Strangely, in every educational institution I went to (some of which are in this realm of existence), they taught it as the THEORY of Relativity, not the unquestioned FACT of Relativity.
They aren’t the only resource, though, maybe you can help me find where it’s taught as fact.
When I google:
einstein fact
I find a lot of sites which give factoids about Albert Einstein, and nothing about any math or physics he has created on the first page of 10 hits.
When I google:
einstein theory
I find a lot of sites about hist theory of relativity, general relativity, and physics.
Your arguments are unconvincing because you offer them as bald statements, without any connection to reality. Your theories should explain the physical world, not remain disconnected from them.
Moreover, you offer no evidence that your theories represent the observable universe better than more mainstream theories.
And finally, I take it that your website is this one here. If so, I take it that you learned about science “while between lives deeper in the galaxy, where many of us have spent time.” This, amongst other things on the site, leads me to believe your expertise is questionable.
Explaining the physical world can hardly be done in a single post. It’s an ongoing process because the physical world is constantly changing.
Yes, I do. But I can’t validate reality for you.
There is no substitute for experience, I can’t do it for you.
Plus, it’s easier to understand, it’s not based on linear extrapolation (unverified assumptions) and it’s a more reasonable working theory than relativity. It also explains gravity, time, space, galaxies, super galaxies, the cosmos, black holes, dark matter, how a star works, why some people are born with more experience than others, even expansion theory, in publicly usable terms. It begins to soften the public’s dependence on “someone else” to understand reality. Mathematic formulas are not very useful to the general public. This explanation, is. And it is verifiable.
Does this mean you are open to a discussion?
What “evidence” would you accept?
If I am able to recall and verify locations I’ve been before, like Jersey City in 1935, or the UK during WWII or South Wales during the early 1500’s, is that “evidence”?
What evidence would you consider acceptable that people do have multiple lives?
Do you believe in an almighty magical creator that BIG BANGED everything into existence in an instant?
Why would/is such an obviously ridiculous childish projection be so well accepted worldwide, yet a brutally honest approach to scientific discover is not?
The first rule of science is to validate and verify yet none of the most basic premises of relativity have been verified. If a rock falls on Earth at 200 feet per second is it safe or even sane to assume that same rock will fall at the same speed somewhere else?
Is it safe to assume the world is the same, everywhere?
Do you believe the entirety of everything can be accurately quantified in a single equation?
Is the population of the earth ready to understand reality?
Maybe that’s why it doesn’t?
It was. The actual site is at trbailey.net. But it’s quite old and very outdated. I’ve been very ill so I haven’t been writing or updating things as I’d like to.
Some of it. I haven’t asked you or anyone else to believe what I say. If it’s correct it can be validated and since none of the cosmologists that study the cosmos have been there, my word is easily as “valid” as theirs. If I can validate that I have more experience it’s even more valid.
It’s not intended or even presented as “expertise”. I don’t have PHD or MD or MS after my name. Even if I did I wouldn’t use it like a hammer.
It’s a very different way of looking at reality based on honesty rather than dependence on the select few who “define” it for the masses. This description and much more is only useful if it can be validated. Since most of it comes from recall it’s not very easy and it’s obviously fraught with possible mistakes. But if it is “more” correct than current thinking it’s a huge step towards a better understanding of the world in which we exist.
Discovery is more important to me than ego or money or fast cars or even recognition and acceptance.
How about you?
-Tom
No. My position is not to assume beyond experience. In Vegas they call it “gambling”.
Discovery is the act of experiencing reality, whether it be the reality of the self or that self’s environment.
Because the self is wrapped in a physical reality, it’s only through experience of the environment that one can begin to experience and therefore discover one’s own self.
It really doesn’t matter what you say after that. The language of the universe is math. Words are just a way to translate that understanding to people who aren’t conversant with the underlying math. The math alone - in and of itself - tells you how the universe behaves. No words should intrude.
It may save you much writing time to understand that’s why no one will ever agree with your statements. Without math, they’re just opinions pulled out of a hat. Anyone conversant with math can look at the equations and their derivation and understand what they mean. No one outside your own head can ever look at your words and apply the same meaning to them. You’ve created an impossible dilemma for yourself.
People like arguing about this subject and I’m sure this thread will continue until everybody gets sick of pounding their heads against the others’ brick walls. I’m not deluding myself that I’ll convince you that math is all important when you reject math entirely. All I can do is repeat that you’ve set up a world in which it’s impossible for anyone to agree with you. I can’t understand how or why you find that satisfying, in this life or in any of your past lives on other worlds.
If it’s a theory that has not been validated, why do do many use it as the foundation for furtherance of a general relativity theology?
Is it the only theory?
If it’s the only “scientific” theory presented or even allowed in educational institutions, how can a student think of it as a theory?
Theories are usually presented in at least pairs where other possible theories exist. But that’s not the case with relativity. It’s the only theory presented or even accepted, like bible school and the New Testament.
I lost my wallet once and never found it. Does that mean it’s not in existence anymore?
:smack: If a theory or theology does not explain how a thing works, it’s not a very useful theory. It’s like having a photo of the eye of Jesus, then claiming to have a full picture of Jesus based on a picture of a rendering of the eye of Jesus…
Ok relativity is not that obscure but it’s not much closer. It fails to fully explain some of the most basic observations of reality. The first clue to me is the fact that it contains an exclusive constant value, linking that fixed value to EVERYTHING. Placing an arbitrary limit on a theory before it’s even been verified is pure nonsense.
The extrapolation is then that velocity, mass and energy are somehow the same thing. WHAT? My speed makes me heavier? If I go really fast I’ll travel back in time? It’s theoretical nonsense, completely disconnected from any reality because it’s not been tested. Proven by the lack of visitors from other times, or dimensions. It makes interesting SciFi channel movies but little else.
I think the issue is an attempt to take a shortcut using math that causes part of the inaccuracy. Math is not a substitute for experience or discovery. Then there is plain-simple dishonesty. People do lie about things to avoid consequences or for material gain, sometimes even in large groups.
Is there any “secondary gain” associated with perpetuating the unverified theology of relativity?
No prizes awarded?
No huge corporate investments?
No dreams of public praise?
Strings that vibrate making no sound…?
It’s the lack of any other complementary or unary theory that presents it as fact. No other ideas or theories are even taught. No degrees can be earned for unique thinking. If you don’t repeat the equation correctly you get a low grade or flunk the class. So, only those who “accept” the theory that is taught get the degrees and are “respected”.
Since when does Google or Wikipedia define or accurately represent alternate views of reality? Google is an advertising agency, not a library. Wikipedia is a public reference site, not a definitive treatise on theories of reality. Finding what other people have written is easy. Having your own experience and sharing it is hard, but in my experience always worth the effort.
I’m not interested in being “right”.
Right, like truth, is a point of view, not an aspect of reality.
-Tom
Ok, if you say so. How does one say “hello” with math?
Can you speak math with your mouth without translating it to a spoken language?
Is there some cosmic rule that only math can be spoken?
:rolleyes:
-Tom
How convenient for the selected, endowed, entitled, elusive, exclusive, mensa-minded physicist-only community of mathematicians.
So, there’s no possible way to explain reality without math so don’t bother trying?
Give up before you fail?
What does the universe say to you?
What is the universe?
Does that mean that the non mathematician cannot possibly understand the universe?
Is everything equal to everything else?
Does it also mean that the universe is a mathematical extrapolation?
Can you extrapolate a person’s life with an equation?
What will I be thinking next?
What is the universe thinking?
How would you collect data on events that haven’t occurred yet?
Hmmm, sounds a lot like the theology of God to me.
Does the term “Unique” have any place in the linear universe of mathematics?
How does one predict a unique event object or event?
I think this is a mistaken approach. Indeed, your words (though not, I dare say, yourself) are coming dangerously close to setting up a pseudo-religion of mathematical pantheism here. And anyone who has already rejected mathematics as a tool is going to see that, as (looking ahead in the thread) I see has actually happened.
And, in the end, it’s unnecessary. Far more to the point simply to say that a physical theory without math is necessarily without descriptive or predictive value. If, for example, you cannot say f=ma or anything else like it, then what can you say about force, or acceleration, or even mass? Even to say, “This rock is heavier than that rock,” is to make a mathematical statement.
Obviously, I disagree. And I think we’re interpreting my words differently.
Nobody here is even pretending to take siggma’s words seriously. I’m sure nobody ever has, either on earth or on any previous planet, and I’m sure nobody ever will.
It isn’t simply that the words he strings together are incomprehensible gibberish to anyone outside his head. It’s that all of our experience and all of science as we know it is explained and communicated as mathematics. Math is what makes science universal, pardon the pun, accessible and discussable. Without the math to originate the science we are limited to concepts like this rock is heavier than that rock. That’s not science, but a precursor to it.
When I say that nobody will listen to him without math, I mean exactly that. I in no sense am using the words in any philosophical manner, but in the everyday common terminology of explanation. I am stating a mere generality. Why are we ignoring you? Because we know that a word explanation of the universe is trivial and inadequate at best and most likely crackpot gibberish. You can try buttonholing people on the street or putting up websites or posting on message boards, but nobody who understands the subject will listen. It’s the simple fact of the matter.
Does this come close “dangerously close to setting up a pseudo-religion of mathematical pantheism”? I think not. It’s no different than telling the people who tell us they have a brilliant idea for a tv series that unless they go to Hollywood and spend years making the connections they have no hope of ever seeing it on the tube. It’s a description of how the world works in practice.
As description, what I said is accurate. If you want to play with the philosophy, be my guest. That’s not my particular interest but I recognize that it is for others.
So you’re saying that the way the instructors who treat the theory of relativity as if it were the fact of relativity?
I don’t recall my instructors doing that. Perhaps some other people here have had math or sciences courses where Einstein’s theories were discussed - did your instructors treat it as fact, or did they offer it as a theory and ask for discussion on it?
I recall people in class questioning aspects of theories (not just Einstein’s) and the instructors were happy to discuss it. Never once did an instructor tell a student they were wrong and the theory was right, or in other means treat the theory as fact.
I had said…
…meaning I knew that you would consider those weak sources, and I was inviting you to show me some sources you do not consider weak.
I’m looking for a cite that backs you up here:
Can you please give me a reference to this? How about a curriculum which is used by schools which teaches it as fact instead of theory?
Oh for God’s sake! Can we just drop this entire line of nonsense based on the pig-ignorant notion that “theory” means “hypothesis”? It doesn’t, and that’s that, and any attempt at an argument based on the notion that it does is just so much wasted hot air.
If neither mathematics nor English is to be usable in this thread, I suppose we’ll have to change to interpretive dance – but we’ll first have to relocate to YouTube.
Do you mean me? I’m just trying to find out why siggma saying that it’s taught as unquestioned fact.
And could you help me understand what you mean about theory and hypothesis? When I look up the word theory, I see the word hypothesis used as part of the descriptions
wikipedia - the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. Theory - Wikipedia
Merriam Webster - 6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption Theory Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
In terms of application to the scientific method, a hypothesis is a proposition put forward without evidence to be tested by experiment or controlled observation. A hypothesis need not be complete in its underlying basis; it merely needs to provide a prediction that can be uniquely falsified. A theory is a (more) complete analytical explanation (i.e. a quantifiable description of the phenomena on some fundamental level) which has been tested and is not falsified repeated application of the accepted technology and methodology in current practice. A theory is not inviolate, and indeed, nothing in physical science can be said to be beyond question, but a many theories, such as that of natural selection in evolution, quantum electrodynamics, and General Relativity, that have been observed and tested to such an extent or level of precision and have no valid competing propositions that they are accepted as the only reasonable explanation for the phenomena they describe. This is not to say that they may not someday be overturned, just as were heliocentricity, phlogiston theory, elan vital, and the luminiferous aether, but they are the best tested and most enduring explanations we have to date.
In contrast, the pseudoscientific nonsense espoused by poster siggma is nothing but unfalsifiable gibberish best suited to a Dr. Who screenplay. It isn’t just that the “stark arrogance” of other posters won’t allow it to be considered but that it is in fact without any basis to evaluate objectively. I suspect the poster in question is either aware of this and just enjoys the air of umbrage this brings, or that his prescription has run out. Either way, his arguments, especially with their thinly veiled invective and blatant obtuseness, are not worthy of further discussion.
One demonstration of Special Relativity can be found at hand. Drop a rare earth (neodynium) magnet through a copper tube and watch how it falls very slowly. This is a result of electromagnetic induction described by Lenz’s Law, which is only suitably explained by applying Special Relativity to electromagnetism. There is, of course, the perihelion precession of Mercury, the survival of near-lightspeed muons and pions (generated by cosmic rate collisions in the upper atmosphere) long past their decay life, and any number of other phenomena found in high energy and cosmic events. Special Relativity is a theory, but to call it “only a theory” belies how well this theory has tied together previously disparate and insufficiently explained behavior, and predicted phenomena only discovered or measured later. As far as theories go, in order to replace it you’d have to come up with something at least as detailed and extensive, and which would go on to fundamentally describe other phenomena (such as the underlying mechanics of spacetime and gravity) that the existing theories of Special and General Relativity don’t cover.
The very fact that the majority scoff or refuse to even think of accepting any other view is the point. If there were a new and more valid way of interpreting reality, how would you recognize it? Would it meet your expectations? If it didn’t meet your expectations, would you miss it?
Math can be used to measure and predict aspects of reality within a reasonable scope. E=MC2 IMHO, is an unreasonable scope. The further you attempt to predict using math from an actual measurement, the less likely your prediction then becomes. At some point that prediction moves from “risk” to “gamble”.
I clipped this from a recent email. It seemed appropriate to this discussion.
Remember, this is a strictly mathematical viewpoint. It goes like
this:
What Makes 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 103%? What makes up 100% in life?
Here’s a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that while Hard work
and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, its the
Bullshit and Ass kissing that will put you over the top.
“REMEMBER: SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM.”
Before this becomes more pungent than it is I’ll say this and stop.
Everything else aside, the theory of relativity, special relativity, conservation of energy etc. are all based on assumptions extrapolated from measurements. Even Quantum Theory which is based in part on relativity is based on assumptions extrapolated from measurements.
Since there is no substitute for being there…
My objection is more about the philosophy of discovery that produced relativity than it is about relativity itself. Relativity is a theory that has yet to be shown correct. Certain aspects of reality being nearly explainable with an equation does not validate the theory.
Math is not in and of itself a reality and it does not exactly describe any reality. It’s a tool. In the hands of an experienced individual, that tool can be very useful as a guide to exploration. But the tool itself does not and cannot explore on it’s own.
Relativity as a theory is like trying to take apart an entire rocket ship with a pocket knife, and nothing else. Relying on a single tool as the only means of validation isolates the theory from other observations that might shed additional light. In recent years it seem to even be increasingly defended and protected from any possible alternative explanation. Many people are heavily invested in relativity as a theory to the exclusion of all else. Such an situation generally makes for an environment unfavorable to new discovery.
As was pointed out earlier the theory of relativity may not be presented as fact, however, no other theories are taught alongside it as alternate explanations which implies it’s status.
If there is only one theory it’s a monopoly. Monopolies usually lead to monarchies replete with deities, worshipers and traitors. It’s like trading the religion of God or King for the religion of relativity. The hierarchy is the same, only the theology is different. Thankfully the consequences have been less devastating for humanity as a whole. At least so far.
Originally Posted by siggma
Einstein is taught as unquestioned FACT in nearly every educational institution in existence.
What if all of the other theories have major problems, holes, and are otherwise flawed, and this is the only one that isn’t painfully obviously wrong?
Suggest some other theories that seem more true to you. Ones that have passed the scientific rigors to become a theory. I’m interested. Something more meaningful than numerology.
