The limitations of the scientific method and scientism

[Grumpy]

QQ

@ Grumpy, I've had a few friends read over this thread and they seem to understand what I am saying with out a problem. So whats up?

Either that is just a blatant lie or you have very stupid and gullible friends. You have presented no coherent explanations, just word salad. You don't have a theory, you have a cause, a campaign of disinformation. I notice you say nothing about how the fact that light bends around mass indicates it transits bent space on it's way to us. Do you need an address to send that $500 to?

Grumpy

 

[Lakon]

Lakon

Dude, our telescopes are orders of magnitude better than they were in the 60s, but we still can't see a quarter on the moon, which is right next door compared to 13.7 billion years. And that's about the size of the galaxies we see back then. Even ten billion years gives us fuzzy pictures of galaxies. Most of the information gleaned from those distances is by analyzing the light they emit. Occasionally we get lucky and a galaxy cluster is between us and the object beyond 10 billion years and we get this...

The blue in this photo is visual data from Hubble of the galaxy cluster, the red is 3mm microwave that started out as blue light from a starburst galaxy approximately 13 billion years ago that has passed through the cluster and been focused near us by the mass of the cluster bending the space the light is transiting(or transited several billion years ago, rather). It is a shortcut for laymen to say that mass bends light, but light actually follows a straight line through bent space(as per General Relativity). As in this diagram

and that allows us a better view, further away. Again, spectroscopic analysis of the light tells us the most about these sources, their shape often cannot be seen or their component parts be separated. This is especially true for Quasars, their glare blanks out any other signals like a planet is hidden in the glare of a star. Scientists are trying to work visual magic to remove the distortion of a lensed galaxy to get a closeup of something so far away, but it will mostly be guesswork at this point(computer animation, we need your geeks!). So, no, our telescopes cannot see a change of even light years at those distances, though I think someone has gotten a real motion measurement on Andromeda, some Australian guy, I think. We can even see single stars in that galaxy, but it is kinda close.

Grumpy

OK dude, thanls. I will cogitate on this for a while.

 

[Lakon]

Like most thing associated with this issue and other similar it gets down to the very basics where you find the problems.

The question is : What exactly is t=0 when used in SRT?
To quote a few posters over the years responding to this issue.
t=0 is an arbitrary chosen zero point on a time line.

example: Past__________________>.<__________________Future

t=0 is a point on a time line that has no duration. Zero duration.

this begs the question:
How can anything exist if there is no time for it to exist in?

However the light cones that demonstrate a Hyper surface of the present moment has dimension even though at the t=0 [ center of the light cone ] there is no durction for that hyper surface to exist in.

Now we are talking about t=0 [ no duration ] and t= 0 as part of a span of time.

As the t= 0 that is often used is a part of a span of time [ eternity] the hyper surface can exist with dimension.

So therefore t= 0 must include Delta t=>0 [ duration greater than zero for the hyper surface to exist.

There is a need to understand that it is implied that at t= 0 that it is a point on a time line where time duration is greater than zero for that t=o of zero duration [the moment you click your stop watch] to be valid]

(See my underlined above)

No - before that, before anything, the question I (and I suggest you and everybody else) have to get my mind around, is ..

What exactly is t=0 ?

What is it ? Zero time is no time, therefore, you cannot speak of time. If I had a basket of ten apples and then took them all out, I would have a basket of zero apples. But then the 'apple' element ceases to exist - or if it remains, so can an infinity of other things. I could equally say I have a basket of zero elephants, zero coins, zero chocolates .. an infinity of things equally as relevant (or irrelevant).

Time;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/time?s=t
1) the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.
2) duration regarded as belonging to the present life as distinct from the life to come or from eternity; finite duration

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/time
a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration

You will notice that definitions of time employ duration. And what is duration ?
The period of time during which something continues (wordweb)

So to speak of zero time is nonsensical IMO, and any argument flowing from that is flawed at the start.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@Aqueous Id,
well tell me what value is distance if t= zero duration

Anything.

in Minkowski/Einstein space time...

Writing "t=0" is not the same thing as writing "t=0 duration".
Zero duration doesn't mean anything in any system, until you ascribe meaning to it.
Meaning requires knowledge, understanding and correct application of first principles, which you lack.

or said another way:
if t=0 duration what does d [ distance ] equal?

That's not meaningful question. It is, however a statement of your beliefs, which are false and incorrect.

A point on a line is what dimension - how big is the point?

Unless you sign up to the scientific method of geometry, your answer is "any size I want".

A point on a time line that is labeled t = 0 is how much time?

The same as any other point on a time line with any other label. This is one of your stumbling blocks.

If the t = 0 used actually had duration it would include a delta sign if I am not mistaken.

The latter is true. The expressions "Δt=0" and "t=0" signify two entirely different concepts.

ie. delta t=0 sub(a),sub(b)

Meaningless.

here is a more descriptive light cone diagram:

It's an abstraction, it has no surface with physical existence.

 

[Grumpy]

Lakon

What exactly is t=0 ?

To QQ, Who knows?

But on the diagram he is so severely misusing and molesting? It is simply now where where you are. But pinning that point down is as impossible as examining a patch of ground you are over while doing a hundred miles per hour down the road, it never stops moving so it has no duration at a single spot on the time line. It isn't a duration at one point, it is a rate of travel over many points in succession. When you try to examine the now, it is already in the past. Points in the past can be examined at your leisure(within limits). In another very real sense T=0 is the point in time where all extant points in time(IE the past)came into existence/actually happened. Points in time in the future only exist in concept, they have not yet come into existence/happened.

The bottom cone represents those things in the past that we are aware of, the top cone represents what it is possible to know in the future(also the only places we could POSSIBLY ever reach in the future, even given light speed travel). I didn't use light cones to teach physics to brains full of mush. While what they present is true, it is presented in a hard to understand form that is two levels removed from reality. A picture is one level away(visually)from the three D reality. The light cone is a picture of a concept about a reality. There are easier ways to demonstrate, I think. I really don't know what QQ is trying to demonstrate, but I don't feel bad about that, because neither does he.

Grumpy

 

[Russ_Watters]

Lakon

You are having problems understanding because what QQ has said is meaningless scientific words strung together in the same sentence(word salad), along with nuggets like "essentially it means that the distance between the surface of the Earth and the surface of the moon is zero", which is, essentially, nuts. I have tried to answer your questions to the best of my understanding of what science tells us, QQ only wants to troll people like me, Russ_Watters and Alphanumeric who do know a little about these subjects(unlike QQ). Don't waste any more time with his garbage, it'll only rot your brain.

Grumpy

Other than for responding to Lakon who appears to be sincerely trying to learn, I'm pretty much done here. I think either QQ went off his meds or me digging up his previous conspiracy theory nonsense triggered some kind of breakdown because his crap has gotten significantly more viscous in the past couple of days...

 

[Quantum Quack]

@Aqueous Id,
well tell me what value is distance if t= zero duration

Anything.

you sure? please explain...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Lakon



To QQ, Who knows?

But on the diagram he is so severely misusing and molesting? It is simply now where where you are. But pinning that point down is as impossible as examining a patch of ground you are over while doing a hundred miles per hour down the road, it never stops moving so it has no duration at a single spot on the time line. It isn't a duration at one point, it is a rate of travel over many points in succession. When you try to examine the now, it is already in the past. Points in the past can be examined at your leisure(within limits). In another very real sense T=0 is the point in time where all extant points in time(IE the past)came into existence/actually happened. Points in time in the future only exist in concept, they have not yet come into existence/happened.

The bottom cone represents those things in the past that we are aware of, the top cone represents what it is possible to know in the future(also the only places we could POSSIBLY ever reach in the future, even given light speed travel). I didn't use light cones to teach physics to brains full of mush. While what they present is true, it is presented in a hard to understand form that is two levels removed from reality. A picture is one level away(visually)from the three D reality. The light cone is a picture of a concept about a reality. There are easier ways to demonstrate, I think. I really don't know what QQ is trying to demonstrate, but I don't feel bad about that, because neither does he.

Grumpy

actually you got it pretty good there Grumpy!

It really comes down to that click of the stop watch example.
At any given moment we arbitrarily choose a point in time, t= 0 [duration] the [stop watch is engaged or turned off] where anything after is past and everything before that point we have chosen is future [ light cones diagram]

How much time passes at that arbitrary t=0 point? What is the duration of the point, t=0?

ok before I go on does any of the above make sense to you guys... It makes sense to my "ignorant friends" and we are interested if you guys can make sense of it...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Maybe this image may clarify the "word salad" you refer to.

I am not asking whether the image conforms with the pedagogy that science uses.

I am asking whether the image is understandable to you as it is to my friends?
and request that you make use of the "scientific method"...in your response.


View attachment 6152

 

[Quantum Quack]

Other than for responding to Lakon who appears to be sincerely trying to learn, I'm pretty much done here. I think either QQ went off his meds or me digging up his previous conspiracy theory nonsense triggered some kind of breakdown because his crap has gotten significantly more viscous in the past couple of days...

The conspiracy theory you are referring to is about the only one I know of and I know of many that will always be shut down before it can be told properly. Any mention of earthquake trend data, a universal anomalies that lead to accelerated cosmic expansion, lead to a massive suppression campaign.
Now most conspiracy theories at least get a chance to be published or discussed, but hey, not this one... which is very telling...
Fortunately I am not the only one who knows of it, see letter sent to a Dr ??????? regarding planetary cores temperature. There are many other such correspondences.

Hi Dr. ??????,
Years ago when I saw an image of a native and wild Koala bear being discovered in a water bucket , wet trying to cool it self and saw images of Koalas begging for water from passing cyclists in the Dandenong Ranges I knew that "core temperatures were experiencing over heating.

As you know the core temperature of all life on this planet could be said to be a constant, in that a certain core body temperature is uniform across species and is maintained by methods/mechanism currently unknown. In humans that body temperature is held at a stable [ with minor fluctuations at 98.6 F or 37 C]

Due to the evidence coming from nature [behavioral] the issue of Core temperature is not just one for the planet but one for all life and all "particles" generally. Including the sun. The sun also has been over heating however solar temperature data [via satellite - free of atmospheric/governmental distortion ] has been unavailable since the first data started to indicate an increase trend of .02% per annum.

Suffice to say, I concur with your assessment displaying in this article: http://????????????/??????.htm

I have been monitoring seismic data trends for quite some time. Relational to weather dynamics etc and your point that the inner core of the Earth is over heating I believe is well founded and it is gratifying to know that I am not the only one on this planet to know this.

There is much more information and insight that I could offer you to expand the situation to include the possible causation and possible future outcome.

If you wish to correspond please feel free to do so.
the following image of official data is most telling..

we shall see how long the above stays published for...

Sunday: 2012-03- 17 : 10:42 am AEST
Currently http://zeropointtheory.com is unavailable on "ANY" hosting server that it is published on.

View attachment 6153

 

[Lakon]

What exactly is 't=0' ?

 

[Quantum Quack]

What exactly is 't=0' ?

time = zero

see post#229
any point you choose to consider a "now" moment on a time line.

example t=0 at 10.30 pm

 

[Lakon]

See post #203

 

[Quantum Quack]

See post #203

ok here it is:

I can't understand most of the above. I think the biggest problem is 't=0'

I assume you mean zero time. What's that ? A period of no time ? That's circular. Time can never = zero, because if it did, it wouldn't be time.

So what is this stange animal called t=0 ? The present moment ? That, I suppose is another philosophical and scientific argument altogether - how long is the present ? We could spend years on that one. But we must assume some span of time, otherwise, what would we be talking about ? Can you, or anyone, really imagine zero time ? It's like saying spaceless space.

You would need to explain what what you mean by t=0 and in simple terms, before I can really think about the rest of what you said.

ok maybe have a look at a clock and pick the time you want to get up from your chair.
t= 0 = that exact moment.
It is often used to denote the moment of an event...
at t=0 = 10.30am, I boarded a bus.. etc
at t=0 = 11am, I predict I will get off the bus..etc

t=0 has no duration
does that make sense to you?
Imagine clapping you hands once really fast... imagine that moment your hands touched [ exactly that moment] is t=0 [no duration]
it is that exact point between future and past... the now of any given moment.

 

[Lakon]

ok here it is:


ok maybe have a look at a clock and pick the time you want to get up from your chair.
t= 0 = that exact moment.
It is often used to denote the moment of an event...
at t=0 = 10.30am, I boarded a bus.. etc
at t=0 = 11am, I predict I will get off the bus..etc

t=0 has no duration
does that make sense to you?
Imagine clapping you hands once really fast... imagine that moment your hands touched [ exactly that moment] is t=0 [no duration]
it is that exact point between future and past... the now of any given moment.

I suggested you read #203 because we (you) just keep going round in circles. All your points above are cancassed by that post. Again,

.. zero time. What's that ? A period of no time ? That's circular. Time can never = zero, because if it did, it wouldn't be time.

and ..

.. The present moment ? That, I suppose is another philosophical and scientific argument altogether - how long is the present ? We could spend years on that one. But we must assume some span of time, otherwise, what would we be talking about ? Can you, or anyone, really imagine zero time ? It's like saying spaceless space.

I propose to you and the scientists here who also use the term 't=0', that that term is non-sense.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I suggested you read #203 because we (you) just keep going round in circles. All your points above are cancassed by that post. Again,

.. zero time. What's that ? A period of no time ? That's circular. Time can never = zero, because if it did, it wouldn't be time.

and ..

.. The present moment ? That, I suppose is another philosophical and scientific argument altogether - how long is the present ? We could spend years on that one. But we must assume some span of time, otherwise, what would we be talking about ? Can you, or anyone, really imagine zero time ? It's like saying spaceless space.

I propose to you and the scientists here who also use the term 't=0', that that term is non-sense.

The problem is:
If t=0 has time duration then "absolute rest" is possible and the universe would "stop and start and stop and start" etc etc... even for a Planck length. All scientific theories rely on a continuum of movement. So therefore t=0 can not have duration.
The Uncertainty principle is only valid in a continuum of movement.

However a paradox in current logic comes up if one considers that at t=0 then distance=0, the universe is zero dimensional at t=0.

The fact that it is a continuum of movement is why the universe is existent at t=0. Whilst t= 0 is in itself zero dimensional the fact that time is constantly flowing means that that t=0 doesn't actually exist as it is zero dimensional. Therefore one can safely conclude that nothing or zero is nonexistent. [ yet we use it every day and all the time]

 

[Lakon]

The problem is:
If t=0 has time duration then "absolute rest" is possible and the universe would "stop and start and stop and start" etc etc... even for a Planck length. All scientific theories rely on a continuum of movement. So therefore t=0 can not have duration.
The Uncertainty principle is only valid in a continuum of movement.

However a paradox in current logic comes up if one considers that at t=0 then distance=0, the universe is zero dimensional at t=0.

The fact that it is a continuum of movement is why the universe is existent at t=0. Whilst t= 0 is in itself zero dimensional the fact that time is constantly flowing means that that t=0 doesn't actually exist as it is zero dimensional. Therefore one can safely conclude that nothing or zero is nonexistent. [ yet we use it every day and all the time]

.. So therefore t=0 can not have duration ..

And seeing as time is duration, it's like saying 'time cannot have time'.

 

[pljames]

In science there's a word called anomaly or mystery. After observing it one cannot use the scientific method of investigation. One can theorize hypothesize and the like. Could theorize and hypothesize be construde as scientific method then? pljames

 

[spidergoat]

In science there's a word called anomaly or mystery. After observing it one cannot use the scientific method of investigation. One can theorize hypothesize and the like. Could theorize and hypothesize be construde as scientific method then? pljames

That's not true, one can use scientific methods of investigation to investigate mysteries and anomalies.

 

[Write4U]

Of course one an also introduce the term t = 0 as the start of a new timeline within the greater ongoing timeline where presently t = 14,000,000,000 yrs @ c.

We have expressions such as "ground zero". When launching a rocket we count "t - 3, 2, 1, we have lift off" (@ t = 0)!