“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote: <quoted text> Okay, try this then. Mathematics is the study of an (abstract) concept. Science does not deal in abstracts! If you disagree, please prove the number 5 by any scientific method you choose. Mathematics, in this context, is a language, not a science. It can also be a separate study of formal systems, but that study is also not a science.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

Langoliers wrote: <quoted text> There are sciences of mathematics. Wikipedia "Numerical cognition is a subdiscipline of cognitive science that studies the cognitive, developmental and neural bases of numbers and mathematics. As with many cognitive science endeavors, this is a highly interdisciplinary topic, and includes researchers in cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, neuroscience and cognitive linguistics. This discipline, although it may interact with questions in the philosophy of mathematics is primarily concerned with empirical questions." That is not a science of mathematics. It is a science about how humans learn mathematics. Those are very different things.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Judged:
1
1
polymath257 wrote: So you refuse to use the standard terminology?
That was exactly what I was saying, but I was saying it with standard terminology. Events are points in spacetime.
No, we have agreed that we can measure duration using atomic clocks. That is different from measuring a 'rate of time'. I find it quite silly that you go to all that trouble to try and fiddle with the definitions of simple words. The atomic clock each one carries represents the counter for how much the person carrying the clock has aged. Do you agree with this? polymath257 wrote: Yes for the first clause, no for the second. They can measure the time delta between events differently. That is NOT due to a difference in 'rate of time'. If it were, there would always be the same factor between their measurements (for example, the first always measures durations as being twice what the second measures). This is not what happens.
For example, suppose we have two points in spacetime A and B. It is quite possible for one observer to measure A coming before B and for the other observer to measure B coming before A. I said "two observers spatially very near each other". That means that these observers will agree on the order of events. The observers may be aging at different rates, and still see events in the same order. polymath257 wrote: Except, of course, when you actually look into the details. The time dilation effect is in addition to the time of travel effect (trivial to deal with) and the doppler effect (which doesn't affect this aspect of things). What details are you talking about? Your comment is very vague/ambiguous. The Nonlinear Universal Relativity model dictates that there are two (or three) kinds of time dilation: 1. the observational distortion caused by travel time and standard doppler effect of light (this one is not real change in rates of ageing) 2. actual slowdown of quanta of mass upon transfer of potential energy (kinetic energy of quanta) to kinetic energy of that mass 3. gravitational forces causing a friction type effect to rotating quanta and slowing them down polymath257 wrote: So you don't allow us to actually use knowledge we have acquired for future calculations and measurements? The "knowledge" is limited within the constraints of your falsifiable model. When you come to me claiming that you have measurements of nature I will laugh at you. The calculations are not measurements of nature but plain calculations valid only within the one particular mathematical model. That mathematical model is falsifiable, yes? Tell me, if the model becomes falsified now, what do your calculations mean then? polymath257 wrote: Look at how far away they are at different times (parallax for distance, for example), take into account the speed of light and divide distance by time (definition of velocity). This is where your model bites back at you. How the heck would you know how far they are? Parallax for distance does not actually work. In order to know the distance you would have to know the distances behind the object. And you don't know the distances in space. Everything could be 10 times farther than you theorize and 10 times more massive. polymath257 wrote: Why not? Just have a couple of fleets instead of single observers. Do you have a couple of fleets? If you don't then your imagination is just running wild.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> I find it quite silly that you go to all that trouble to try and fiddle with the definitions of simple words. The atomic clock each one carries represents the counter for how much the person carrying the clock has aged. Do you agree with this? <quoted text> I said "two observers spatially very near each other". That means that these observers will agree on the order of events. The observers may be aging at different rates, and still see events in the same order. <quoted text> What details are you talking about? Your comment is very vague/ambiguous. The Nonlinear Universal Relativity model dictates that there are two (or three) kinds of time dilation: 1. the observational distortion caused by travel time and standard doppler effect of light (this one is not real change in rates of ageing) 2. actual slowdown of quanta of mass upon transfer of potential energy (kinetic energy of quanta) to kinetic energy of that mass 3. gravitational forces causing a friction type effect to rotating quanta and slowing them down <quoted text> The "knowledge" is limited within the constraints of your falsifiable model. When you come to me claiming that you have measurements of nature I will laugh at you. The calculations are not measurements of nature but plain calculations valid only within the one particular mathematical model. That mathematical model is falsifiable, yes? Tell me, if the model becomes falsified now, what do your calculations mean then? <quoted text> This is where your model bites back at you. How the heck would you know how far they are? Parallax for distance does not actually work. In order to know the distance you would have to know the distances behind the object. And you don't know the distances in space. Everything could be 10 times farther than you theorize and 10 times more massive. <quoted text> Do you have a couple of fleets? If you don't then your imagination is just running wild. OK, you have completely degenerated into silliness. When you actually want to discuss science, what relativity actually says, and the calculations and observations that back it up, then we can talk again. But right now, you've shown an unwillingness to learn any of the basics, to use appropriate terminology, to accept that we can learn over time and use the results we have learned, and that basic measurements can be performed and conclusions made based on them. When you have learned enough basic algebra and physics to continue this discussion, we can proceed. but you need to use terminology correctly and understand the issues involved. You have repeatedly shown you refuse to do the first and fail at the second.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: OK, you have completely degenerated into silliness. When you actually want to discuss science, what relativity actually says, and the calculations and observations that back it up, then we can talk again. But right now, you've shown an unwillingness to learn any of the basics, to use appropriate terminology, to accept that we can learn over time and use the results we have learned, and that basic measurements can be performed and conclusions made based on them. When you have learned enough basic algebra and physics to continue this discussion, we can proceed. but you need to use terminology correctly and understand the issues involved. You have repeatedly shown you refuse to do the first and fail at the second. I understand that you want to run away now that you are being cornered. Tell me, what is in your view the correct way to measure aging of the two twins of the twins paradox? How do you measure?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: Except, of course, when you actually look into the details. The time dilation effect is in addition to the time of travel effect (trivial to deal with) and the doppler effect (which doesn't affect this aspect of things). And by all means, please do explain these details. Don't just throw it out as an opinions and then hide in a cave hoping no one would notice what you did.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> And by all means, please do explain these details. Don't just throw it out as an opinions and then hide in a cave hoping no one would notice what you did. Learn how do do Lorentz transformations and you will see. Until you learn the basics, there is nothing more to say.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> I understand that you want to run away now that you are being cornered. Tell me, what is in your view the correct way to measure aging of the two twins of the twins paradox? How do you measure? I've already told you. You aren't listening or, apparently, even reading my replies. Go and learn the basics. When you have done that, we can discuss this again.


humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: Learn how do do Lorentz transformations and you will see. Until you learn the basics, there is nothing more to say. Oh yawn. Transformations are trivial. polymath257 wrote: I've already told you. You aren't listening or, apparently, even reading my replies. Go and learn the basics. When you have done that, we can discuss this again. Why do you come here with opinions? Logic escapes you and you start spewing out opinions. The only way for the twins to know how they aged relative to each other is for them to meet up and compare the observable facts. They will then compare their atomic clocks and see how many oscillations each of them had counted during the trip. The relativistic claim is that the traveler's clock must show less oscillations for the duration of the trip. There is no way for them to reasonably accurately measure the oscillations of the other brother's atomic clock during the trip. Do you understand this?

Since: Apr 11
Location hidden

Skeptic wrote: <quoted text> The only experiment you need to provide evidence for is the one that proves your god. All your other posts are worthless lying Creationist drivel up until then. 25Oct12..... ......Its been over a year now and you still have NOT answered ,,,'Who Made Da Dirt"!!!!!!!!!! Ps:.....Vot'sUP vit you, ya schidtforbrains, anyveys. Forever and Ever BobLoblah

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”
Since: Dec 10
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> Oh yawn. Transformations are trivial. <quoted text> Why do you come here with opinions? Logic escapes you and you start spewing out opinions. The only way for the twins to know how they aged relative to each other is for them to meet up and compare the observable facts. They will then compare their atomic clocks and see how many oscillations each of them had counted during the trip. The relativistic claim is that the traveler's clock must show less oscillations for the duration of the trip. There is no way for them to reasonably accurately measure the oscillations of the other brother's atomic clock during the trip. Do you understand this? You are a lunatic that needs to accept human knowledge is what it is and it is...... "as good as it gets" You also haven't proven anything wrong with Einsteins theory , but you have proven you do not understand them.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Aura Mytha wrote: You are a lunatic that needs to accept human knowledge is what it is and it is...... "as good as it gets" You also haven't proven anything wrong with Einsteins theory , but you have proven you do not understand them. So your argument against my logical argument is your OPINION? It is quite clear that you have Faith in Einstein's model. When your understanding stops your Faith fills in. The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that the one accelerating will always age less between two shared spacetime points between the accelerations. Do you not agree with this?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Rephrase the clumsy sentence:
The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that the one accelerating will always age less between two shared spacetime points between which the accelerations occur.
Do you not agree with this?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”
Since: Dec 10
Location hidden

humble brother wrote: <quoted text> So your argument against my logical argument is your OPINION? It is quite clear that you have Faith in Einstein's model. When your understanding stops your Faith fills in. The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that the one accelerating will always age less between two shared spacetime points between the accelerations. Do you not agree with this? Acceleration causes time dilation , this has been proven in experiments. I agree with that. I also agree that Lorentz came up with a formula to calculate it. You however are saying it isn't so , but are quite unable to show why. You have also shown you do not understand what time dilation is but still claim it is wrong. Lets hear of the rotational model hb , we are in the mood for comedy/tragedy.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

humble brother wrote: The relativistic solution to the twins paradox dictates that the one accelerating will always age less between two shared spacetime points between which the accelerations occur. Polymath, I was kind enough to present this in your beloved language. Do you agree with this?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Judged:
1
1
Aura Mytha wrote: Acceleration causes time dilation , this has been proven in experiments. I agree with that. I also agree that Lorentz came up with a formula to calculate it. You however are saying it isn't so , but are quite unable to show why. You have also shown you do not understand what time dilation is but still claim it is wrong. Lets hear of the rotational model hb , we are in the mood for comedy/tragedy. What Lorentz came up with was a collection of formulas that have movable goal posts. That is very convenient in debates to keep moving those goal posts. I am trying to show where the error is but Polymath's only intention seemed to be to escape from any possible nearest exit. Do you understand how one observer can never *measure* the ageing of another observer (at considerable distance and/or in fast relative motion)? Or do you claim to be able to *measure* the ageing of any object/observer?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Oh no. I managed to scare them to bits again. This is so sad... Well in case you manage to collect some strength and are brave enough to come back to this discussion I would like you to then answer the following simple question. Here's the question: In the twins paradox when the traveler returns and joins his brother they shake hands. During this handshake do the brothers exist in the neighboring spacetime points (separated only by a minuscule distance)? Or do the brothers exist in totally different spacetimes because much less time has passed for the traveler?

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

Oh that ended up on a new page... The above is for Polymath and AuraMytha.

“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden

HB: Please go and actually learn something about this subject. Even your questions show that you do not understand the subject.

humble brother
Vanda, Finland

polymath257 wrote: HB: Please go and actually learn something about this subject. Even your questions show that you do not understand the subject. You are so boring when you are afraid... I'm sorry for you that you are not able to answer the simple question and you only are now able to utter opinions.

