How did the church make a comeback

Pages: 1... 89101112
my counter to your point was that in einsteins time, black holes also did not have anything to with reality as he himself imagined.
Except they do. What I said was
that doesn't mean that the conclusions you draw from such a line of reasoning will have anything to do with reality
"Mean" as in "imply".
You're free to extrapolate all you want, but that by itself says nothing about how the universe actually works. You can create all sorts of mathematical models to talk about what time before the Big Bang, but if they're untestable then you're just doing it for the sake of itself.
Like I said before, metaphysics is for tossers.

if we conclude that the unverse just sprang into existence from the big bang with nothing else influencing it, then we are in the realm of meta physics.
thus it would be more logical to conclude that something must have started off the process
Neither is more logical than the other. We don't have enough information to conclude anything.

what started the process of the multi-verse?
we can then use mathematics to yet again define something else that would explain what started off the multi-verse, but this would then lead to the next question ...

so we cannot with mathematics explain the ultimate question of what started it ALL.
Mathematically, it's possible to define a backwards divergent process by establishing a point previous to which all operations performed on it are reversible. For example, imagine an infinite grid representing the state of a cellular automaton. Let's say you have particles A and B, that at given time meet, annihilate, and start a non-reversible subprocess, but before then move in a straight line towards each other. Such a process wouldn't need to have ever started, because every state has a well-defined previous state from which to define the next state.
So we could on logical grounds reject the premise of the question, that things started at all.

Depends on definition of theory and time of reference. If you were to ask a scientist from say 1920 about about experiments done in zero gravity he would only have theories.

A scientist from today will be able to give you facts.
They'll be able to give evidence for a theory, yes. That's not proof, though, and to say otherwise is to incur in inductive reasoning.
You're free to extrapolate all you want, but that by itself says nothing about how the universe actually works.

When GR was developed, it was used to predict certain models where the outcome could be measured, hence tested. GR however made many other predictions that could not be verified/tested at the time.
It even makes predictions that cannot be verified/tested by todays standards yet.
Before black holes were discovered to exist via indirect observation techniques, many scientist (if not all in general) considered black holes only to be a consequence of the mathematics of GR and not real.
By your reasoning then your would incur that the topic of black holes before they were observed was metaphysics similar to your claim that the prediction made by string theory concerning the existence of a multi-verse is metaphysics.

If GR were to predict the existence of a multi-verse would you be more inclined to accpet it due to it being model on a system you find more natural as opposed to the 26 dimension system presented in string theory?

To me the two systems are like talking about the cartesian system coordinate in math and the spherical coordinate system. Both can represent the same thing only in different formats. Only difference is that string theory can represent whatever GR can but the converse is not true.



Your example of the infinite grid is like claiming infinity exists in reality by pointing on a number line and moving in one direction forever.

Unfortunately with the primordial atom we have an enclosed space, and a very tiny one as well.

So even if we assume some type of sub atomic particles or fields to have existed within this atom, such that their particle motion or field intersection motion was in perfect harmony (not to disrupt each other causing deviation from normal cycle), so as to co-exist in perfect harmony "forever" before point of big bang, then something must have disrupted their usual cycle(s) to cause such an effect.


They'll be able to give evidence for a theory, yes. That's not proof, though, and to say otherwise is to incur in inductive reasoning.


Not really sure why you would say that. Would you not consider the time before man broke the sound barier that theories about it existed and the ones now accepted as the "valid" ones were proven to be true when the sound barier was broken?

We also accept the big bang theory, yet this too is an unproven/(ambiguously observable). Consider the following:
Assume we have a species living on say Venus.
This species (say X) lives only for a very short time (say 2 seconds).
Now suppose X comes into existence near a time when the planets of our solar system are relatively lined up.
X then starts observing the planets of our solar system and eventually plot a chart about them similar in concept to the one plotted by Hubble.
Since X started observing the planets when they were all closely lined up, there next set of observations will lead them to concur that most planets are moving away from each other and so conclude that our solar system must be expanding.
If X only survives as a species for 2 years then they will never know that the planets will again line up as close as they first observerd it.

So the twist comes in as:
How do we humans not know that similar was not also true for Hubbles observations and that the galaxies he observed to be moving away from each other will eventually recycle to more or les their initial position he first observed.

If one considers this posibility (that Hubbles observations could have been incorrectly interpretted), then the extrapolation made by GR to predict that the universe must have started from the primordial atom is also then unsupported by any observable means nd can also be classed as metaphysics.
closed account (1yR4jE8b)
3 words.

Microwave.
Background.
Radiation.
I have been watching religious videos this weekend - Ayrton Senna F1.
What exactly is your point, SIK. Are you saying that current theories may be wrong? We know this. Science itself relies on falsification for progress. There's no need for you to make up ridiculous thought-experiments about a civilisation on Venus or any other such.

However, if all you have is "it might be wrong" don't be surprised when everyone instead decides to go with the idea that has the backing of experiment and theory (proper theory, in the scientific sense of the word, rather than a hypothesis), rather than your idea of "it might be wrong, although I don't have any serious alternatives".
darkestfright wrote (much earlier):
Yeah well, put your money where your mouth is then. Just because you disagree with something because it doesn't make sense to you as a concept, doesn't mean it's not true. The Universe is the way it is, it doesn't give a crap what you "think".


First, similar to what helios said: I am expressing my opinion about a theory. I am proposing a different hypothesis.

Second, to reiterate, my opinion is about special relativity, not general relativity.

Now I offer this knowing full well that it could be comprehensively shot down, but it is just an alternative idea.

Here is an analogy that was expressed as a way of explanation of Einstein's time relativity paper which goes like this:

Imagine an object travelling along the positive x axis (vector A), at the speed of light. It "fires" a highly polarised light beam parallel to the positive y axis (Vector B) . Adding the 2 vectors gives the resultant hypotenuse with a length of square root 2. Einstein says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (from the conclusion of his paper), so the time must be made relative to accommodate this.

Some people might say that the analogy is bad, but if you look at Einstein's paper it fits.

As for my reasons here goes:

What if the idea of adding the 2 vector A & B doesn't apply in this situation because vectors A & B are independent of each other? The light starts at it's origin point and continues on it's vector B independent of vector A. It is like the light creates a disturbance in the medium, at a particular point, then the light continues on it 's direction from there, independent of anything else.

One analogy might be of a satellite orbiting a planet at an altitude of 20,000 km with a speed of 4,000 m/s. The planet has no atmosphere or anything that might cause refraction, or any other effect. The satellite can fire a highly polarised laser beam directly down towards the centre of the planet. The laser is so highly polarised that it can only be detected on the planet if the position of the detecting device is within 1 metre of the position where the laser beam hits the surface of the planet. The orbit of the satellite is such that it passes directly over the position of the detecting device. If the laser is to be detected, should it be fired when it is directly overhead, or sometime before that to allow for the addition of the vectors for the speed of the satellite and the speed of the laser beam?

Another more simple analogy might involve falling dominoes. There are 2 lines of dominoes (A & B) arranged at intersecting angles to each other. Line B starts part way along line A. The falling dominoes in Line A causes the falling of dominoes in Line B to start. The direction and speed of Line A is independent of what happens in Line B.

My idea is a bit counter-intuitive (By no means as much as Einstein's), because it seems natural to add the vectors. It also goes against Einstein, because he was saying there is no need to have a medium.
However, it might help explain some things like a light moving at velocity v. One might think naively that the velocity of the light is now v + c, but it isn't - it is still c. My idea might also provide a rational explanation, as opposed to the very counter-intuitive idea of time relativity.

Some other problems I have with the special relativity paper are:

1. The paper gives equations in terms of observed time, not real time. It does not seem to account for the difference between these. I guess that is what the Lorentz transformation is for. In my mind it doesn't mean that time relativity is right.

2. Simultaneity. If 2 clocks are synchronised within their levels of accuracy, and are not affected by the physical environment or other factors such as gravity, then 1 clock is taken to another location, and events take place when the time shown on the 2 clocks is the same - then why would these events not be simultaneous? Of course it is a different matter if one is observing the clocks from a distance away, because of the time lag.

There was an experiment done where 2 atomic clocks were synchronised on earth, then one was put on a satellite for 2 years, then brought back to earth - where it was found to be 50ms different to the earthbound one. This is cited as an example of time relativity because of the high speed of the satellite is enough to alter time for that clock. In my mind it is not enough to say the time shown by the clock was different because of one Einstein's equations - there has to be a physical reason for why it is different. Maybe the clock is affected by it's environment, or the lack of gravity.

Any way, I am waiting for the barrage / storm of argument / ridicule against what I have said. It is just an idea - if I learn something then that is great.
Last edited on
Any way, I am waiting for the barrage / storm of argument / ridicule against what I have said.

Not necessary. Special relativity is simple and easy to understand and follows logically from the observable, experimental evidence that measurement of the speed of light will be the same, no matter how fast you are travelling. That's it.

there has to be a physical reason for why it is different.
It's how the universe works. The flow of time is not a constant everywhere.
Your arguments seems to be that because you don't understand how the universe works, it's wrong (don't take this as any kind of personal attack, please - I see this argument a lot). That's not really going to get you very far.

My idea might also provide a rational explanation, as opposed to the very counter-intuitive idea of time relativity.
Experiment has been done. Experiment supports special relativity. Special relativity is correct as far as we are able to test it, which is very far indeed. In the words of Feynman,
It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.


if I learn something then that is great.

If there's anything to take away from this, it's that your intuition will lie to you as soon as you get outside the very limited set of circumstances in which you live. Anything involving high energy, low energy, great distance, really tiny distances, fast speeds, really tiny things, really big things, anything you don't interact with on a daily basis - your intuition cannot be trusted. All you can trust is experimental evidence and mathematics.
Last edited on
Isaac Asimov wrote:
I believe that only scientists can understand the universe. It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.
Before black holes were discovered to exist via indirect observation techniques, many scientist (if not all in general) considered black holes only to be a consequence of the mathematics of GR and not real.
By your reasoning then your would incur that the topic of black holes before they were observed was metaphysics similar to your claim that the prediction made by string theory concerning the existence of a multi-verse is metaphysics.
Again, the difference being that relativity is testable and falsifiable.

If GR were to predict the existence of a multi-verse would you be more inclined to accpet it due to it being model on a system you find more natural as opposed to the 26 dimension system presented in string theory?
I can't answer such a vague question. It's not about what a theory but how it says it.

Unfortunately with the primordial atom we have an enclosed space, and a very tiny one as well.

So even if we assume some type of sub atomic particles or fields to have existed within this atom, such that their particle motion or field intersection motion was in perfect harmony (not to disrupt each other causing deviation from normal cycle), so as to co-exist in perfect harmony "forever" before point of big bang, then something must have disrupted their usual cycle(s) to cause such an effect.
Silly you. I was describing a mathematical system. How could I refer to such high level objects as atoms that I hadn't even defined in the context of the automaton yet?
A glider from Conway's Game of Life would be an example of the kind of particle I was referring to.

Not really sure why you would say that. Would you not consider the time before man broke the sound barier that theories about it existed and the ones now accepted as the "valid" ones were proven to be true when the sound barier was broken?
No. I would say that the ones that still exist haven't been falsified yet.

We also accept the big bang theory, yet this too is an unproven/(ambiguously observable). Consider the following:
Assume we have a species living on say Venus.
This species (say X) lives only for a very short time (say 2 seconds).
Now suppose X comes into existence near a time when the planets of our solar system are relatively lined up.
X then starts observing the planets of our solar system and eventually plot a chart about them similar in concept to the one plotted by Hubble.
Since X started observing the planets when they were all closely lined up, there next set of observations will lead them to concur that most planets are moving away from each other and so conclude that our solar system must be expanding.
If X only survives as a species for 2 years then they will never know that the planets will again line up as close as they first observerd it.

So the twist comes in as:
How do we humans not know that similar was not also true for Hubbles observations and that the galaxies he observed to be moving away from each other will eventually recycle to more or les their initial position he first observed.

If one considers this posibility (that Hubbles observations could have been incorrectly interpretted), then the extrapolation made by GR to predict that the universe must have started from the primordial atom is also then unsupported by any observable means nd can also be classed as metaphysics.
You're distorting my words.
I was talking about linear extrapolations and other forms of reasoning based on unjustified over-generalization. For example, "time appears to be infinite forwards, therefore is must also be infinite backwards".
The predictions made by relativity are based on sound logic. "We have this set of equations that define relativity, therefore, if relativity is true, anything we can derive from these equations must also be true. By modus tollens, if any of them are not, relativity is false."
Your arguments seems to be that because you don't understand how the universe works, it's wrong. That's not really going to get you very far.


Not at all, I am offering a different view, with the possibility that something different to the current thinking might be feasible. That is quite different to saying the existing thinking is wrong.

there has to be a physical reason for why it is different.


You partially quoted me there, what I said was:

TheIdeasMan wrote:
In my mind it is not enough to say the time shown by the clock was different because of one Einstein's equations - there has to be a physical reason for why it is different.


So what is your argument? Should there be a physical reason as to why the clock was different, or should we just accept that one of Einstein's equations is the reason?

I wasn't arguing about the speed of light, I was putting an alternative view against the relativity of time.

Edit: @Moschops, don't worry I am not seeing this as a personal attack.

I also realise that it's me with my little idea versus all the scientists and all the scientific evidence. Normally I am all for the scientific method, but in this particular area, I am yet to be convinced.

I would be interested to read some experiment results about time relativity.
Last edited on
I am offering a different view

I read your view. It's not different at all; it's not even a view. It's you asking some questions about some things you don't understand, which is fine and how it should be (although if you took the time to actually learn SR first, you wouldn't need to ask these things, and the fact that you're asking these things without an understanding of SR undermines your credibility significantly). There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not a different view.

Should there be a physical reason as to why the clock was different, or should we just accept that one of Einstein's equations is the reason?

Einstein's equations are just a description of how the universe works. This is what we have. It's the universe we are in. If you're looking for a "physical" reason like a particle, or some kind of magic time-substance, you'll be disappointed. You're taking your intuition that everything happens because physical things interact with other physical things, and trying to apply it to something completely inappropriate.

I'll answer this one, though:
If the laser is to be detected, should it be fired when it is directly overhead, or sometime before that to allow for the addition of the vectors for the speed of the satellite and the speed of the laser beam?
If you want the light to reach a point on the planet, you'll have to fire the laser before the planet is in place. Light does not travel instantaneously (although, of course, light does not experience the flow of time, as it is travelling at the speed of light - this is where Einstein started one of his leaps of genius; by imagining how the universe looks to a photon).

I also realise that it's me with my little idea
What idea? You've suggested adding vectors?
I would be interested to read some experiment results about time relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
Test after test after test after test, from the quantum scale upwards.

Let go your intuitions. You can trust maths, and you can trust experiment. Everything else and everyone else takes a distant second. Certainly me included. You can do this yourself, or at least follow the maths along. Start from the experimental evidence that the measured speed of light is always the same, and follow the maths. What's particularly wonderful about SR from a pedagogical stance is that the maths is very simple, but perfectly illustrates the disconnect between everyday intuition and reality.
Last edited on
What idea? You've suggested adding vectors?


Then you misunderstand what I said. I was suggesting NOT TO ADD VECTORS. I was talking about the independence of the 2 vectors. Adding of vectors is what Einstein does, and is fundamentally different to my idea.

The laser / planet analogy wasn't a good one, because of the rotation of the planet and it's orbit around a sun. Which might be the reason for your answer.

The domino analogy is much easier.

I understand what you are saying about math & experiments. I will need to read through the experiments in your link.

If you're looking for a "physical" reason like a particle, or some kind of magic time-substance, you'll be disappointed. You're taking your intuition that everything happens because physical things interact with other physical things, and trying to apply it to something completely inappropriate.


I can see what you are saying about the non physical interaction in a universal sense, but I was meaning the particular example of the atomic clock. An Atomic Clock is a machine - there has to be a physical reason it's time (on the satellite ) is different to the earthbound clock. The problem for me is that SR was given as the reason. Why should I be disappointed in trying to find, or think of a hypothesis for a physical reason like the different behaviour of the atomic state in an atomic clock.

And is having a physical reason, not part of the scientific method? I mean, one sees something they want to understand, they come up with hypotheses, they do experiments to test the hypotheses, they find one that that works, and do many more experiments to prove that it always works. The very last stage is to understand the physical reasons as to why it works.

Any way it is 02:30AM here, so I am signing off.
An Atomic Clock is a machine - there has to be a physical reason it's time (on the satellite ) is different to the earthbound clock.

There is. It has experienced less time. Literally less time has passed for that clock. It has aged less than the other clock. That is the physical reason.

Why should I be disappointed in trying to find, or think of a hypothesis for a physical reason like the different behaviour of the atomic state in an atomic clock.
Because there is no change in behaviour. The atomic clock behaved exactly as you would expect it to over the time it has experienced. If you were travelling with it, watching it, you wouldn't see any changes because you, too, would experience less time. As far as you are concerned, it did exactly what it should. It did not change at all. Its behaviour is perfectly in accordance with the time it has experienced.

As for your idea to not add vectors... it simply doesn't imply anything at all. The use of vectors at right angles is a mathematical technique to simplify calculations of quantities and resultant directions. They represent measurable values. What are you representing with them? What are you trying to say? You've effectively pointed out that two lines at right angles are, in fact, at right angles, and that a vertical line has a constant horizontal position.
Last edited on
What exactly is your point, SIK. Are you saying that current theories may be wrong? We know this. Science itself relies on falsification for progress.


No my point was to show that the same mechanism helios is using to discredit certain predictions of string ttheory can also be applied to discredit certain predictions made by GR (in particular the big bang).

I accept the theory of the big bang more because the theory of mutliple sources GR and string theory point to that direction and not because of Hubbles observations made. As pointed out in my thought experiment, he could have misinterpertted his observations in the same way species X would have misinterpperetd the motion of the solar system becase they don't have enough time to collect data that would be a true representation of what is really happening.

Again, the difference being that relativity is testable and falsifiable

So how was black holes testable when GR was first developed?
It only became testable when they knew how to test for it.
Before that point they could not infer that black were real.

So again I'm pointing to the fact that before they knew how to test for it, you would have accepted that black holes were nothing else but a consequence of the mathematics in GR.
Now yes, you can say that the theory GR presents about black holes are testable and falsifiable.
GR also predicts the exitence of white holes - these may be just a consequence of the mathematics until scientist find evidnce of one.
Then you will again claim that the predictions GR makes concerning white holes are correct because it is testable, but right now your logic will imply that you claim they do not exist (they are a metaphysics concept).
My logic however claims that they may exist similar to how black holes were found to be real.


Silly you. I was describing a mathematical system.

Silly you for trying to justify a real thing (like the state of the primordial atom) using a purely mathematical concept. Like you said as well - we can use math to define anything but does not mean its going to have relevance to the real world.
So when you keep going on about GR is testable concerning the predictions it makes while string theory isn't and then provide a purely mathematical concept to justify GR's testability then it seems as if you're really being silly.



The predictions made by relativity are based on sound logic. "We have this set of equations that define relativity, therefore, if relativity is true, anything we can derive from these equations must also be true. By modus tollens, if any of them are not, relativity is false."

No, thats not what I'm trying to point out. I'm pointing out that your claims that string theories predictions concerning a multi-verse is false becase its untestable is similar then to claiming GR must be false becase many things are also untestable which it predicts. In actual actual fact they did not have ways to test predictions back in the past made by GR that is testable today.
You then appear to be someone who would not have accepted the concpet of black holes when GR first predicted it, but only accept it in modern times when evidence supporting their existence was discovered.
Last edited on
Not necessary. Special relativity is simple and easy to understand and follows logically from the observable, experimental evidence that measurement of the speed of light will be the same, no matter how fast you are travelling. That's it.

Not it's not. It's one of the most counter intuitive and notoriously difficult to understand theories of all. At one time it was famously suggested that only 3 people in the world, one being Einstein, fully understood it.

Imagine an object travelling along the positive x axis (vector A), at the speed of light. It "fires" a highly polarised light beam parallel to the positive y axis (Vector B) . Adding the 2 vectors gives the resultant hypotenuse with a length of square root 2. Einstein says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light (from the conclusion of his paper), so the time must be made relative to accommodate this.

...

What if the idea of adding the 2 vector A & B doesn't apply in this situation because vectors A & B are independent of each other? The light starts at it's origin point and continues on it's vector B independent of vector A. It is like the light creates a disturbance in the medium, at a particular point, then the light continues on it 's direction from there, independent of anything else.


This is exactly what the mainstream physics community thought before Michaelson and Morely's famous experiment which is said to have disproved the aether.

The consequences of a medium in which light moves through and relative to, is that light would move relative to other objects in the medium, and so the speed of light would be measured differently by different observers.



Last edited on
So how was black holes testable when GR was first developed?
The same way relativity was first tested. Gravitational lensing.

Now yes, you can say that the theory GR presents about black holes are testable and falsifiable.
GR also predicts the exitence of white holes - these may be just a consequence of the mathematics until scientist find evidnce of one.
Correct. We may yet find that relativity is wrong.
It's not easy to prove that something doesn't exist, though. You'd need to come up with a separate hypothesis that contradicts the existence of white holes and then fail to prove it wrong.

Then you will again claim that the predictions GR makes concerning white holes are correct because it is testable
Of course not. That's stupid. Something is correct because it's true, not because it's testable. "My hair is green" is testable and false.
The testability makes it scientific.

right now your logic will imply that you claim they do not exist (they are a metaphysics concept)
My logic implies that we don't know if they exist.
And they are testable (presumably. I don't really feel like looking it up), so they're not metaphysical.

Silly you for trying to justify a real thing (like the state of the primordial atom) using a purely mathematical concept.
I don't know what yuo're talking about. I merely replied to the statement "we cannot with mathematics explain the ultimate question of what started it ALL".
So we could on logical grounds reject the premise of the question, that things started at all.
We don't yet know whether things started, so it's absurd to ask what started them.

then provide a purely mathematical concept to justify GR's testability
So what you're saying is that you didn't just miss my point, but that you actually added things in as you were reading it?

your claims that string theories predictions concerning a multi-verse is false
I've never said anything about the truthness of string theory.

your claims that X is false becase its untestable
I've never structured such a sentence in my whole life.

You then appear to be someone who would not have accepted the concpet of black holes when GR first predicted it, but only accept it in modern times when evidence supporting their existence was discovered.
Are you serious? It's called "scientific skepticism". You remain in a state of doubt about the truthness of a statement until evidence is found, and then you try to find flaws in the evidence.

So yes, I would say I require evidence to accept something as true.
You don't?
iseeplusplus wrote:
Not it's not. It's one of the most counter intuitive and notoriously difficult to understand theories of all. At one time it was famously suggested that only 3 people in the world, one being Einstein, fully understood it.


You're thinking of general relativity. The three people anecdote is namechecked on the GR wiki page.

I was (and still am) talking about special relativity, which is easy to understand.
Last edited on
I had a thought about the implications of special relativity which sort of confuses me.

Say you have a space ship who's speed has managed to reach the limit as it approaches the speed of light (relative to an observer on earth).

Relative to it's own frame of reference, it is at rest of coarse. It has another space ship inside it with the same capabilities. It launches this ship, and this new ship reaches the limit as it's speed approaches the speed of light (relative to the ship it was launched from).

Now this second ship, also has a ship inside it with the same capabilities, and it as well and so on.

According to the observer back at earth, all of the ships are at the same point the whole time. They never depart. He notes that all of the ships crash into a distant planet at exactly the same moment.

The first ship notes that all the ships in front of it crash at exactly the same moment and then spends many years waiting for itself to crash into the same planet, and the one in front of it notes that all the ships in front of it crashed at exactly the same moment, yet it also waits for many years to crash into the same planet, and so on. While the pilots are waiting for themselves to crash, they dreams that the planet can save them from annihilation and serve them ice cold beer. They dream that the crashed nest of ships in from of them had this fate.

According to the planet that got crashed into, all of the ships crash at exactly the same time. In fact they have a technology that is able to slow the ships the very instant before impact such that their pilots survive (assuming they are alive, perhaps immortal). They are able to remove the pilots alive from their ships and welcome them. The pilots each say hello and drink a beer together.

I know this must probably be a flawed example. But I'm confused by it, and I haven't noticed the flaw. The paradox is that each pilot dank beer alone, and each pilot drank bear together , and one pilot drank alone while the rest drank together.... This all happened, but only one version of this happened per observer.
Last edited on
Pages: 1... 89101112