02 Jul 08
1 edit
Kelly doesn't understand this by religious reasons. Hypothecially, if he were to understand it, his religious beliefs would tremble.
My grandmother doesn't understand this either. She just don't have the scientific background to grasp the theory of relativity, nor quantum mechanics.
But still she is marvelled by my GPS in my car, despite the fact that it constantly is recalibrated because of relativitstic phenomena.
And she like to watch TV, despite the fact that there are tunneling transistors within her TV set, using the quantum effects. She doesn't care, she has set up her mind anyway.
"Relativity? Quantum theory? Bah! Scientific nonsense!", she use to say.
02 Jul 08
I see.
It amazes me that people dont take more time and effort to understand science, people who would be embarrassed if they could not read or write have no problem with not being able to cope with basic maths.
I always hear people saying things like "Oh, I'm hopeless at maths, I just cant do it" when faced with a simple everyday task like dividing up the household bills.
For some reason, It has become acceptable to have no scientific knowledge, it is seen as "cool" to be bad at maths - I dont understand why.
02 Jul 08
I'm not bothered by people that don't know any science, or any math.
I'm more bothered by those people that pretend they know a lot, but know nothing. They are there, discussing things they don't understand, trying to make fools out of them who do know science.
"The grass is green, because it is lightened up by the yellow sun and the blue sky, and if you mix yellow and blue what do you get? Yes, exactly - green! That's the way science work, fantastic, isn't it?"
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScyhteI do not believe it can be known for certain, and unless you wish to
First: answer me this question: Do you accept that the speed of light is constant relative to any frame of reference? I don't want to read between the lines that you don't believe anything as truth or any other philosophical mumbo jumbo, that's a discussion for another thread. Just simply say yes or no. Even a "I don't believe anything can be known for certai ...[text shortened]... y opinions are very likely to be a bit inaccurate. Please correct me where necessary.
tell me within science anything can be known for certain, neither do
you. You can not say that within science that everything is subject
to change with new information, and accept we know anything with
certainty.
Kelly
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJay“..I do not believe it can be known for certain,..
I do not believe it can be known for certain, and unless you wish to
tell me within science anything can be known for certain, neither do
you. You can not say that within science that everything is subject
to change with new information, and accept we know anything with
certainty.
Kelly
But science can demonstrate through considerable evidence that the probability of it being false is vanishing small -as in this case -therefore it is considered to be a scientific FACT that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Like all scientific “FACTS”, it is considered to be “fact” when the evidence is so strong that there is no credible chance of it being false.
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI have already addressed this point. Scientific measurements are always accompanied by their associated margins of error.
I do not believe it can be known for certain, and unless you wish to
tell me within science anything can be known for certain, neither do
you. You can not say that within science that everything is subject
to change with new information, and accept we know anything with
certainty.
Kelly
Let's consider a simple example: Ohms Law.
Ohms law is that for a conductor the voltage (V) is related to the resistance (R) and current (I) by V=IR.
Let us imagine there is an experiment where the current flowing through a constant resistance is measured as the voltage increases.
For every value of V the corresponding value of I is measured and recorded. Three will be errors associated with V and I due to the finite accuracy of the equipment.
Looking at the results will show that within experimental errors V = IR. That means that even tho V will not be exactly IR the relationship will be true within the errors.
For example, if R = 1ohm. Then when V = 10 +/- 1 volts, I could be 8 +/- 1Amp, this is consistent with Ohms law as 10 - 1 = 9 and 8+1 = 9, so within the experimental errors Ohms law has been confirmed.
This is a very simple example of how even though you dont have exact measurements you can still draw definite conclusions.
How does this relate to Time dilation? Well, my point is that time dilation has been measured, it has been observed lots of times using different methods and equipment. So it happens. All measurements taken have shown it to be consistent with the Theory of Relativity, within experimental errors.
Where you have a valid point is that there may be more accurate measurements in the future where a noticeable deviation from the Theory of Relativity is observed. If that happens then the Theory will need to be adjusted - BUT it must be adjusted in such a way that at the current level of accuracy it remains unchanged, just as Relativistic mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics in most everyday situations.
To say things like "There may be something we dont know about- the whole things is wrong" is simply idiotic.
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo you are telling me that nothing you can see or miss could cause
[b]“..I do not believe it can be known for certain,..
But science can demonstrate through considerable evidence that the probability of it being false is vanishing small -as in this case -therefore it is considered to be a scientific FACT that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Like all scientific “FACTS”, it is considered to be ...[text shortened]... “fact” when the evidence is so strong that there is no credible chance of it being false.[/b]
you to question that "fact"? Bottom line, it is beyond change in your
opinion?
Kelly
02 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MattPI've addressed this issue before too, you can only put a percentage
I have already addressed this point. Scientific measurements are always accompanied by their associated margins of error.
Let's consider a simple example: Ohms Law.
Ohms law is that for a conductor the voltage (V) is related to the resistance (R) and current (I) by V=IR.
Let us imagine there is an experiment where the current flowing through a consta ...[text shortened]... ike "There may be something we dont know about- the whole things is wrong" is simply idiotic.
on anything you know all the variables too, if you miss something
it means you are not taking into account all things and your
percentages are not true. Now you may be believe you have all the
information required, that is faith on your part, I'm simply keeping the
door open to change and being questioned for it. With respect to
Ohms law, that does a lot of good for us, yet at the same time even
if it were wrong, the direction it gave us has promoted a lot of nice
things nonetheless. I'm not at all suggesting these things are beyond
a doubt wrong, I'm only saying that subject to new information all of
us could be forced to admit, something else could be true. If you
refuse to acknowledge that, you have dogma not science.
Kelly
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasBlow it out your nose, you don't have a clue, yet you wish to belittle
Kelly doesn't understand this by religious reasons. Hypothecially, if he were to understand it, his religious beliefs would tremble.
My grandmother doesn't understand this either. She just don't have the scientific background to grasp the theory of relativity, nor quantum mechanics.
But still she is marvelled by my GPS in my car, despite the fact tha ...[text shortened]... er mind anyway.
"Relativity? Quantum theory? Bah! Scientific nonsense!", she use to say.
me because I am not taking a side you happen to agree with. The only
thing I have really said here is that with new information anything
we accept as more than likely true, we would have to acknowledge we
were wrong about! My faith has nothing to do with that, yet you want
to drag it in, you are pathetic; you don’t see me questioning anyone’s
intelligence or their religious beliefs because they disagree with me
yet I’m fair game to you, you should spend time reasoning out that
one.
Kelly
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm willing to acknowledge given the current tests we have that we
[b]“..I do not believe it can be known for certain,..
But science can demonstrate through considerable evidence that the probability of it being false is vanishing small -as in this case -therefore it is considered to be a scientific FACT that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Like all scientific “FACTS”, it is considered to be ...[text shortened]... “fact” when the evidence is so strong that there is no credible chance of it being false.[/b]
can come up with that as true, you disagree with that?
Kelly
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by MattPPlease, you want to tell me, all things you accept as facts are
I have already addressed this point. Scientific measurements are always accompanied by their associated margins of error.
Let's consider a simple example: Ohms Law.
Ohms law is that for a conductor the voltage (V) is related to the resistance (R) and current (I) by V=IR.
Let us imagine there is an experiment where the current flowing through a consta ...[text shortened]... ike "There may be something we dont know about- the whole things is wrong" is simply idiotic.
beyond error?
Kelly
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is why I find myself in your corner KM--even when I think you're Wrong! 😀 People who insult and bully are bad enough; those who belittle others with the presumption that they are somehow "better", "more cultured", etc. are the worst bullies of all--the elitists. They could learn a thing or two from a fellow you and I know 😉 about treataing others with compassion and courtesy.
Blow it out your nose, you don't have a clue, yet you wish to belittle
me because I am not taking a side you happen to agree with. The only
thing I have really said here is that with new information anything
we accept as more than likely true, we would have to acknowledge we
were wrong about! My faith has nothing to do with that, yet you want
to drag i ...[text shortened]... sagree with me
yet I’m fair game to you, you should spend time reasoning out that
one.
Kelly
02 Jul 08
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly: You're using the same kind of religious rethorics in your scientific discussions. You don't know much in science but you claim you know it all. Why? Because you have god at your side? Or what?
Blow it out your nose, you don't have a clue, yet you wish to belittle
me because I am not taking a side you happen to agree with. The only
thing I have really said here is that with new information anything
we accept as more than likely true, we would have to acknowledge we
were wrong about! My faith has nothing to do with that, yet you want
to drag i ...[text shortened]... sagree with me
yet I’m fair game to you, you should spend time reasoning out that
one.
Kelly
All the rest of you: Don't think Kelly wants to know anything, he doesn't. Don't treat Kelly as a good student, he doesn't listen. Don't discuss with Kelly on fair grounds, Kelly doesn't. He just want to win the discussion, wants to have the last word. What he doesn't believe in he can read in any textbook - if he wants to - he doesn't want to.
He asks a lot of things, but answers a few of yours. Why? He doesn't know the subject.
So if you want to uphold a meaningless discussion, please, continue. And he laughs at you, because you can't win. Why? He uses religious rethorics in the scientific field. Therefore you can't win anything. Does he win anything? No, neither does he. This discussion is a lose-lose situation. It doesn't bring anything valuable into it.
02 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas”…All the rest of you: Don't think Kelly wants to know anything, he doesn't. Don't treat Kelly as a good student, he doesn't listen. Don't discuss with Kelly on fair grounds, Kelly doesn't. He just want to win the discussion, wants to have the last word. What he doesn't believe in he can read in any textbook - if he wants to - he doesn't want to. …”
Kelly: You're using the same kind of religious rethorics in your scientific discussions. You don't know much in science but you claim you know it all. Why? Because you have god at your side? Or what?
All the rest of you: Don't think Kelly wants to know anything, he doesn't. Don't treat Kelly as a good student, he doesn't listen. Don't discuss with Kell s discussion is a lose-lose situation. It doesn't bring anything valuable into it.
That is also my overwhelming impression. I totally agree with you.
”…He asks a lot of things, but answers a few of yours. Why? He doesn't know the subject.…”
I have noticed.
”…So if you want to uphold a meaningless discussion, please, continue. And he laughs at you, because you can't win. Why? He uses religious rethorics in the scientific field. Therefore you can't win anything. Does he win anything? No, neither does he. This discussion is a lose-lose situation. It doesn't bring anything valuable into it..…”
I almost agree with you here. Initially, I honestly wanted to save him from his own delusions. I know now that it will always be tatally futile to try and do that. But, I fear, if we let him have the last word then some of those people who lack knowledge about basic science and who reads his last posts may, through their ignorance, think that he has a point when he doesn’t. If that were to happen, then those people would come to share some of his absurd delusional beliefs. For this reason, I wish to continually point out all the obvious logical flaws in all his dreadful twisted arguments.