02 Jul 08
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“…yet you wish to belittle me because I am not taking a side you happen to agree with…”
Blow it out your nose, you don't have a clue, yet you wish to belittle
me because I am not taking a side you happen to agree with. The only
thing I have really said here is that with new information anything
we accept as more than likely true, we would have to acknowledge we
were wrong about! My faith has nothing to do with that, yet you want
to drag i ...[text shortened]... sagree with me
yet I’m fair game to you, you should spend time reasoning out that
one.
Kelly
Just for the record:
1, I do not wish to belittle you nor anyone else -not on this forum, and not anywhere, and not ever!
2, my criticism of you is NOT that you are “ not taking a side I happen to agree with”.
I don’t care which “side” you agree with -whether it is my “side” or some other “side”.
I respect the fact that other people have thoughts and opinions that differ from my own -that is just the basic principle of freedom of thought that I so strongly agree with.
My main criticism of you here is that you often pretending not to quite understand either my nor anybody else’s arguments that you do not know how to refute and you persistently do this by pretending that you mistaken the said argument for a similar sounding argument that is, never the less, not the actual argument that demonstrates that you are wrong.
In the past, when I have lost the argument in a conversation (which I HAVE done), I just admit it (which I also HAVE done); I just say “OK, I see your point; you were right and I was wrong” (I HAVE said that), and move on from there. I only wish you would demonstrate that you can do the same. If you would do that then I would suddenly (and honestly, -I swear that this is the truth) have a new and much better respect for whatever you have to say for then on 🙂
02 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
I've addressed this issue before too, you can only put a percentage
on anything you know all the variables too, if you miss something
it means you are not taking into account all things and your
percentages are not true. Now you may be believe you have all the
information required, that is faith on your part, I'm simply keeping the
door open to change g else could be true. If you
refuse to acknowledge that, you have dogma not science.
Kelly
You have not fully understood my point. I, and all scientists, openly acknowledge that we do not understand everything. There may be new discoveries that cause us to need to adjust, or even largely reform theories/laws.
However, and this is the bit that you havent understood, any future amended theories must be consistent with the present theories. Any changes will apply to things with we cannot measure now, aspects of systems we are unaware of, or totally new conditions applied to existing systems. BUT the amended theories must reduce to the present theories under conditions which are understood at the moment.
If we discover new things in the future it doesnt change what we have already observed. Time dilation happens - but there are aspects of gravity and relativity that are not understood, and when we do we may find that time does not vary exactly as predicted by the Theory of Relativity. But any new theory will give the same behaviour for things which have been observed so far.
You seem to think that when something new is discovered that the old theories were entirely wrong and need to be discarded. This was true of science before the scientific method was used when science was little more then superstitions and folk law ("World is flat" etc), but that is not the case now as now we have based science on observable, repeatable results.
It is not "faith on my part", you once again show a total lack of understanding. You have no idea how science works, and you have no idea about anything to do with relativity. You do not understand it, you cannot comprehend space-time, yet you still insist on talking as though you understand the scientific process.
It is not "dogma" to say that any amendments to present theories must be consistent with present observations - as I said above, new discoveries do not mean that all ones are no longer there. As an example let us consider Ohms law again. Superconductors have now been discovered - they do not obey Ohms law and have radically different electrical properties compared to materials which do (superconductors have zero resistance to current and charge is carried by "cooper pairs" made of two electrons. Cooper pairs interact with the lattice vibrations (phonons) to allow flow with zero resistance a bit like when you swim in a slip stream). Yet the discovery of superconductors did not mean that standard conductors no longer obeyed Ohms law, Ohms law is still correct - but not for all conductors, this new kind of conductor requires a new theory, but Ohms law is still correct for the materials which were around when it was formulated.
So now do you understand? Science is not set in stone, it changes as we discover more things. Some times theories are reworked - sometimes a completely different way of looking at and modelling a system must be used. BUT the new ways must be consistent with the observations which have come before them.
A radical example of this is quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an entirely different way of looking at the universe than classical physics, and quantum mechanics is required to understand lots of phenomenons which simply cannot be explained classically. BUT applying quantum physics to "classical" problems (things understood by classical physics) GIVES THE SAME ANSWER as classical physics. A specific example of this can be found in electromagnetism. The same problems can be solved either classically, considering the electric and magnetic fields; or using quantum physics considering electromagnetic exchange quanta (photons). And you will get the same answer for all problems understood when classical physics was formed.
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasFabian,
Kelly: You're using the same kind of religious rethorics in your scientific discussions. You don't know much in science but you claim you know it all. Why? Because you have god at your side? Or what?
All the rest of you: Don't think Kelly wants to know anything, he doesn't. Don't treat Kelly as a good student, he doesn't listen. Don't discuss with Kell ...[text shortened]... s discussion is a lose-lose situation. It doesn't bring anything valuable into it.
I think you are probably correct in this claim, the evidence certainly suggests it.
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYea, that is why we have laws and theories isn't it there is a difference.
[b]“..I do not believe it can be known for certain,..
But science can demonstrate through considerable evidence that the probability of it being false is vanishing small -as in this case -therefore it is considered to be a scientific FACT that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Like all scientific “FACTS”, it is considered to be ...[text shortened]... “fact” when the evidence is so strong that there is no credible chance of it being false.[/b]
Kelly
03 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I said that settles it then - you have chosen to believe nothing can be known for sure. There is no way you can be convinced that extrapolation is a completely valid tool of science so I won't even try. I do wonder how you sleep at night as you can never be sure if air will conduct electricity and electrocute you to your bed. After all there may be variables we don't know of that could change. Also: why aren't you afraid of falling apart every single minute? Just because nothing has ever just broken into atoms doesn't mean you won't - that would be claiming to know something and that ain't possible. How do you come up with this nonesense?
I do not believe it can be known for certain, and unless you wish to
tell me within science anything can be known for certain, neither do
you. You can not say that within science that everything is subject
to change with new information, and accept we know anything with
certainty.
Kelly
In conclusion: You, sir, are an idiot. You do not comprehend the basics of science although you act like you do, you are not interested in the truth, only in getting to spread you propaganda about stuff we "might not know". Ah well that's what being overly religious does to a man. Thank god I don't have to argue with you in real life - or on here neither, I'll just follow the good rule Fabian posted and ignore you.`
ps. nothing personal - ignorance just gets me all heated up
03 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThis again shows your lack of understanding.
Yea, that is why we have laws and theories isn't it there is a difference.
Kelly
In science, there is little difference between a "theory" and a "law". You seem to think that a theory is just a current idea but a law has been confirmed. This is not the case, they are largely just terminology differences.
For example, Newtonian mechanics is described by the 3 "laws of motion", which we now know to be incorrect as they do not take relativity into account - but they remain "laws".
You treat "theories" as if they are "hypotheses". A hypothesis is an idea proposed, either from just thinking about a problem, or from some preliminary observations. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it is confirmed by experiments (by confirmed I mean when observations have been used to back it up, it has been used to predict the outcome of something which then is observed to happen as predicted. All other factors have been ruled out through proper scientific process).
A "theorem" is a theory which can be proved rigorously true using mathematics, eg: finding the area of a circle.
You are correct that theories often need to be changed, but as I keep saying to you, the amended theories are always consistent with the original theories for cases covered when developing the original theory
I gave a nice example of this using quantum mechanics, I also used the Ohms law example to show you poor logic - your have ignored both of these because they prove you wrong and you choose to ignore, or intentionally missunderstand, things which do not fit with your pre-existing views.
edit: will you please respond to my requests to post a short paragraph or two outlining what you understand relativity to mean - it should include the basic axioms of Special Relativity, how these lead to time dilations and lorentz contraction, and a simply example of time dilation and lorentz contraction using some elementary geometry to make the transformations simpler.
03 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MattPLet's call this "KellyJay rethorics" in the future. We all understand that this kind of rethorics is flawed. The very purpous of a "KellyJay rethorics" is to win a discussion with no knowledge, just trying to have the last word. The one having the last word is the winning part, according to "KellyJay rethorics".
I gave a nice example of this using quantum mechanics, I also used the Ohms law example to show you poor logic - your have ignored both of these because they prove you wrong and you choose to ignore, or intentionally missunderstand, things which do not fit with your pre-existing views.
When I was a boy once, I and my classmates played a game of who can hold the breath longest. The one not breathing for the longest period won. Some kind of chicken race. Well, once, the one who won fainted, and we called an ambulance, we were terrified. He woke and was very proud of winning, not knowing how dangerously near he was to suffer damage.
"KellyJay rethorics" is somewhat the same. He might win, but he learnt nothing in the process. He just win an meaningless chicken race. His tool to win is "KellyJay rethorics".
Do we want him to win his little game? I don't mind him winning his game when he lose something that is much greater. We all know what.
04 Jul 08
I would say that KellyJay should not let science or the fear of it shake his faith. I don't understand what He seems to be so afraid of? Sure a lot of Science is based off theories but a lot of it is proven. Once proven makes it fact right? Not all science is theory then but fact. The atomic bomb was once theory LOL but it became fact I would venture to say through much extrapolation. Einstein and his theories had some to play in that. I think also Kelly should understand that theories come from plausible ideas and concepts about something observed in the universe. I go back to Galileo LOL he had a different model for the solar system and that model went against the church(someone was afraid) and yet we know now that his model for the solar system was right. I would say don't let your faith blind you to facts about the universe. Sure some science may be bogus with an agenda but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Manny 🙂
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScyhteTell me; in science do we accept the notion that all things are subject
As I said that settles it then - you have chosen to believe nothing can be known for sure. There is no way you can be convinced that extrapolation is a completely valid tool of science so I won't even try. I do wonder how you sleep at night as you can never be sure if air will conduct electricity and electrocute you to your bed. After all there may be variabl ...[text shortened]... osted and ignore you.`
ps. nothing personal - ignorance just gets me all heated up
to change if new information changes the way we have to view it? If
you say yes, we are in agreement and why are you complaining, if you
say no, I say you need to explain yourself.
Kelly
04 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJaySo I take it that you retract your previous comments about how "having faith in science" means that science is full of "dogma" then, as you now seem to be acknowledging that science changes to reflect the observed measurements.
Tell me; in science do we accept the notion that all things are subject
to change if new information changes the way we have to view it? If
you say yes, we are in agreement and why are you complaining, if you
say no, I say you need to explain yourself.
Kelly
You have completely changed your position, you originally doubted that relativistic effects happen, saying that time dilation is "because of some material effect in the clock". In another thread you rejected radioactive dating techniques because "we can't know everything - there could be other factors".
Now you have carefully avoided mentioning any of that.
You ask many questions - often responding to a post by simply asking the poster questions. But you never respond to specific points when you are caught out. As an example I give you the fact that you still havent posted a short outline of your understanding of relativity, even though I gave you enough information to just look it up on wikipedia or in a book.
You came out all guns blazing, saying "we dont know everything - you cant say anything for certain. "theories" are just what some people think - there is just as much chance they are wrong as they are right coz we find new things out and need to change them".
Now it has been pointed out to you that margins of errors are taken into account and amended theories are always consistent with the original theories when applied to things used to create the original theory. So you have stopped your ridicules, unfounded, misinformed claims and tried to make it seem as if you had that view all along.
You are saying that your position has been one of: "science always changes as new things are discovered, so we must amend theories to take new discoveries into account". When really your position was: "Science can't be trusted because it is wrong - there are unknown factors and we dont know everything so we cant use techniques like radioactive dating because they are not reliable"
Scientists know where things are not understood very well, they know the accuracy to which things are understood and they know the areas which will probably need a fairly serious rethink (eg: gravity). Never do scientists say that they know everything exactly to infinite accuracy - but as I illustrated with the Ohms law example, if errors are taken into account viable, usable theories can be obtained which can be applied to physical situations to predict what will happen or to understand what has happened. You originally refused to accept this.
I am very pleased that you now seem to have changed your view, I sincerely hope that you now have a better idea of how science works and no longer hold the very misinformed view that believing science is no different from believing in superstitions, as hopefully you now know that science is not full of dogma, but instead is reasoned from observations and is very open to change.
PS: The phrases in quotations are not actual direct quotes from Kelly, I am paraphrasing the general gist of what has been said, which people can find by looking back at the previous posts in this thread if they want to.
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by MattPOne of the best things I've read on this forum. Rec'd.
So I take it that you retract your previous comments about how "having faith in science" means that science is full of "dogma" then, as you now seem to be acknowledging that science changes to reflect the observed measurements.
You have completely changed your position, you originally doubted that relativistic effects happen, saying that time dilation is "b ...[text shortened]... can find by looking back at the previous posts in this thread if they want to.
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by MattPI retract nothing! I honestly have faith in science, but it has its
So I take it that you retract your previous comments about how "having faith in science" means that science is full of "dogma" then, as you now seem to be acknowledging that science changes to reflect the observed measurements.
You have completely changed your position, you originally doubted that relativistic effects happen, saying that time dilation is "b ...[text shortened]... can find by looking back at the previous posts in this thread if they want to.
limitations as all things do when it comes to people. Science does
not change, but our opinions, thoughts, beliefs, conclusions do
with new information. People are full of dogma, people get things
into their heads and that is that, there is a difference between
people and science, though some here seem to have the idea that
they are science, and to disagree with them is to disagree with
science.
I have not at all changed my position on anything, I have said
that it is easier for me to think that all the various different
timing devices could being affected by single stress, than time
itself. I always maintain that if something new comes along
it is possible we would have to alter our views about anything
regardless of the topic. Those two things are not changes in
positions, and neither view is a disagreement with science,
those two views may disagree with your views, but you are
not science.
I like you do not feel the need to respond to everything that
everyone asks or says to me, if you notice I have ended up
talking to a small number of people and some points get
brought up by me, and by them, not all of them answered,
but I don’t cry over it as you seem too. If you have a point
you REALLY need my response to, make plain that it is
very important to you if I see it I will respond, I'm don't hide
from saying I'm worng, I don't know, or your right and I'm
wrong if I believe I should I say so I will. I am not a mind
reader so if you have an important question it may not
seem so to me as I read it, so your points may be
answered or may not, as mine go unanswered from time
to time.
I ask questions, I learn here too, it isn’t always that I’m
trying to disprove anything, I actually don’t have a view
about time being constant one way or another, I am
hoping you can give me one way or another. At the
moment the strongest argument about time changing
is after a stress different timing devices all were affected
by the stress the same way with respect to time, that
is a powerful argument, but not flawless. It is not
always as simple as we make it out to be.
If you want to do the same run in circles about the
margins for error, that is up to you. Like having to
change our minds about topics, with new information,
if you miss something whose effects are playing a roll,
or you do not understand the rolls everything is really
playing, you cannot give me the odds about it correctly.
Science in its place is great; it has gotten us far in this
life, but it has its limitations! I tend to trust it like I do
ice, the thicker it is the safer, but it is still slick and
can cause you issues if you are not careful.
My position on radioactive dating is the unknown takes
away its reliability as far as I’m concern. I like to know
the limitations of a test, the window where I can be sure
this is true or not, you do not get that with a reading of
million or billion years, you get an assumption. The
percentages applied are good if the all the limitations
about the tests are fully understood, and I don’t see that
as possible give the numbers involved. They can be
completely correct, it doesn’t bother me or change one
single thing about my life, but even suggesting that
they could be wrong is enough to cause some here
conniption fits.
Scientist are people, having been around people for some
time now, even very bright ones, they can be wrong, and
they do tend to group think from time to time as well. This
does not mean that they are wrong about everything, but
it does mean they can be wrong from time to time. You
want to assume your views are solid and without question
correct, please do so, do not get upset if not everyone
shares your beliefs about the numbers and percentages
being applied about the distant past and so on.
Kelly
06 Jul 08
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…I have said that it is easier for me to think that all the various different timing devices could being affected by single stress, than time itself….
I retract nothing! I honestly have faith in science, but it has its
limitations as all things do when it comes to people. Science does
not change, but our opinions, thoughts, beliefs, conclusions do
with new information. People are full of dogma, people get things
into their heads and that is that, there is a difference between
people and science, thou s about the numbers and percentages
being applied about the distant past and so on.
Kelly
Obviously you have chosen to conveniently ignore the argument that I gave (in this thread and currently on page 11 although that page number may change) that you don’t need timing devises to observe time dilation effects. -the wobble in Mercury’s orbit can only be explained by time dilation effects due to it being quite deep in the sun’s gravity well (and in accordance with General relativity) -no timing devices put under stress there! -and no timing devices needed for the observation! You have already lost that argument -clearly time itself must be what is changing.
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYea, clearly...
[b]…I have said that it is easier for me to think that all the various different timing devices could being affected by single stress, than time itself….
Obviously you have chosen to conveniently ignore the argument that I gave (in this thread and currently on page 11 although that page number may change) that you don’t need timing devises to ...[text shortened]... observation! You have already lost that argument -clearly time itself must be what is changing.[/b]
You don't even see what you’re saying; you say because time has
been affected, so time must have been affected. Couldn't possibly
be the mass of Mercury has been affected, as the timing devices
could have been during the other stress as a possible explanation
as well.
Kelly