Re: Explaining Time Dilation
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 11/16/04
- Next message: Martin Hogbin: "Re: Bomb paradox"
- Previous message: David Evens: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:26:50 GMT
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411152218.147320ea@posting.google.com...
> stephen@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<cnajsc$3vl$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > TomGee <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > : stephen@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<cn0s1g$11ph$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > :> I agree that modern physicists have replaced Netownian gravity
> > :> with General Relativity. Netownian gravity makes predictions
> > :> that are in conflict with experiment. It has been falsified.
> > :> So far, none of GR's predictions have been falsified.
> >
> >
> > : AFAIK, no such thing has yet occurred. To make such a stupifying
> > : claim requires a precise reference with specific detail as to what
> > : exactly is recognized as evidence that gravitation is falsified.
> > :>
> >
> > Mercury's orbit is the big one, but there have been lots
> > of other tests that agree with GR and disagree with Newton.
> >
>
> Mercury's orbit was never in question. GR simply went farther in
> explanation of something Newton could not explain. That does not
> overthrow classical physics nor does it falsify the theory of
> gravitation. The "lots of other tests that ... disagree with Newton"
> are non-existent.
Classical physics predicts the incorrect orbit for Mercury - so it is
wrong - simple as that.
>
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > :> So far that has not happened. Can your theory be falsified?
> > :> Given that you apparently cannot answer a simple question
> > :> about time dilation I doubt it.
> > :>
> > :>
> Um, what question was that? I have answered many simple questions
> about time dilation and I cannot imagine any simple one which I cannot
> answer. Yours was either not so simple or it was one I did not wish
> to answer.
>
> My theory has wide scope so it is possible that some parts of it
> cannot be falsified just like some parts of the BBT and some aspects
> of GR cannot be falsified (such as curved space and the space-time
> continuum). I claim only that my model gets us out of some of the
> blind alleyways which current theory puts us into in not showing us
> the way out of them (like in the Twin Paradox).
But you refuse to answer the question Stephen asked you. In case you have
forgotten it I will repeat it again:
'A space ship leaves earth travelling at .5c. After a year has passed on
Earth (the Earth has made one orbit) a signal is sent to the ship and it
immediately turns around and heads home at .5c. According to your theory,
how much time elapsed on the ship, and why? Your explanaion should include
equations, and some justifications for those equations.'
It is obvious why you refuse to answer it - you can not.
>
>
> > : I don't know. I am hoping that someone reading this will find some
> > : way to do that for me but no one has yet. Perhaps you will, if you
> > : read up on my subjects better than I have been able to up to now.
> > : TomGee 111204
> >
> > No one will be able to answer that question until your theory
> > makes some actual testable predictions. However when I asked
> > for a prediction from your theory, your answer was 'I don't know
> > and I don't care'.
> >
>
> No, not so. That is not what is meant by a theory being
> "unfalsifiable".
That is one of your main problems - you use words in non standard nonsense
ways. Falisfiabilty is a specific philosophical term associated with the
philosophy of science coined by Popper - see
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/. One aspect of his ideas was that
if two theories are equally as consistent and in accord with experiment the
one with the greater possible number of predictions that could in principle
be refuted is to be preferred. It does not claim that every aspect of a
theory must be directly refutable - that is simply one more of your myriad
of misconceptions.
>What predictions about the existence of God(s) have
> been made which are testable?
The existence of God is not falsifiable - the predictions of GR are.
> What predictions does GR make which are
> testable and which make false classical gravitation?
This is unbelievable. You have been given the answer time and time again.
GR is a theory of gravitation thus is can not prove gravitation incorrect.
However many observations show GR is in accord with experiment but Newtonian
gravitation is not - see
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter3.pdf.
You are obviously too thick to understand simple logic.
]> How can you test
> whether or not the Inflationary Period theory is true or not?
>
By checking some of its predictions such as the uniformity of the CBMR - if
the CBMR was not uniform it would have been falsified like Newtonian gravity
has been falsified. So far all its predictions are in agreement wit
observation so it is a valid theory.
> The BBT
> was not testable until someone came up with the idea of the cbr test,
> and even then it was accidentally found. Your criteria for what
> constitutes a good theory is not in accord with current theory about
> that.
That people do not realize a theory makes a prediction until that prediction
is found does not logically invalidate it - attempts to suggest otherwise
are the rantings of the mentally deficient.
>
>
> What are the testable predictions
>
Predictions that can be experimentally checked.
>
> > I'll try again. A space ship leaves earth travelling at .5c.
> > After a year has passed on Earth (the Earth has made one orbit)
> > a signal is sent to the ship and it immediately turns around
> > and heads home at .5c. According to your theory, how much
> > time elapsed on the ship, and why? Your explanaion should include
> > equations, and some justifications for those equations.
> >
> > Stephen
>
> I don't know and I don't care.
As has become obvious to all.
Bill
> TomGee 111604
- Next message: Martin Hogbin: "Re: Bomb paradox"
- Previous message: David Evens: "Re: Definition of A Field"
- In reply to: TomGee: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Explaining Time Dilation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
