The illusive Nature of Time

[SinisterThinking]

Sorry, no. Time dilation happens every, single time a particle is accelerated in a particle accelerator.

Sorry no. I'm pretty certain(at 95% accuracy), the folks at CERN would say your statement is false.


"scientists actually rely on time dilation to slow the particle's clock so they even have time to observe it."

Isn't this like using carbon dating? The presumption of fact(based on experiments with way less that 100% accuracy) only compounds the margin of error of the resultant data.


then you need to explain why clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth.

Your use of "faster" is really interesting. Anyone not familiar with what you are referring to,
especially when you use it in conjunction with "fixing", presumes devistation without this fix.
I only needed to read about Grace Hopper(20 years ago) to realize that the times your dealing with here
are about the length of a hair strand at light speed. If it was anyone other than Einstein, scientists would have
ignored it(It's way easier to get NSF funding if you use Einstein somewhere in your grant proposal).
Since time dilation wasn't tested in space until 2016, how did we manage?


Every reading has to correct for this error.

No, it just does. What's the point of having information when you don't apply
it? At that point it's just some code and a header.


Regarding the rest of your drivel.

Why do you insist on using words like "drivel". This is an awful way to
carry on conversation. Every single, solitary, scientific fact starts with someone
observing something, then if the passion is there, they pursue it through the scientific method.
You really need to reduce your oppressive speech. People just like to converse for fun, throw ideas around.
Sometimes the ideas are awesome, sometimes they sound like "Star Wars" logic. It doesn't matter.


then solipsism is your only possible position.

If I was stuck on a deserted island, I'd rather have Descartes and Locke to help me find food than Einstein.
Seriously, your use of this word is uniquely strange. When we talk about relativity, we have to say,"relative to what?"
No matter how you dice it up. The relativity of time ALWAYS requires observation. When we report our observation, isn't solipsism
our only possible position to report from? Maybe a better word would be constructivism?

 

[dimension-1hacker]

Sometimes the ideas are awesome, sometimes they sound like "Star Wars" logic. It doesn't matter.

Why is star wars logic so incorrect, science is the tip of the iceberg and most of societies adopted philosophical fragments are not only illogical and you yourself call "starwars logic" or in other words absurd, but cause any other view to seem "far out" because of the skewed difference. Questioning everything is not cherry picking what sounds "good" and ignoring what you think seeming absurd, people thought the earth was flat, the sun orbited around the earth, and any other belief "sounded like star wars" logic. Yet now most people think those peoples belief systems were "star wars" logic, therefore that statement is not valid as logic is either correct or not correct. With proving one or the other those types of statements can reflect negative on the speaker.

I view science as "star wars" based logic because science does not predict anything but a high probability of one occurrence happening multiple times visually but science does not describe what consciousness is, which neither proves or disproves senses manipulation. Assuming that your senses cannot be manipulated without understanding what consciousness is mocks the scientific and other philosophical methods of deduction which is a fallacy.

Which is the more absurd idea, to assume anything other then science is not logical without knowing anything about those things and therefore cannot determine which philosophy is more or less likely or to ask sensable questions about why something occurs then drawing reasonable conclusions.

question: How do you know if your senses are being manipulated if you do not know what consciousness is, and if your internal model of the external is accurate?

conclusion: If do not, if nothing is understood no possibility can be ruled out for how many ways my internal model could be changed to be other then the external world. As nothing is understood nothing can be determined to be more or less likely, which is a simple logical conclusion but most people would not understand that therefore fear and try to discredit that statement for the mere convenience of being certain of many things.

question: how do things that are only made out of mass move, how can there be a beginning if nothing can cause itself to move.

conclusion: As things with only mass are moving, yet nothing will only mass could of caused it, something that does not have mass cause it, which could be called time, which is now determined not be just be movement but a metaphysical priori.

That is getting to the root, or simplifying.

Thats what openmindless is, never assuming an concept is false because of societal pre conceptions while cherry picking unproven opinions and theories which is what "star wars" logic is without questioning if the statements are true or false without addressing the apposing arguements classified as awesome, while classifying idea's that come from questioning base assumptions as "star wars logic". Those types of opinions won't hold up against intense questioning, and do not represent the complexity of reality. like star wars, read over 50 star wars books, starwars is awesome. Logic will be the new science soon, when the next society rising from the ashes of the old on in a few years, hope that logic will stick after the next fad comes along. Watch rick and morty, that show opens your mind to different ways of thinking, looking at something from every metaphorical angle. Star wars logic is the only type of logic as the concepts a proven or debated by questioning everything compared to asking on question then thinking that is correct, every other type of supposed logic looks a bit niave, cherry picked, subjective, not metaphorical, one sided, on dimensional, and dreary to me.

I do not mean to offend if did, but am trying to debate factually and logically, cannot change how a person could possible enterprete only the substance of my claims. Ironically, scientific studies prove that most peoples opinions are not backed up by logic and only there because of being sufficiently influenced by others, which they are proven to not realize including about science. If you do not want to look only logically while analysing a concept then "trust" the current science.

refusing to debate because of the belief that something is not logical without mentally exploring if the opinion is logic or not if a fallacy.
I simple got to the root of science, "what does science depend on to be accurate; senses being accurate", "does science prove that the senses are accurate; no", "without knowing what enterpetes adds in changing data that is send to your consciousness can you know what the odds are your senses are not accurate without having any data to get odds from; no", "if there is no data can I rule out or and determine which possibilities are more likely then others; no", "there are an infinite amount of possible combinations of things like an infinitely large go board and an infinite amount of catagorizes of object based of size, density mass, and so on; yes", "there is only one accurate internal model of the external world; yes", " the odds are an infinite amount of possibilities for false and one possible accurate model, one/infinite; yes", and so on.

Not only are these statements logical onto themselves, but a supported by many well known philosophers including Descartes, Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, like Plato's cave. analogy

 

[SinisterThinking]

Why is star wars logic so incorrect.

My initial thought is that it's fiction.

but science does not describe what consciousness is,

There's no need, we have dictionaries. I would ask that you read a little Lev Vygotsky to help you with this concept.


Assuming that your senses cannot be manipulated without understanding what consciousness is.

You have no earthly need to understand what consciousness is. Consciousness is just the awareness of everything we perceive, that's all.

question: How do you know if your senses are being manipulated if you do not know what consciousness is, and if your internal model of the external is accurate?

Because you perceive it. The Matrix is just a movie. Let's say they are manipulated, and you don't know it. Does it matter?


question: how do things that are only made out of mass move, how can there be a beginning if nothing can cause itself.

In our thinking, we only have the tools we have. If we know entropy exists as fact, and there is no reason not to, we have to assume that either there is a beginning OR everything that is here has always been here.

People grow. They have mass. Growth is a measurement of movement. No matter how slight, a body at rest still moves. The opposing force acts at a molecular level. Thats where ve get the accuracy vs. precision argument.

which could be called time,

As the great philosopher, Mick Jagger said, "Time..is our side." But without distance and/or velocity. It's just another fun thing to think about.

 

[dimension-1hacker]

Why is star wars logic so incorrect.

My initial thought is that it's fiction.

response, you relied on cherry picked pre conceptions based off the society you happened to be in and did not recognise that science does not describe logic, only what is perceived by your senses and the inherent logical insignifigance of science which could be liked to a trillionth of on percent of what is actually logically true. Weather your senses are accurate, consciousness, and so on are determined by completely different philosophies. You did not qoute what science is before deconstructing the concept, without provided proof for or against which is the ultimate fallacy, I asked why the senses are accurate. Science is just something a philosopher thought out, nothing more nothing less.

but science does not describe what consciousness is,

There's no need, we have dictionaries. I would ask that you read a little Lev Vygotsky to help you with this concept.
response: language is limited, and scientists cannot quantify consciousness, do not know how consciousness works and do not understand the inner workings or the many gears behind the clock face, and each "definition" is based off different subjective philosophys which their followers believe are accurate

Assuming that your senses cannot be manipulated without understanding what consciousness is.

You have no earthly need to understand what consciousness is. Consciousness is just the awareness of everything we perceive, that's all.
response, prove it. read above response. no need? consciousness defines everything about us, everything we perceive is because how consciousness changes and adds data our perception, it dictates everything.

question: How do you know if your senses are being manipulated if you do not know what consciousness is, and if your internal model of the external is accurate?

Because you perceive it. The Matrix is just a movie. Let's say they are manipulated, and you don't know it. Does it matter?

Response: First so what, and whats the point talking about movies, that can be interpeted as using verbal smearing instead of addressing the question using logic, to imply that somehow the statement is not accurate without analysing anything about it, a straw man arguement. so what, a movie about a philosophical question, lets say they are manipulated, one possibility of accuracy and infinite of non accurate internal models. Perception inherently meaningless data is determined by your senses, which are sent to your consciousness, anywhere along the way could be changed or added or subtracted. The consciousness subconsciousness assigns meaning to the data but the consciousness also could do the same thing without you realizing it, as the consciousness is not just understanding other things is made up metaphorical gears that assign meanings the things, enterpete data, change data in unknown ways and so on. that is what I mean by not understanding consciousness.

question: how do things that are only made out of mass move, how can there be a beginning if nothing can cause itself.

In our thinking, we only have the tools we have. If we know entropy exists as fact, and there is no reason not to, we have to assume that either there is a beginning OR everything that is here has always been here.

response: The tools we have is not enough, more tools are gained by expanding your mental capacities to be able to understand more things, something cannot move by causing itself or being caused to move without an inherent property that is not mass based as something with only mass only is physical and is limited nothing with only mass can cause itself to move therefore cannot cause other things with only mass to move and cause itself to move.

People grow. They have mass. Growth is a measurement of movement. No matter how slight, a body at rest still moves. The opposing force acts at a molecular level. Thats where ve get the accuracy vs. precision argument.
In relation to what? relavent?
which could be called time,

also, added more to previous comment. read! debate continuation

 

[SinisterThinking]

also, added more to previous comment. read!

nah, sometimes it's very difficult to dissect what your getting at. If you could lay it out easier, I'd probably address. There are just so many fun topics I don't want to rest on a single one.

 

[dimension-1hacker]

nah, sometimes it's very difficult to dissect what your getting at. If you could lay it out easier, I'd probably address. There are just so many fun topics I don't want to rest on a single one.

I did literally just before you commented, added more that would help dissect what I am getting at. What is difficult to dissect? senses = data, data = certain enterpetation by consciousness, do not know the process therefore do not know if the data is being manipulated, certainly consciousness has that ability, read about aristotles prime mover, descartes question everything method, platos cave anology, science is not a substitute for actual logical philosophy, you need to train you mind to synthesize and understand the data which can take some time.
read about simulation theory, read about the limitations of science, read about the ways your senses can be manipulated.
simple statement, if everything was just space and mass and there is a beginning... how... no object can cause itself to move and the only way a beginning could occur is if the object caused itself to move, the beginning is the lack of all prior causes. is that the way you define it?

True there are many fun topics, and I think those are many of them, the very deep questions, what is more fun the debating the root of science. hope to continue the debate.

read isaac asimov books?

It does take a large amount of brain power to understand scientific theory concepts, and a greater feat to understand them all but there is a different between sciencetific abstract concepts and metaphysical concepts too, another difference is it can more will power to go down the philosophical "rabbit hole" to question everything about everything in every way, to be prepared to do that.

 

[SinisterThinking]

senses = data, data = certain enterpetation by consciousness, do not know the process therefore do not know if the data is being manipulated, certainly consciousness has that ability, read about aristotles
senses = the starting point on which to form a hypothosis.

data = the extrapolation of information from testing.


science is not a substitute for actual logical philosophy

Then the opposite must be true.


you need to train you mind to synthesize and understand the data which can take some time.

correct, synthesis is indeed the highest form of learning. The ability to synthesize in only limited by one's ability to climb the heirarchy of learning.(Bloom's taxonomy)


if everything was just space and mass and there is a beginning... how

if you take hydrogen, helium and a few other gases, put them together,then apply significant energy, guess what happens? Proteins form. After that, you can apply regular old water and now you've created
the potential to form life. If life then mass moves. Actually the gases move anyway.




no object can cause itself to move and the only way a beginning could occur is if the object caused itself to move

everything moves in space...everything. There is always force. Therefore there is always cause.


I have to read so much for work that I never get to read for fun. I do like Isaac Asimov though!

 

[Harte]

If you don't like what I wrote then meditate and listen to positive mantra videos while sleeping.

Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so.
Bertrand Russell

It's not about me "liking' what you wrote.
It's about your complete detachment from observed reality.

Personally, I don't care at all if you want to live in a fantasy. I respond to nonsense such as yours because I don't "like" the idea that somebody else could be mislead by your obvious foolishness.

Harte

 

[Harte]

Sorry, no. Time dilation happens every, single time a particle is accelerated in a particle accelerator.

Sorry no. I'm pretty certain(at 95% accuracy), the folks at CERN would say your statement is false.

And you would be 100% wrong.

"scientists actually rely on time dilation to slow the particle's clock so they even have time to observe it."

Isn't this like using carbon dating? The presumption of fact(based on experiments with way less that 100% accuracy) only compounds the margin of error of the resultant data.

Another person ignorant of particle physics.

then you need to explain why clocks on GPS satellites run faster than clocks on Earth.

Your use of "faster" is really interesting. Anyone not familiar with what you are referring to,
especially when you use it in conjunction with "fixing", presumes devistation without this fix.
I only needed to read about Grace Hopper(20 years ago) to realize that the times your dealing with here
are about the length of a hair strand at light speed. If it was anyone other than Einstein, scientists would have
ignored it(It's way easier to get NSF funding if you use Einstein somewhere in your grant proposal).
Since time dilation wasn't tested in space until 2016, how did we manage?

Because you don't think, you don't realize that the time "error" caused by gravity is additive.
You know what that means?

Every reading has to correct for this error.

No, it just does. What's the point of having information when you don't apply
it? At that point it's just some code and a header.

Without the correction, the time would be too far off to provide accurate information in a day or less

Regarding the rest of your drivel.

Why do you insist on using words like "drivel". This is an awful way to
carry on conversation.

Because I don't pretend it's not drivel when it is drivel.

Every single, solitary, scientific fact starts with someone
observing something, then if the passion is there, they pursue it through the scientific method.
You really need to reduce your oppressive speech. People just like to converse for fun, throw ideas around.
Sometimes the ideas are awesome, sometimes they sound like "Star Wars" logic. It doesn't matter.

Yes, observation is where it starts. So tell us, what have YOU observed?
I can see here that you think it's perfectly fine for you to state your personal opinion, and that people should leave you alone for that, while maintaining that MY personal opinion should never be posted.

then solipsism is your only possible position.

If I was stuck on a deserted island, I'd rather have Descartes and Locke to help me find food than Einstein.
Seriously, your use of this word is uniquely strange. When we talk about relativity, we have to say,"relative to what?"
No matter how you dice it up. The relativity of time ALWAYS requires observation. When we report our observation, isn't solipsism
our only possible position to report from? Maybe a better word would be constructivism?

Who cares who you'd rather have with you on a deserted island? I'd pick Bear Grylls.
Here's your solipsism:

you have an internal model of the external world and last time I checked you don't know weather the senses can be manipulated, and you never "saw" the world", we are brains correct?, therefore the data was sent to your consciousness to observe.

This gets you absolutely nowhere, lends nothing at all to your claim, can't possibly explain ANY observation, and has nothing to do with observed time dilation matching exactly (to the limits of measurement) with the prediction made by Relativity.
Yet it is your only possible position, since you don't know enough about the subject to back up your opinion.

Harte

 

[SinisterThinking]

And you would be 100% wrong.

Nope. I'm sure Malek, Duvall, and a few others would disagree with you.


Without the correction, the time would be too far off to provide accurate information in a day or less

10 km per day? Substantial but maybe not hugely important unless you are conceding that even with a fix it continues to change. Thus lending support to Duvall's refutation.


Because I don't pretend it's not drivel when it is drivel.
Just saying you could be more polite.


Yes, observation is where it starts. So tell us, what have YOU observed?
My first published work was on how smoking makes you live longer.

I can see here that you think it's perfectly fine for you to state your personal opinion, and that people should leave you alone for that, while maintaining that MY personal opinion should never be posted.

Nope I just think you have poor delivery. Your opinions are stellar.


Who cares who you'd rather have with you on a deserted island? I'd pick Bear Grylls.

Your mortician like levity is awesome. I was just saying that solipsism is not far off the beaten path as a method for a philosopher
to rationalize theoretical science.



Harte