What is science?

No I meant in this thread, I guess I dont have much idea about nature either but im used to that. I know the words relativity, time motion, space but their being bounded around in as far as I can tell mre or less rendom fashions. Although your last post did normalise things somewhat but this thread seems to be suffering from a nasty bout of buzz-word-itis.

 

Science "sprouted", and further advanced, by inquiry; evolving into the foundational philosophies of science which, also, have intimate and pragmatic connection to philosophical inquiry in general. Not considering the philosophical and practical difficulties in parsing observation and inquiry; Cleary, since the dawn of recorded history, and before, man has been making observations and then inquiring about the nature of these observations; the nature of these inquiries taking on a vast spectrum, many of which could be techinically classified as outside of the realm of 'scientific inquiry'. However in the process of refining inquiry into 'scientific inquiry' numerous iterations of observation and inquiry had to occur in order to identify valid, or apparently valid, patterns in order to evolve formal 'scientific method'.

 

There are two differing concepts of time there is the very traditional approach time used in QM and then there is the more abstract but mathematically elegant approach of SR and GR. Of course for QM to work then SR is incorporated so there is interplay but the different approaches to what time is are one of the problems with a TOE.

As a rule I prefer QM however when it comes to time I prefer Einsteins approach. QM doesnt really offer an explanation of time like relativity in equations it assumes a very 'newtonian' role (something at ticks along so effect follows cause). However there are some events in QM that can be thought of as events running backwards in time, this doesnt meant they are, but some results do have a symmetry in time. Time is one area where I feel relativity is right, experiment very much supports Einsteins theory. Whether we're picturing it might in our minds is one thing but the mathematical description doesnt look far wide of the mark. Though there are still a huge number of unknowns, something thats taken my interest recently is superluminal experiments, some give very curious results although so far causality seems to hold.

 

.

 

Midnight

Lol
Ok..Occam is wrong..
mass accellerated to near lightspeed suffers time
dilation effects because of
"gravity"
Which is a new one for science.
Because time dilation occures irrespective of the gravity gradient.

Occams statement.
'time is motion'
Is a concept. All things are in motion. galaxies and superclusters.
Spiral arms and solar systems.
Planets and people, cells and electrons.
EVERYTHING.

Imagine that motion as a wave that encompasses all mater
energy and space.
Across the universe this 'standing wave' of motion...

Is called the NOW

Occam

 

Time dilation is an effect predicted by special relativity not general relativity it has nothing to do with gravity. While strong gravitational fields can cause time dilation as desscribed by general relativity this came after special relativity.

I would be facecous and define standing wave but ill resist the temptation.

 

I really do think people over thing all of this....

I mean there are some things that really do need a lot of thought put into them because the superficial answer just doesn't work

but I mean come on, somethings are just so dreadfully logical, chromatagraphs, awesome, logical

slit plates, who the fuck came up with those, those things are brilliant and frankly I have no idea how some guy came up with that idea then figured out how to apply it

now there is a nice fat metaphor here....

I'd explain it, but every time I try to I get rather profane and it just isn't pretty....

so there we are....

 

Occam,

You appear to me to be an "'organic' evolution" in and of thinking, knowing my own use of this phrase implies for me that this means that you experiment with ideas as you learn; looking through patterns to find the patterns that make sense, the patterns that satisfy your intuition. You are a deeply creative soul, I see it, and you will be make fun of; would be tarred and feathered by much of the academe and the like, and when you flower they will try and be your pal. And when you have those "simple" solutions that no one else saw they may say behind your back "I saw it all along." For the most part be cordial and always be honorable, honestly and openly acknowledging your own errors. Some of what you say does not make sense to me but this in no way means that it is not valid and, of course, in no way means that I understand the detail of what you seek. I like your posts and many are very interesting, and, yes; no motion, no time. Keep on truckin my brother.


Peace,

David






http://mysite.verizon.net/natdat2/

 

Theres nothing wrong with a strong imagination and trying to view thing in different ways (its exactly what cosmologists need to be doing right now). However eventually someone is going to ask you to justify your belief (thats where science becomes tricky). At this point everyone else will become very sceptical, not because they have something against you personally but because if they dont then an incorrect theory maybe accepted, althout a lot of the time there probably is personal competition in there to. Also it never hurts to know what you talking about because there have been creative people in the past who have made massive contributions and there is no need to redo their work or even go against it, which is fine except when its been experiemtnally verified to high accuracy, even then you can but it required a lot of care and is usually more of an adjustment.

 

superficial logic and real logic are different things, very different.....

 

Fat tony

Please define standing wave.. Occam has never looked it up.
It is used as a descriptive mechanism.
A metaphor, of a sine wave.
The peak is motion,the trough is no motion.

Imagine a wave in an infinite sea.
The wave then. is not moving.
For there is nowhere to move to.
Yet it processes in a medium.

That is time

Mathematics is ALSO a metaphor.
A descripion of what is by a conscious mind.
Math works because it describes well. It is functional.
BUT IT IS NOT THE THING IN ITSELF

 

David

Occam does nothing but try to,
Speculate without preconception.

A direct reaction to humanity.
That lives within, and needs. preconception.

Occam

 

Standing waves are formed under a specific set of conditions where you have two waves of identical frequency and amplitude but opposite directions of travels. For mathematical minded people ive put the simple sine wave case below.

psi1 = Acos(wt - kx) + Bsin(wt - kx)
psi2 = Acos(wt + kx) + Bsin(wt+ kx) (identical except for direction of travel)

Psi = psi1 + psi2

This wave will osciallate but NOT propagate. Theres probebly a facny annimations somewhere on google. Its how musical instruments work. Anyway I cannot reconcile this with your comment about peaks moving and troughs not moving as this does not satisfy any wave equation much less a standing wave equation.

 

Fat tony

Standing wave is obviously an inadequate metaphor.

How about
"The processing of motion throughout reality. Is the NOW"

Processing does not have a 'direction' . It is an event.
Time is the sequential perception of the event of processing reality.
'Processing reality' is but the motion we observe in 'everything'
Everything moves= There is time.
Motion is driven by the objective laws.
If nothing moved,there would be no 'time'.
Ergo.
Motion is time.

The subjective NOW.
Needs nothing but motion to produce all the effect that we observe.
All tied logically to the objective laws.

Causality is nothing but sequentially percieved motion.

The above is not science, as far as experimentation and math goes.
It is the speculation of a generalist.
And occam is well aware that "science' has no idea what time IS.
So he offers a idea or two.
Because if mathematics does not know what time IS.
I'ts because no-one can conceptualise it.
Yet.

Occam

 

Your thinking of time is very similar to the newtonian interpretataion in which time isnt so much a physical quantity as a canvas on which each moment is painted. With the equation of mechanics using the conditions of the previous canvas to calculate the next. Although you say without time there would be no time, I would interpret this more as without movement there would be no need for time as the canvas would never change. So infact time could exist but you would not know it because each canvas would be identical. Either way the similarity is striking. This approach has been very much carried into quantum mechanics, as I said somewhere before QM has largely adopted the newtonian approach.

Relativity has a great deal to say about what time is infact thats a huge part of it so im not going to repeat it here but there are a great number of re-prints of the theory targeted at different mathematical levels try reading one I think you might be suprised about how much it offers. Treating time as a dimension (space-time) has proved highly succcessful. I say this quite a lot maybe we arent thinking about it correctly in our minds but then most likely we think of it in different ways anyway. But the mathematical description has so far been successful and yes it has questions unanswered but im fairly confident now that we have its basic nature.

 

MoonLight, you left the 'r' out of entrainment.




.

 

Fat_tony

Mathematics can accurately define time.?
Really
Occam has heard no such declaration by the scientific community.
AS far as occam can investigate with comprehension.
Time is an OPEN THEORY
Just like biological evolution.

Occam

 

Midnight

Incorrect..

Occam NEVER mentioned the word FACT.

Human beings CANNOT know any fact as absolute.
Except 'cogito ergo'

Occam

PS
Please remove your tounge from fat_tony's butt

 

Well yes it is a theory but it does have experiemntal support. This is why I keep using phrases like 'looks good' or 'on the right lines'. I mean that yes, it is just a theory, but its been one thats stood many experiemtnal tests but there are still unanswered questions and things that dont quite fit. Its possible that GR needs to be adjusted over very long distances. In much the same way that if you put small values into Einsteins equations you get the same values as Newtons equations. So Newton wasnt wrong as such he just found an approximation. However there comes a point where spacetime has correctly predicted so much that you say it probably needs adjusting but its looking highly unlikely thats its wrong.

 

Oh and then theres the small problem that the whole thing hasnt been reconciled with QM ther most successful theory ever. Its also far better hunting ground for philosophers, Ive had some great debates with a friend about what QM has to say about god.