swansont

To require complete objectivity is to demand an ideal system. What is the connection to objectivity?

Two problems here. 1. iNow posted after your statement, so you cannot have had that post in mind when you made your claim. 2. It’s clear from the context that iNow interpreted it to mean “are there examples of science being objective” and gave some. i.e. objectivity exists. But the tone of your posts is that objectivity isn’t universal, i.e. there are examples where objectivity is lacking. There’s no conflict between these positions.

This was what I said, but you said you disagreed with it. You added a post specifically to say so.

So perfect objectivity is not an ideal system? What improvement beyond perfection is required in order for it to be ideal? I thought we covered this in a previous thread. We can deal with subjectivity in certain cases, as had been discussed So far as science is concerned, no. When you have evidence that science fails* owing to these assumptions it could be revisited. But you persist in not presenting evidence that would cause us to question it. * not having an answer yet is not a failure of science. There is no credible claim that science has answered everything. That’s no evidence at all. If you contend that “the whole affair is tainted by a particular worldview, but this denied on the basis of objectivity” you’d better be able to present examples of this, and also make the case that they are representative of the problem and not isolated exceptions.

Which part? That you’re demanding an ideal system (which is what perfect implies) or that it’s not what happens in the real world?

If you shoot a million shots and get one bullseye, that’s not “accurate”

Michael McMahon has been banned for repeated spamming of science-free takes on various topics.

Uncertainty is inherent and is not evidence that objectivity is lacking. Noise exists. The uncertainty principle exists. You’re demanding an ideal system, and that’s not what happens in the real world Can you give an example of science where you have divergent worldviews?

You appear to be missing the connection between 1 and 2 And this is where you need to present evidence, rather just make an assertion I don’t see where iNow has said that the “pure form” of objectivity exists One of the unsatisfying aspects of this presentation is the lack of specifics. Which experiments are being referenced here? What measurements? What apparatus? One approach to this “bootstrapping” problem is to have standards used as calibrations. Another elements is the recognition of experimental uncertainty, which is why you see error bars on the results. But without detail, it’s a guessing game as to what they are referring to. What kind of expertise does a sociologist of science have in this regard? Rebutting such a vague assertion is hard, but one glaring omission here is the fact that other scientists will try to replicate experiments, and/or other experiments will rely on the measurements. The focus on one scientist is wrong. I will reiterate the need for evidence rather than quote mining. This is something that got you in trouble before, and you’re not fixing it.

Is there any science that supports this claim?

Ironic that a post on objectivity is a compilation of some quotes from people have similar thoughts, which is a subjective view. This is a shortcoming of your earlier posts. Opinions aren’t evidence. The question is moot; as with any endeavor of humans, it will not be perfect, so examples will exist of failures of objectivity, and the real question is (or should be) whether objectivity is a goal, which it is. Asking if true objectivity exists is like asking if frictionless surfaces exist in physics. The answer is trivially “no” but that’s not (IMO) the interesting question Who are these some? What might be interesting here is to examine these other models that, the author implies, are valid, but haven’t been selected by this consensus, and how the consensus model was not objectively chosen. I’d be very interested to know about them.

The answer to your question is in the link. “The three expeditions travelled to the Crimea in the Russian Empire to observe the eclipse of 21 August. However, the First World War started in July of that year, and Germany declared war on Russia on 1 August. The German astronomers were either forced to return home or were taken prisoner by the Russians.” So they didn’t set out during WWI, but they were traveling when war was declared. (WWII has nothing to do with this. Did you misread “WWI”?) As I mentioned, the war hadn’t started yet. No connection.

ITRB has been banned for incessant spamming

Answered already. Stop spamming. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134542-many-iranian-user-replaced-owning-accounts/#comment-1274061

We have no control over what other sites do. Complaining here is inappropriate and will not accomplish anything Again, what happens on other forums is not within our control. However, if you keep spamming us with posts complaining about them, you will be banned.

The result is real, but your interpretation of it is not. Relativity is far from useless. I am well aware of this. But what is used is Einstein’s theory, not yours Are we moving with respect to this frame, or at rest with it? How can we measure this?

You mean “Why you split this conversation from the Twin paradox subject?” Because you hijacked a thread to bring up your personal take on the topic, which does not reflect mainstream physics. Forum rules dictate that the discussion take place in speculations.

But in the muon’s frame it is not, so this is not a physical change of the muon. It can’t be. There is no absolute frame of reference that dictates properties like time and length

No, in fact I’ve never seen this assertion. In many formulations of the problem these are not even presented; the rocket is already in motion and the clocks are zeroed when they are close to each other, and compared when close on the return trip. It’s the acceleration at the turnaround that matters.

! Moderator Note Seems to me we’ve gone over this ground before, and that thread was closed. You were told you could introduce a thread in speculations if you could present an actual scientific argument. You don’t get to hijack another thread to resurrect that discussion.

That does not say that the alleged expansion is from the solar wind. The referenced paper makes no mention of this as a cause.

Wrong interpretation. The Lorentz transformations are real changes to time and space. An observer with the muon sees no change in its half life; they see the distance traveled shorten. But an observer on earth sees the lifetime extended, while the distance is unchanged. Both can't be true if the change physically happens to the muon. (and you have an infinite number of reference frame who would all observe different values for time and distance)

There is no medium, but this suggests that you think the field is not Lorentz invariant. No physical properties change, as such. They just don’t have the same value, since they are relative to the frame from which they are measured. The value is not intrinsic or absolute. A meter stick measured by an observer in relative motion has a length shorter than 1m. But nothing physical has happened to the meter stick. It does not physically shrink just because I observe it. Thus, no mechanism is necessary. But the explanation of the relative measurement is well known: c is invariant c is invariant So basically you don’t see how energy can be frame dependent? A brick’s KE is zero in its own frame. To an observer moving at speed v, it has a KE of 1/2 mv^2 This is true in Galilean relativity.

I did quote that. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134213-lichtmans-13-keys-to-the-2024-election/#comment-1274528 Social Education 80(5) p256, second paragraph “the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes” https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/134213-lichtmans-13-keys-to-the-2024-election/#comment-1274357 You’re 0-for-2 in finding things posted in this thread.