Leaderboard

So can you tell me what this methodology is? Please also give a few examples, e.g. how does philosophy study the physical world in contrast with how physics studies it? I really would appreciate you answer this, because I think it is at the root of our dissent. Take your time, please. And how do you know what valid premises are? Where do they come from? Science? Philosophy itself? How is this validity established? And to paraphrase one of your following points: who decides which premises are valid? Well, I do not think that analysing our ways of thinking is the same as intellectual freewheeling. You seem to equate philosophy to a body of definite conclusions, where it is in fact a continuing activity, because in time our way of thinking continuously is evolving. It seems to me you do. You claim to be an 'Authority'. More seriously: why should helping to clarify discourses, its concepts and presuppositions lead to a dictatorial attitude? Absolutist regimes hate philosophers, because they are well equipped to debunk their world views, ethics and politics. Wow. Clarifying discourse helps finding answers, but does not necessarily provides the answers. If it would be that, then philosophy would become dictatorial. If philosophers would come to power, the result would be disastrous in general, because they confuse philosophy as an analysing activity with 'Philosophy' as a set of results (Leninism anybody?), and everybody should follow the 'Truth'. Loyalty is the last thing you need in philosophy. As in any other discipline one needs intellectual freedom, to go there where your honest rational investigation leads you. Eh? Me not loving philosophy? (Well, maybe I do not love 'Philosophy'...) You know philosophy and science made some progress since the times they were seen as the same? Yes. However I did not mean to say that philosophy must be science, but when it does contradict established science, it is definitely on the wrong track. I am not a genius. I have a university degree in philosophy, that's all. Most ideas I present here are not original from me: I just think these ideas are correct, and I know arguments against and in favour of them. But I learned a way of thinking that is still strong living in me. Just compare with any other academic discipline: when you have studied, you are a specialist, a good, bad or mediocre specialist. As I am not working as a philosopher, you can conclude that I do not belong to the upper ten. So I better wait till you get your Nobel price for your Consciousness Research. Is this an example of your clear thinking? An academic philosopher is somebody who studied philosophy at an academy. How many of those people you mention have studied philosophy at a university? Then stop being personally yourself: let your arguments speak, not your authority that you are a 'Philosopher' who studies 'Consciousness'.

Reality (and the definition of what "reality" means) may be one subject of philosophical enquiry, but certainly not the only one. On the other hand, many philosophers of science would say that science cannot tell us anything about "reality", only about the things we can observe and measure. And who decides what we "should" think and what is "practical"? Not sure if this was a deliberate straw man argument or a genuine mistake. Read the statement you are responding to again. It is about how philosophy can tell us about "the ways we should think to come to valid or practical results" But your reply is about what we should think (and about who decides) which is irrelevant to the statement. These are completely different things. As a philosopher, you will appreciate that precision is important. I disagree. I think that finding the right questions to ask (and understanding that many questions do not have [easy] answers) is the most important part of philosophy. It is often not up to philosophy to come up with the "right" answers. It may be society, politicians, judges or scientists that need to make the decision; but they can be helped by being given the best questions to ask.

! Moderator Note First, if swansont is involved in a mainstream thread's discussion, he doesn't moderate that thread. He's always been extremely good about this in all the years he's been doing this. In this thread, he's a professional physicist discussing the science. Second, anyone who reads this thread can tell you're being emotional about a rational stance. swansont made a comment about personal opinion not being meaningful when applied to science, and he was right. Your objections are therefore more about the fact that he disagreed with you, or that he wouldn't let you strawman him or move the goalposts (as both you and wtf were obviously doing). Third, if you have a problem with another poster, use the Report Post function. We have a whole procedure for that. No need to take a thread off-topic to voice your frustrations.

(Cyan colour by me above) I checked again while you (hopefully) analyses the other responses so far. An obvious source of confusion that I first missed is that you seem to mix Lorentz transfom and time dilation. Lorentz transform is used to transform between coordinate systems and that formula is not the same as the formula used to calculate time dilation. Please clarify.

I think that's kind of the point with a discussion form. What did you expect? Dancing? More seriously; if some posts are not following the rules of the forum you could use the report button.

a=b=c=d=e=0

As a starting point: In other threads there seems to be misunderstandings regarding the two frames of reference S and S'. My initial thought is that t'=t/γ and γt'=t are identical and t' = tγ and γt'=t looks like a calculation done using wrong frame of reference and/or mixing primed coordinates (') with non-primed. Further details might be needed to address this.

Maybe you need to think about why that is. Which is more likely: (a) a lone genius has spotted a trivial mathematical error that has been missed by millions of students, scientists and mathematicians in over a century or (b) you have made a silly mistake? You seem unwilling to consider that you might be wrong. You completely ignore the answers and explanations you have been given. You need to step back and consider your motives.

actually that's a good question that I like - I have a personal interest - I have a novel about Newton with an agent at the moment - and one of my purposes was (as a non-scientist) to understand the basics well enough and to get that across accurately in the novel - and also just to express my wonder and excitement at the basic ideas and concepts that Newton was expressing. I was also interested just to know about relativity and whether this was accurate. But yes, I think you're right - with SF you can get away with more! (But yes, I'm disappointed with fiction that either doesn't even try to convey the science (and just focuses on the scientists' love life or what-have-you) or that actually gets it wrong!

Not all religions are as negatively judgemental as you.

https://www.sadanduseless.com/british-twitter-meets-donald/

One day, Einstein has to speak at an important Science conference. On the way there, he tells his driver, who looks a bit like him: "I'm sick of all these conferences. I always say the same things over and over!" The driver agrees: "You're right. As your driver, I attended all of your conferences and even though I don't know anything about Science, I could give the conference in your place." "That's a great idea!" says Einstein. "Let's switch places then!" So they switch clothes and as soon as they arrive, the driver dressed as Einstein goes on stage and starts giving the usual speech, while the real Einstein, dressed as the car driver, attends it. But in the crowd, there is one scientist who wants to impress everyone and thinks of a very difficult question to ask Einstein, hoping he won't be able to respond. So that scientist stands up and interrupts the conference by posing his very difficult question. The whole room goes silent, holding their breath, waiting for the response. The driver looks at that scientist, dead in the eye, and says: "Sir, your question is so easy to answer that I'm going to let my driver reply to it for me."

You are wriggling. If this is true then you can state what those functions might be. Not that this is relevant since what I am showing you is complete in itself. I will tell you that every single one of those oscillations is unique and not one of them is symmetrical since the scale is continuously changing on both axes. That is both the period and amplitude of the oscillation is continuously varying. A full isosceles triangle is symmetrical but can be decomposed into two smaller triangles, neither of which is. So what.?

Your claim was more than that. You said they didn't exist, and you stated that with absolute certainty. ("In terms of nature, there are no regularities at all") If one looks at e.g. Bose-Einstein statistics, on sees a certain expected behavior occurring only if atoms are identical, and different behavior if they are not. We observe the behavior of them being identical. It's not the model that has this regularity. The model requires that of the atoms.

I have always loved the old 40's/50's musicals and one of the greatest proponents of these musicals was of course the now late Doris Day...Rip Doris!

Que sera, sera.

4 nuns arrive at the Pearly Gates of Heaven. St. Peter is there to meet them with a bowl of Holy Water. St. Peter goes up to the first nun and says, "Have you ever touched a penis?" The first nun responds, "Yes I have. I have touched a penis with the tip of my finger." St. Peter holds out the bowl and says, "Dip your finger in this Holy Water, and be free to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." The first nun gladly follows the instruction and proceeds to enter Heaven. St. Peter goes to the second nun and again asks, "Have you ever touched a penis?" The second nun replies hesitantly, "Yes. I have touched a penis with my whole hand." St. Peter smiles and says, "Do not despair, simply dip your whole hand into the Holy Water and enter the Kingdom of Heaven." The second nun quickly does as she is told and gladly steps forth into Heaven. At this point the fourth nun cuts in front of the third nun and says, "Listen, I better go next because I'm not gurgling that shit after she sticks her ass in it."

Who cares?

[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008 In the derivation of LT in [7], three special cases are used to determine the constants A, B, C, D. The result of this derivation gives the following: B = −Av, C = −Av/c2, D = A, A = γ. If you replace these values in LEx': x' = Ax + Bt LEt': t' = Cx +Dt you get LTx': x' = (x – vt)γ LTt': t' = (t – vx/c2)γ It is these two equations that are LT. But during the derivation, the combination LEt', SC1 is not used. Therefore, we make a verification of a solution (as one should always do). We calculate LTt' in SC1: LTt': t' = (t – vx/c2)γ SC1: x' = 0, x = vt → t' = (t-v(vt)/c2)γ → t' = t(1-v2/c2)γ → t'= t/γ My comment: In the derivation of LT in [7] is used LEx ', LEt', SC1, SC2, SC3 and as a result you get time dilation t' = tγ. But the verification of the derivation, LTt' with SC1 gives us t'= t/γ. This shows that the derivation of LT in [7] is not self-consistent! This is one of the reasons I said that SR is nonsense. I regret that everyone is upset by my conclusion but I have a lot more aspects of SR that I have analyzed in detail and everyone shows the same thing.

You just talk and talk. You dare not take hold of my concrete questions. Come with a mathematical counter-proof regarding t '= tγ (t' = t/γ). Consider the following: According to SR, LT applies to all points {(x, t), (x', t')}. SR says that t' = tγ. The verification of LT in the point of SC1: x' = 0, x = vt gives t' = t / γ. This is an clear mathematical contradiction. → LT is not self-consistent!

I wanna be superman, it would be very helpful...

You mix my threads together. This is about time dilation. Come with a mathematical counter-proof regarding t '= tγ otherwise write no more on this thread. You or someone else. I have no desire or time to read your cheap comments.

You just talk and talk.