Re: Explaining Time Dilation

From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 11/09/04 

Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:52:40 -0500

"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411091140.e6a0fa7@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<2BSjd.28895$K7.22787@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cc2dde17.0411081109.10498b9c@posting.google.com...
> > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<YNwjd.24874$K7.23973@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:cc2dde17.0411071153.18e1388f@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<Ulbjd.21030$K7.17843@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:cc2dde17.0411060849.51f1934f@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > Below is an excerpt from my essay, "The Time And Motion
> > > > > > > Relationship",copyright 1996, tyropress@yahoo.com. All comments
> > are
> > > > > > > welcome.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CHAPTER TWO
> > > > > > > Common Notions Of Varying Time Rates
> > > > > > > Part One
> > > > > > > It is difficult to figure out time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only for philosophy types. In physics time is what a clock reads
> > does
> > just
> > > > > > fine. See http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > No. I disagree.
> > > >
> > > > Fine - no problemo. Just make a prediction with your ideas at variance
> > with
> > > > current theories. Can not do that? - then you are not practicing
> > science.
> > > >
> > > > >
>
> Did you not read all my predictions which are at variance with the
> fantasy world of the space-time continuum? Do you not understand my
> meaning that time and space are not interdependent as Einstein
> predicted? Did you comprehend my meaning when I stated that Einstein
> contradicted himself in his use of two specific claims about the
> meaningfulness of motion?
>
> Go back and reread it all with the idea in mind to overthrow all my
> arguments by your use of deductive logic, if you can. Is my post that
> hard to read? I took great pains to avoid all math and to use
> unambiguous terms and to explain every anticipated question.
>
>
> > > I meant that I disgree that "In physics time is what a clock
> > > reads...."
> >
> > So you disagree with the standard definition of time used in physics.
>
>
> I disagree that is the std. definition of time in physics. As I
> explained in the part you cut out, it is an admission that the definer
> does not know what time is, and if you use that definition, it is you
> too who does not know.
>
>
> > Fine - but for that to be of any real value you need to make some kind of
> > prediction with your ideas, otherwise it is waffling and not science, which
> > relies on correspondence with experiment.
>
> No, not so. In Theoretical Physics (TP), a different science,
> experiment plays an end role left up to the work of empirical
> researchers. It does not rely at all on experiment. All scientists
> use the science initially in their use of reasonble thinking. TP is
> very important in science because it allows our imagination to roam at
> will but then it works to limit subjectivity. You are simply
> parroting what you have been taught and since it is wrong, you are
> wrong too. Try learning about logical rules, objectivity, deduction,
> etc.
>
> >
> > > Such an evasive retort to the question of "what is time?"
> > > simply shows the limits of science to that date of our knowledge about
> > > time.
> >
> > What it shows is you do not understand what science is. I think I have
> > given you the following link before - http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm.
> > Since you can not seem to be bothered reading them, and in fact argue giving
> > links is not legitimate, I will post the relevant part:
> >
> > 'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
> > questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
> > questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
> > that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
> > gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
> > measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
> > Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
> > are all one needs, however, to start doing the science.
>
>
> One can plainly see that this is not an answer, but simply a proper
> way "to _start_ doing the science". I agree this is the place to
> start compared to the metaphysical debates forever raging in
> Philosophy. If you think your quote above is an answer, it suggests
> you need to understand better what you read.
>
>
> > And there is a
> > reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
> > necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
> > something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
> > possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
> > seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
> > philosophically, we would like ultimately to have. The logically sufficient
> > nature of science is due to the use of prediction and falsification in
> > scientific method, as belately but finally understood by Karl Popper. This
> > is why mathematics dominates the hardest sciences, since it is the easiest
> > to make the most precise predictions about the most abstract matters, and
> > pure quantities fill the bill admirably.
>
>
> No, not so. Math is precise about observed effects but never about
> "abstract matters". Math folks say they never explain the why of
> things, only the how.
>
>
> > All that is needed conceptually are
> > the barest meanings necessary to get the quantities applied to the
> > phenomena. Thus, it made not the slightest difference for the value of
> > Newtonian physics if Newton thought that gravity was the Will of God or that
> > space was "God's boundless uniform sensorium." These metaphysical, even
> > theological, elaborations were irrelevant to the quantitative predictions of
> > the theory.'
> >
> > > That remark means that we did not know more about time for sure
> > > at that time, but rather than admit to that, the facetious statement
> > > was made.
> >
> > The idea that time is what a clock reads has no problems - incomprehensible
> > gibberish like the above notwithstanding.
> >
> > >
> I am using the most plain words at my command; if they are
> incomprehensible to you, it is only because "what a clock reads" is
> the most complex statement you can comprehend, evidently. That is
> not my fault.
>
>
> > > whether or not I am practicing science is, fortunately for me and
> > > others like me, not up to you.
> >
> > Certainly. It however is something we can judge. And so far what you are
> > doing is philosophical ****ing.
> >
>
> No, nothing I have said is philosophical. Obviously you disagree, but
> you failed to note even one instance pertaining to your disagreement.
> We cannot have logical discussions without support for your claims.
>
>
> > > You can try to foist your conformist
> > > ways upon us all you like and all we need do is disagree. Your reason
> > > for claiming that I am not practicing science is illogical.
> >
> > It is not. In science we deal with correspondence with experiment - not
> > with waffling that has no observational consequences and the throwing around
> > of semantic rubbish like 'Math constructs are no more reality than is time
> > dilation'. In science a theory is rejected for experimental reasons - not
> > because you arbitrarily choose to call it a 'math construct' - whatever that
> > is.
> >
>
> So you believe that math constructs are constituents of reality? I
> thought no one believed that anymore. The chains around your head are
> stronger than I thought they could be. FYI, a math construct is an
> inductive proof in which its premises may or may not be true, and so
> any conclusions could also be false.
>
>
> > > All of
> > > science practices the same way at some point and then posits its
> > > alternative explanations to the common ideas of the day. All great
> > > scientists have done this time and again in spite of those who think
> > > like you and who have done their best to stifle their imaginations and
> > > the great work stemming from them.
> >
> > Great scientists make new predictions with their ideas and semantic waffling
> > like 'Math constructs are no more reality than is time dilation' is rejected
> > as being valueless.
> >
> >
> No, not so.
> TomGee 110904

BRAVO! Very well said. You've clearly nailed this one on the head especially where it
concerns Hobba's ability to use reason and logic. All he's got is the ability to memorize
and repeat. That, and lots of vitriol. You'd better agree with him soon or he'll assert
that because you do not bend to his way of thinking, you are therefore a bigot. What an
***!

Quantcast