. The results are published. I can't do the experiment myself, so I have "faith" that it followed the scientific method and its conclusions are correct. How does my having "faith" that the experiment/study followed the scientific method have any bearing on whether it followed the scientific method? 3. I'm not a scientist. I'm not doing experiments. It's not my duty to follow the scientific method. I'm a rationalist who understands the rationality of the scientific method and therefore believes scientists when they universally say they know something. The only alternative is to believe they're all lying and part of a conspiracy. 4. Then how can religion and science be "equally likely to be wrong" if religion has never been proven right? 5. Where are you getting 4.5 billion years for Exodus and the Biblical flood? And that claim is pretty much nonsense; any global flood would've left unmistakable evidence no matter how long ago it was; just like any mass exodus that large over that period of time/distance would've left some evidence. You're telling me that we can find evidence about dinosaurs and evidence for extremely small bands of nomadic people but not of the Jewish Egypt exodus even when we know where they were? 6. See, this is just you being vague and handwaving. What in the world that's changed in 25 years could've possibly had any affect on cancer death rates except advances in medical science? 7. So my never having met a physicist/engineer means you can disbelieve Relativity? Lol, Arlon-sequitor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 11:44:05 GMT
Ah, so your position is faith based. Little wonder. Hint for you Arlon : Faith is not a path to truth. Not at all. I think he's suggesting that your position ("There is no such omniscient point of view. There is no one correct measure of time.") is faith based. He's trying, but I've already pointed out that my position is the one that's been solidly confirmed by experimental results, whilst his isn't. So there's no faith involved in my position, only in his. And you've done an excellent job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 11:45:06 GMT
Ah, so your position is faith based. No, yours is. Except that my position is constantly confirmed by experimental evidence, whilst yours is not.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 11:48:04 GMT
There are people who not only are incapable of balancing a chemical equation, they are not even aware they need to balance them. Nevertheless they believe in science. They tarnished the name of science. You appear to believe the name of science cannot be tarnished. You are tarnishing it yourself somewhat even at your distance from it. Perhaps you're in no-true-Scotsman mode. I sympathize, but you need to play fair. If you're going to hold religion accountable for all the silly things its unqualified followers believe, then you need to be held accountable for all the silly things the "followers" of science believe. There are some doozies lately as we see here. Likewise if you're going to disregard the foolish things people believe are science then you owe it to me to disregard the foolish things people believe about god. Either of us could "win" by careful selection of followers of our own side but not the other. No dispassionate judges want to see such an unfair fight. It follows the scientific method. It's published in a journal. It's peer-reviewed and other scientists agree it followed the scientific method. The results are published. I can't do the experiment myself Again with the double standard, are you really not aware that scientists have investigated spiritual phenomena? Can you not list the proofs of the spirit? One of them is extrasensory perception. One of them is speaking in a language the speaker has never studied. Another is psychokinesis, but it is extremely more rare. I've been over this here before at great length. Many of those are easily faked for people who are not firsthand witnesses. If you are a firsthand witness they can be considerably more convincing perhaps even to the point of qualifying as "proof." Now if you can dismiss those phenomena then you owe it to us in the interests of fair play to dismiss the "science" that is also not repeatable. I'm a rationalist who understands the rationality of the scientific method No, you are a believer with a double standard, one for "science" and one for "religion." I'm fairly certain such a double standard is not at all endorsed by any real scientists. ... religion has never been proven right ... any global flood would've left unmistakable evidence ... As with amateurs of any walk, some of the things you say do not deserve a response. What in the world that's changed in 25 years could've possibly had any affect on cancer death rates except advances in medical science? Better and fresher foods, working less hard, less exposure to foul weather, all these and more could reasonably lead to better health and progress against cancer. Working less hard is especially interesting because the improvement in the health of males is slightly better than for females, logically because the females were already working less hard. So my never having met a physicist/engineer means you can disbelieve Relativity? Lol, Arlon-sequitor. You really need to learn how science works. I'm not kidding here.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 11:56:53 GMT
Except that my position is constantly confirmed by experimental evidence, whilst yours is not. You have no evidence yourself. You just believe others do. There is no need to be ashamed. Faith is not the terrible thing you think it is. It saves people from the trouble of testing bad ideas. That is when people have faith in things that are good and useful it can be a wonderful thing. Much faith in science lately has led to a rather ridiculous world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 12:12:44 GMT
Except that my position is constantly confirmed by experimental evidence, whilst yours is not. You have no evidence yourself. You just believe others do. Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 12:22:14 GMT
You have no evidence yourself. You just believe others do. Wrong. If you have your own evidence you haven't done a good job of presenting it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 12:33:00 GMT
If you have your own evidence you haven't done a good job of presenting it. But what would be the point of presenting it to you, Arlon? You have to do the experiments yourself, right? Or are you a hypocrite?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 12:40:11 GMT
If you have your own evidence you haven't done a good job of presenting it. But what would be the point of presenting it to you, Arlon? You have to do the experiments yourself, right? Or are you a hypocrite? What I certainly do not have is a double standard, as I explained here.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 28, 2018 12:48:30 GMT
For once I agree with Arlon. As explained in the Wikipedia article, something doesn't make sense with time dilation between the description of it and what's actually observed. Either the clocks on the orbiting body should appear to move slower to the people on Earth and the clocks on Earth should appear to move slower from the perspective of the orbiting body, or only the clocks on Earth should appear to move slower, because of the second, gravitational field explanation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 13:02:07 GMT
But what would be the point of presenting it to you, Arlon? You have to do the experiments yourself, right? Or are you a hypocrite? What I certainly do not have is a double standard, as I explained here. Yes, you do. You're a massive hypocrite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 13:14:31 GMT
For once I agree with Arlon. As explained in the Wikipedia article, something doesn't make sense with time dilation between the description of it and what's actually observed. Either the clocks on the orbiting body should appear to move slower to the people on Earth and the clocks on Earth should appear to move slower from the perspective of the orbiting body If we were only considering motion, that's exactly what would happen. If we factor in gravity, that's exactly what does happen. GPS clocks run faster that clocks on the ground because the gravitational dilation effect is larger than the motion effect.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 28, 2018 13:26:11 GMT
For once I agree with Arlon. As explained in the Wikipedia article, something doesn't make sense with time dilation between the description of it and what's actually observed. Either the clocks on the orbiting body should appear to move slower to the people on Earth and the clocks on Earth should appear to move slower from the perspective of the orbiting body If we were only considering motion, that's exactly what would happen. If we factor in gravity, that's exactly what does happen. GPS clocks run faster that clocks on the ground because the gravitational dilation effect is larger than the motion effect. Re motion, they're both inertial reference frames, both stationary relative to their own inertial reference frame, while both are in motion when looked at from the other inertial reference frame. It's certainly not the case that one is absolutely stationary and the other absolutely in motion. Motion is relative. If we're saying that the GPS clocks run faster, then that's consistent with the description re the gravity part. It wouldn't be consistent only with the relativistic inertial frame of reference part.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 14:01:35 GMT
If we were only considering motion, that's exactly what would happen. If we factor in gravity, that's exactly what does happen. GPS clocks run faster that clocks on the ground because the gravitational dilation effect is larger than the motion effect. Re motion, they're both inertial reference frames, both stationary relative to their own inertial reference frame, while both are in motion when looked at from the other inertial reference frame. It's certainly not the case that one is absolutely stationary and the other absolutely in motion. Motion is relative. If we're saying that the GPS clocks run faster, then that's consistent with the description re the gravity part. It wouldn't be consistent only with the relativistic inertial frame of reference part. Perhaps this is the reason college professors do not accept Wikipedia as a dependable source. Why is it necessary to factor in the motion effects?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 28, 2018 14:09:16 GMT
Re motion, they're both inertial reference frames, both stationary relative to their own inertial reference frame, while both are in motion when looked at from the other inertial reference frame. It's certainly not the case that one is absolutely stationary and the other absolutely in motion. Motion is relative. If we're saying that the GPS clocks run faster, then that's consistent with the description re the gravity part. It wouldn't be consistent only with the relativistic inertial frame of reference part. Perhaps this is the reason college professors do not accept Wikipedia as a dependable source. Why is it necessary to factor in the motion effects? Well, factoring in the motion effects would be of concern to us here on Earth, but the reverse of those motion effects should be true from the reference frame of the satellite. I don't know if that's experimentally the case.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 15:23:08 GMT
Perhaps this is the reason college professors do not accept Wikipedia as a dependable source. Why is it necessary to factor in the motion effects? Well, factoring in the motion effects would be of concern to us here on Earth, but the reverse of those motion effects should be true from the reference frame of the satellite. I don't know if that's experimentally the case. Pardon me a moment while I go on a tangent and sing the praises of digital technology. Digital technology is far more precise than analog technology because the number of pulses is in fact an integer. That makes the transmission of data more certain than for example trying to measure the duration or amplitude of a pulse. Of course some data will involve quantities that are not integers. However those can be transmitted in a floating point format that is the same on the transmitting and receiving ends because of digital encoding and the precision of digital information. Something most people do not realize is that "adjusting" a clock to compensate for relativity is an analog, not a digital, operation. No matter how precise or large your count of pulses, the time it takes to receive (or count) them is a piece of analog data. The precision of frequency counters depends entirely on how they are calibrated, usually the comparison of two analog events. When reporters say that 10.22999999543 MHz is used instead of 10.23 MHz on satellite clocks people might be picturing a technician turning a variable resistor so that his readout shows the the number that relativity predicted and voila establishing relativity. That is not likely what happens. Rather the technician turns the knob until the system works. What exact frequency that is depends entirely on how well the frequency counter is calibrated. As I just noted that is an analog measurement. Expecting analog measurements to be as precise as digital measurements just because some digital data is involved is not realistic. This brings me back to my original observation. There may or may not be relativity, but measuring it in normal events is beyond the precision of existing equipment.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 28, 2018 15:25:59 GMT
Well, factoring in the motion effects would be of concern to us here on Earth, but the reverse of those motion effects should be true from the reference frame of the satellite. I don't know if that's experimentally the case. Pardon me a moment while I go on a tangent and sing the praises of digital technology. Digital technology is far more precise than analog technology because the number of pulses is in fact an integer. I start disagreeing with you there. It's probably not worth pointing out, though. I disagree with you far more than I agree with you, when I've bothered to read your posts. That's why I thought it was noteworthy that I agreed with you earlier.
|
|