The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.  (Read 5165 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« on: 11/05/2015 21:24:10 »
In reading several topics on various things over several years , and countless internet forum time , I have come to a concern that psuedo science is being quoted and stated to be facts and true.

In question are -

time dilation - a change in any output of any arbitrary time device has no effect on time.

space time - not observed, time is ageless in and of a space.

SR - uses the time dilation calculation in its own calculation,

expanding space - space can not be observed as moving.

the big bang - a prequel, and also said space expanding in the theory making it null and void

These are just a few off the top of my head.





« Last Edit: 11/05/2015 21:39:34 by Thebox »


 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #1 on: 11/05/2015 22:48:37 »
I agree with you that treating pseudoscience as science is poor form, but I disagree with you over all of your examples of pseudoscience. Just because you, yourself, do not understand the reason that these theories are accepted (and experimentally supported) does not make them pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience and science, are actually processes rather than sets of proposed facts/theories. The difference them is that pseudoscience relies on "reason" and "logic" whereas science depends on validation, modification and rejection of theories. It would appear from most of your posts recently that the former is more appealing to you.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #2 on: 11/05/2015 23:58:27 »
The difference them is that pseudoscience relies on "reason" and "logic" whereas science depends on validation, modification and rejection of theories.
I would add that the pseudoscience relies on "reason" and "logic" which I assume you have put in quotes because they are usually faulty.
Also the theories rejected by science are the faulty ones that cannot be verified.

Pseudoscience also claims simple, visualisable explanations. It claims solutions to fundamental properties for which science is prepared to say 'we don't know ...... yet'
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #3 on: 12/05/2015 03:40:26 »
Quote from: Thebox
In question are -
In question? Bullsh*t. They more certainly are NOT in question. Just because someone with ZERO education in physics can't grasp something in no way makes them in question. It figures that you'd say something that bogus.

Quote from: Thebox
time dilation - a change in any output of any arbitrary time device has no effect on time.

space time - not observed, time is ageless in and of a space.

SR - uses the time dilation calculation in its own calculation,

expanding space - space can not be observed as moving.

the big bang - a prequel, and also said space expanding in the theory making it null and void
First of all, the comments after them are nonsense and as such false in that they're unrelated or just plain wrong.

In the second place, nothing in what you just posted fits the definition of pseudoscience. This is just another example of your ignorance from not actually picking up a book and reading. Pseudoscience is not science that's wrong. That's just a wrong theory. Pseudoscience is an entirely different thing. I already explained that earlier.

So here we are, you're so wrong yet once again. You're never going to stop making these mistakes until you start reading physics texts and philosophy of science texts. Recall what a pseudoscientist does
Quote
1. First and foremost of these traits is that [they] work in almost total isolation from their colleagues ... isolation in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers.

2. The pseudoscientist submits his or her work not to bona fide experts in the field but to the general public, though the general public is not qualified to evaluate it.

3. The pseudoscientist speaks through organizations he or she has founded, thus avoiding genuine peer review and conveying an aura of professional expertise.

4. The pseudoscientist considers himself or herself to be a genius (most likely misunderstood and persecuted).

5. The pseudoscientist regards colleagues to be, almost without exception, "blockheads".

6. The pseudoscientist compares himself to Galileo, Bruno, Pasteur, or other well-known, well-respected scientists whose work met initial hostility and resistance. The pseudoscientist repeatedly cites comparisons between his or her view and historical cases of persecution of true genius, which was initially misunderstood. (This functions as a form of fallacy of positioning).

7. The pseudoscientist exhibits a strong compulsion to focus criticism on the greatest scientists and/or best-established theories of the day.

8. The pseudoscientist tends to write in a complex jargon often making use of phrases, terms and locutions he or she has coined. This rhetoric can be quite persuasive, creating a beautifully crafted jigsaw puzzle of assertions. Clever use of circular reasoning, equivocations, and other persuasive tricks makes it difficult to refute pseudoscience by logic and authentic scientific evidence.
None of the theories you mentioned fit in with this. I.e. no scientist who works in those fields are pseudoscientists.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2015 04:51:38 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #4 on: 12/05/2015 18:34:48 »
In reading several topics on various things over several years , and countless internet forum time , I have come to a concern that psuedo science is being quoted and stated to be facts and true.

You are not entirely wrong - many people overstate the case for their mainstream theories.

Quote
time dilation - a change in any output of any arbitrary time device has no effect on time.

That may well be true, but it depends on what you mean by "time". Einstein uses a kind of time in his model which is quite different from what you have in mind.

Quote
space time - not observed, time is ageless in and of a space.

Spacetime is a viable feature of one model of reality - nature really could have such a structure.

Quote
SR - uses the time dilation calculation in its own calculation,

Analysis of anything ends up reaching circularity.

Quote
expanding space - space can not be observed as moving.

The microwave background fits with a theory that says it started out as light but was stretched - that stretching can only be accounted for by an expansion of space. It is the most likely explanation of what we see. You need to do the work and provide a better theory if you can. The evidence is that you have insufficient knowledge to be in a position to do this at the moment, and that it will take you a very long time to catch up with the many people who have tried to find alternative explanations and who have then rejected them.

Quote
the big bang - a prequel, and also said space expanding in the theory making it null and void

The evidence makes it look as if there was a big bang - again it is the most likely explanation of what we see, and again you need to do the work and provide a better theory if you can.

Quote
These are just a few off the top of my head.

Don't worry - we've already heard the rest from you many times. As I told you before, you need to focus in on one or two things and become an expert in that/those area(s) rather than talking about everything out of extreme ignorance.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #5 on: 12/05/2015 18:42:43 »
I rest my case , again you defend Psuedo science that does not have  hard evidence.  You are convinced the things I mention are real, when they have no evidence.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #6 on: 12/05/2015 18:46:55 »
I will firstly start my argument by asking you to provide evidence supporting the psuedo science you say is fact,

Firstly I ask you to provide a time dilation evidence, I ask you to show how time is effected by a dilation, bare in mind arbitrary clocks are arbitrary, your atomic clock is arbitrary.

Let us see how science can try to windle its way around this one.

I rule out the atomic clock and the keating experiment, the clock is arbitrary therefore you have no time dilation, call it a timing dilation and yes i will accept that.

« Last Edit: 12/05/2015 18:52:59 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #7 on: 12/05/2015 19:24:57 »
Please define a non-arbitrary clock.

And note that the theoretical equations of relativity do not specify what sort of clock you can use. It just happens, remarkably, that if you use an atomic closk (that was invented a long time after Einstein's publications on relativity) you get the answer Einstein predicted. Sheer luck? Not entirely, because it doesn't seem to matter whether you use a rubidium, caesium or krypton clock.   

And if you don't make the appropriate relativistic corrections to your GPS clock, you miss the runway by just enough distance to kill everyone. So for the time being I'll stick with Einstein rather than Mr Box.
« Last Edit: 12/05/2015 19:28:40 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #8 on: 12/05/2015 19:33:19 »
Please define a non-arbitrary clock.

And note that the theoretical equations of relativity do not specify what sort of clock you can use. It just happens, remarkably, that if you use an atomic closk (that was invented a long time after Einstein's publications on relativity) you get the answer Einstein predicted. Sheer luck? Not entirely, because it doesn't seem to matter whether you use a rubidium, caesium or krypton clock.


There is no such thing as a none arbitrary clock.   All your clocks are arbitrary and pretty meaningless.   

I asked for evidence?


evidence I know you do not actually have.

therefore ''time dilation'' is an experiment that shows nothing more than a constant time keeper failure, that shows a timing change of the clocks,


I ask you to provide proof to show that this arbitrary clock, no dissimilar to a wall clock, alters time?

Please do not insist that the caesium atom is time itself, we all know that is not true.

p.s I am not saying you do not witness a timing dilation as used in gps.  I am saying you do not witness a time dilation in any sense.

very simply place a stick in the ground and attach a 1 meter lng piece of string with a ball on the end of the string, orbit the ball, zig zag the ball while in orbit, I bet you right now that the string is always 1 meter in length, I bet you the light reflecting off the ball is straight to your eyes, and always the same distant if you hold the stick

radius does not alter......consider being central of a sphere, r always equals r.

Your very definition is what makes it psuedo, suggesting that time itself is effected in comparison by a clock with a flat battery that runs slow.

Call it a timing dilation, it becomes true fact and does not suggest that time itself is altered in any way.

This way science will be understood and no longer will crackpots argue this.


see here where I tell it straight.  I have drawn you SR



http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36878&p=1369633#p1369633

page 570


« Last Edit: 12/05/2015 20:22:52 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #9 on: 12/05/2015 20:32:29 »
Moving on , I ask for evidence of a space-time when space is obviously immortal.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #10 on: 12/05/2015 21:46:22 »
This forum is not a soap box to stand on and deride any and every scientific theory out there. The New Theories section is here to propose and discuss alternative theories, one at a time.

ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!

I suggest to anyone who has questions about why/how a specific theory was formulated, and what evidence supports or challenges that theory: start a thread about a particular theory and stay on topic!

Thank you.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #11 on: 12/05/2015 22:08:51 »
This forum is not a soap box to stand on and deride any and every scientific theory out there. The New Theories section is here to propose and discuss alternative theories, one at a time.

ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!

I suggest to anyone who has questions about why/how a specific theory was formulated, and what evidence supports or challenges that theory: start a thread about a particular theory and stay on topic!

Thank you.

Oh no, I will banned rather quickly no doubt now you are a moderator.

My theory is not a theory about any specific subject, it is a theory that science persists in attributing content as fact when science can not back it up with solid evidence.
I have asked for evidence to show how an arbitrary clock such as the Caesium clock can in any way effect time itself.

I have been provided no link of evidence, therefore the evidence must not exist.

I accept a timing dilation, I do not accept a time dilation based on no evidence with no support or even attempted debate by yourselves and this forum. 

Two very different concepts indeed are timing dilations and a ''time dilation''.

You and I are not infinite in our existence.

We are timing our existence by counting how many times we orbit the Sun.

Like always  when science is put under any sort of logical pressure it fails to answer,


 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #12 on: 13/05/2015 00:36:05 »
ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!
I'm afraid we are back to TB's original post in which it is obvious he does not understand the basic measurement of the passage of time aka time. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=54560.0

If we take this statement:
I have asked for evidence to show how an arbitrary clock such as the Caesium clock can in any way effect time itself.

We all know, and he knows, that it is impossible to provide evidence for something which does not happen. A caesium clock DOES NOT affect time, never has, never does, never will. It doesn't even affect a timing dilation. If 2 cars travel from the same point to the same destination via 2 different routes, no one in their right mind would suggest that the odometers are responsible for the difference in distance measurement, anyone who did would be considered an idiot making inane comments. This has been covered in yet another Box post.
The fundamental problem is TB's lack of understanding of any basic concept of physics and his insistence on his own theories and definitions, any explanation is automatically dismissed, without being fully understood. Even schoolchildren learning physics would not make errors of this magnitude. It is impossible to explain anything to him because of this lack of understanding and his troll like behaviour.

I say troll like, because I am coming to the conclusion that this behaviour is deliberate and intended to disrupt and occupy resources of this forum. I can quite understand why he has been banned from other forums, and I have reason to believe he was considered a troll in those.
« Last Edit: 13/05/2015 09:13:08 by Colin2B »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #13 on: 13/05/2015 12:08:33 »
This forum is not a soap box to stand on and deride any and every scientific theory out there. The New Theories section is here to propose and discuss alternative theories, one at a time.

ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!

I suggest to anyone who has questions about why/how a specific theory was formulated, and what evidence supports or challenges that theory: start a thread about a particular theory and stay on topic!

Thank you.

Oh no, I will banned rather quickly no doubt now you are a moderator.

My theory is not a theory about any specific subject, it is a theory that science persists in attributing content as fact when science can not back it up with solid evidence.
I have asked for evidence to show how an arbitrary clock such as the Caesium clock can in any way effect time itself.


Clocks do not affect time, they record it. If this isn't apparent to you then you are worse off than I thought. It is really a waste of time anyone even attempting a conversation with you because you just want to argue for the sake of it. You say nothing useful unless it is purely by accident.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #14 on: 13/05/2015 17:38:16 »
I rest my case , again you defend Psuedo science that does not have  hard evidence.  You are convinced the things I mention are real, when they have no evidence.

Did I defend it? Read my words more carefully:-

Quote
Quote
time dilation - a change in any output of any arbitrary time device has no effect on time.

That may well be true, but it depends on what you mean by "time". Einstein uses a kind of time in his model which is quite different from what you have in mind.

When Einstein talks about time, he's referring to a "time" dimension, and within his model there is time dilation. It is therefore a fact that time dilation occurs within his model, but it is not a fact that his model is correct - it is a theory.

The best clock to think about when exploring this is a light clock - that is the purest kind of clock because it uses the speed of light directly rather than using any kind of device that is governed by forces that are transferred at the speed of light - when you use such clocks you are effectively using a light clock too, but you are hiding that under a more complex mechanism.

If you move a light clock through space, the light has further to travel through space before it can complete a tick, so the clock runs slow. At no point does the light run slow though, so there is no slowing of time itself, unless you want to warp things through a theory like Einstein's, in which case the moving clock is following a different route through Spacetime in which the passage of "time" is matched to the light clock and "slows" with it, but this "time" is the "time" dimension kind of time and the "slowing" is only officially a perceived slowing from the point of view of some observers. I don't think it stacks up (and here's why: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html - Einstein's model needs a Newtonian time added to it to make it work), but you need to understand what you're attacking before you start throwing stones at it.

Quote
Moving on , I ask for evidence of a space-time when space is obviously immortal.

I defended Spacetime before by saying "Spacetime is a viable feature of one model of reality - nature really could have such a structure". Even with my objections to Einstein's theory, it is possible to modify it in such a way that Spacetime appears to be fully compatible with reality. If you read the stuff at the link I gave you you'll find that out. Once you've done that you'll be in a better position to attack the mainstream on this, but Spacetime will still be there as part of a viable model.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #15 on: 13/05/2015 18:15:32 »
ThBox, no one has to defend commonly accepted science against your inane questions and attacks. This thread is dangerously close to turning into a troll-fest, and I will not hesitate to close this thread (as my first action as a moderator) if I see it begin to deteriorate further!
I'm afraid we are back to TB's original post in which it is obvious he does not understand the basic measurement of the passage of time aka time. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=54560.0

If we take this statement:
I have asked for evidence to show how an arbitrary clock such as the Caesium clock can in any way effect time itself.

We all know, and he knows, that it is impossible to provide evidence for something which does not happen. A caesium clock DOES NOT affect time, never has, never does, never will. It doesn't even affect a timing dilation. If 2 cars travel from the same point to the same destination via 2 different routes, no one in their right mind would suggest that the odometers are responsible for the difference in distance measurement, anyone who did would be considered an idiot making inane comments. This has been covered in yet another Box post.
The fundamental problem is TB's lack of understanding of any basic concept of physics and his insistence on his own theories and definitions, any explanation is automatically dismissed, without being fully understood. Even schoolchildren learning physics would not make errors of this magnitude. It is impossible to explain anything to him because of this lack of understanding and his troll like behaviour.

I say troll like, because I am coming to the conclusion that this behaviour is deliberate and intended to disrupt and occupy resources of this forum. I can quite understand why he has been banned from other forums, and I have reason to believe he was considered a troll in those.

I know this, this is my whole point of the suggestive definition of time dilation, provoking thought in people that science thinks time is altered when the time dilation occurs.

The title alone suggests it, science have had me arguing about an arbitrary change of a timing keeper for several years by a definition of suggestive content. All forums have argued a time dilation occurs, I have argued it does not because the Caesium clock is arbitrary , no different to a wall clock.

It is their mistake in mixing up time and an arbitrary time keeper, and also my mistake for thinking the reality of time and not  considering you were simply arguing about a change in arbitrary time/timing.

Thank you Colin for understanding and agreeing with me.





 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #16 on: 13/05/2015 18:37:52 »
space-time

''Spacetime is a viable feature of one model of reality''

Defended as if it were proven fact and not only a theory of psuedo type qualities.  There is actually no evidence of a space-time, the only dimensions of time that exist in space are ourselves or any other matter that has a state of decay.

True or false?

is there any evidence to show a time exists in space or of a space?, a said space time?


I will remind you of psuedo definition

''a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific''



« Last Edit: 13/05/2015 18:40:41 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #17 on: 13/05/2015 18:49:08 »

The title alone suggests it, science have had me arguing about an arbitrary change of a timing keeper for several years by a definition of suggestive content. All forums have argued a time dilation occurs, I have argued it does not because the Caesium clock is arbitrary , no different to a wall clock.

It is their mistake in mixing up time and an arbitrary time keeper, and also my mistake for thinking the reality of time and not  considering you were simply arguing about a change in arbitrary time/timing.

Thank you Colin for understanding and agreeing with me.


Colin is not agreeing with you at all. There is no need for any sort of clock for time dilation to occur. It is only with a clock that it is easiest to observe and measure this effect. All time is arbitrary, no matter how it is measured--this discussion of time dilation refers to how two different arbitrary frames of reference would see each other. Please note that "arbitrary" does not imply "useless" or "meaningless."

Also, I will again point out the difference between scientific models and reality. Scientists don't claim to know how and why the universe works--we propose models as ways of understanding and predicting reality. Models can be completely wrong, but still give all the right answers. If the model makes the right predictions and is easy to use, then it is a good model. How the universe "actually" is and works is a philosophical or religious discussion, and I don't think that any human being is capable of understanding the "true" nature of the universe. But we can still engineer computers, and put satellites in orbit around distant planets, moons and asteroids, and create vaccines for diseases, etc. so clearly science is doing something right...

If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate, but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time" or somehow goes slower, then that is your model. I think one could put this model to good use, but it is less elegant and more difficult to use and interpret, and ultimately makes the same predictions (if used correctly). So good luck convincing anyone to use this model.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #18 on: 13/05/2015 19:06:17 »


If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate, but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time" or somehow goes slower, then that is your model. I think one could put this model to good use, but it is less elegant and more difficult to use and interpret, and ultimately makes the same predictions (if used correctly). So good luck convincing anyone to use this model.


''If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate''

Time itself does not exist unless by arbitrary use.   It is impossible to prove time exists other than arbitrary use and the existence of matter.

''but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time''


Yes arbitrary time is dependent to the matter/object or observer.  And dependent to gravitational flux.

and this is a paradox that gives the same answers, arbitrary time is the timing of something.







« Last Edit: 13/05/2015 19:08:25 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #19 on: 13/05/2015 20:01:36 »


''If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate''

Time itself does not exist unless by arbitrary use.   It is impossible to prove time exists other than arbitrary use and the existence of matter.

''but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time''


Yes arbitrary time is dependent to the matter/object or observer.  And dependent to gravitational flux.

and this is a paradox that gives the same answers, arbitrary time is the timing of something.

Ok. So what's the problem with the way that scientists use time? (hint: we know it's arbitrary)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #20 on: 13/05/2015 20:23:19 »


''If you want to claim that time itself remains advancing in a constant and unchanging rate''

Time itself does not exist unless by arbitrary use.   It is impossible to prove time exists other than arbitrary use and the existence of matter.

''but that everything in the universe perceives its own arbitrary different "modified time''


Yes arbitrary time is dependent to the matter/object or observer.  And dependent to gravitational flux.

and this is a paradox that gives the same answers, arbitrary time is the timing of something.

Ok. So what's the problem with the way that scientists use time? (hint: we know it's arbitrary)

I have not mentioned  there is a problem with how scientists use time, I think  that is quite genius. 

My argument is about time dilation not being what it seems, we know there is no actual time dilation. We actually observe in science and shown by the Keating experiment a timing dilation by gravitational flux and velocity.

Admitted this does not effect ''real time'', so to call it a time dilation is wrong and open to crackpots such as myself.

real time is dimensionless , dimensions travel through real time, dimensions add points of observation, points of observation add universal shape that is not real, what you imagine and observe tells you lies, the observer effect as always played a part, interference by humanity is not a result but simply us mimicking that is around us, the universe of matter and space, could be really really small but at the same time be really really big, perception must be logically understood.





« Last Edit: 13/05/2015 20:32:52 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #21 on: 13/05/2015 21:00:27 »
a spaceship travels 100 mile into space and back again, a caesium clock on the spaceship shows an arbitrary time dilation. the distance of 100 miles is a constant, c does not alter over that constant.

This also shows arbitrary time  is dependent to an observer or object.
« Last Edit: 13/05/2015 21:08:41 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #23 on: 14/05/2015 00:39:41 »
a spaceship travels 100 mile into space and back again, a caesium clock on the spaceship shows an arbitrary time dilation. the distance of 100 miles is a constant, c does not alter over that constant.

This also shows arbitrary time  is dependent to an observer or object.
I don't know why you think I agree with you. I don't think you really read my posts.

The effect we call time dilation is not arbitrary, it is real. The travelling twin is really younger on return. The distance is not 100miles for the traveller, that's why it takes less time to travel that you would expect.
As has been said before, caesium has nothing to do with it.

Your attempt to define time as arbitrary is pointless, no physicist considers it to be absolute. Your attempt to define it as distance is also pointless. As has been said before you do not understanding measurement, how could you, you don't even understand numbers. That time is arbitrary is even understood by the general population, here when it is midday the French call it 1pm, in New York they would say 7am; this is why we define UTC for when it is important to translate between time zones.  At one point the French even tried to introduce the 10 hour day.
This has been discussed before, however to reiterate, both temperature and pressure are measured as a distance of mercury, this does not make them a distance. Temperature scales are arbitrary, this is why at least 8 exist. With temperature we are usually specific if we are talking about a point on the scale, or a change. With time colloquial usage allows the same term for both. When measuring speed we take the distance traveled divided by the time taken to travel that distance, usually written x/t, distance over time. Strictly speaking we should say change of distance over change of time dx/dt and physicists often do this when necessary. Note that I say change of distance, because distance is always measured from a reference point (which is usually implied to be point 0), however again common usage allows us to refer to the change of distance as plain distance and no one is pedantic enough to argue the point - I'm surprised you haven't.
This measurement of time is extremely useful and is essential to the work of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, etc. This is the difference between science and pseudoscience, the former is useful, it makes predictions and allows us to design systems which work. It does not imply anything about what time is as a fundamental concept, it does not need to. That is the role of philosophy and theoretical physics, and there are far more ideas on the nature of time than the limited one you allude to.

Your pointless arguments are obscure, and detract from, the ideas I think you really want to make. You present them in a confused terminology, with an affected street talk, never focused and coherent. If you presented them in a clear manner, without the confused wording and background agenda, you would find more people agreeing with you in some areas. These ideas are not new to science or philosophy, but science has dealt with them and moved on. Reread ChiralSPO's post #17, try to understand what he is saying rather than misinterpreting it, it is an important message.

As you insist on misinterpreting my posts, I see no point in writing them.

« Last Edit: 14/05/2015 07:13:40 by Colin2B »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4715
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #24 on: 14/05/2015 17:41:48 »
Quote
the Caesium clock is arbitrary , no different to a wall clock.

Wrong. The mechanism of an atomic clock is unaffected by acceleration, whcih is why they are used to measure time whenever we need to take account of relativistic effects.

You cannot measure other people's knowledge and experience against your ignorance and prejudice. The axes are orthogonal.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Psuedo science treated as fact bad science.
« Reply #24 on: 14/05/2015 17:41:48 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums