Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: guest39538 on 21/06/2016 10:52:37
-
Hello, I have just returned after my Ban, elsewhere I learnt two words , objective and subjective.
For several years I have told science they are wrong and they have told me I am wrong, however I was mostly talking about the subjective experience rather than your objective thoughts. In fact what I was talking about when thinking about the subjective was correct even though I was told it was wrong, but never mind I have become ''enlightened'' and now understand the science objective thinking.
However, in consideration of time dilation and all experiments that prove time dilation, all these objective thoughts and experiments are view through the subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space, I feel regardless of what happens in the experiment and objective thought, the constant subjective ''visual'' remains constant and sheds some doubt to the authenticity of a time dilation.
For example the objective analogies of things like v shaped path laser beams to show time dilation, are subjectively none existence as we do not ''see'' laser beams naturally in space without a medium. Also subjectively and evidently a laser beam does not subjectively have a reflective beam of a brick wall unless there is a mirror re-directing the beam.
What do you think?
MODERATOR NOTE: The ban mentioned above was not implemented because of The Box's science views or theories but because of his breaking the Forum Acceptable Usage policy.
-
Hello, I have just returned after my Ban, elsewhere I learnt two words , objective and subjective.
For several years I have told science they are wrong and they have told me I am wrong, however I was mostly talking about the subjective experience rather than your objective thoughts. In fact what I was talking about when thinking about the subjective was correct even though I was told it was wrong, but never mind I have become ''enlightened'' and now understand the science objective thinking.
However, in consideration of time dilation and all experiments that prove time dilation, all these objective thoughts and experiments are view through the subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space, I feel regardless of what happens in the experiment and objective thought, the constant subjective ''visual'' remains constant and sheds some doubt to the authenticity of a time dilation.
For example the objective analogies of things like v shaped path laser beams to show time dilation, are subjectively none existence as we do not ''see'' laser beams naturally in space without a medium. Also subjectively and evidently a laser beam does not subjectively have a reflective beam of a brick wall unless there is a mirror re-directing the beam.
What do you think?
MODERATOR NOTE: The ban mentioned above was not implemented because of The Box's science views or theories but because of his breaking the Forum Acceptable Usage policy.
No, the visual experience is more than capable of allowing objectivity and causes no difficulties with time dilation whatsoever.
-
Hello, I have just returned after my Ban, elsewhere I learnt two words , objective and subjective.
And gosh do I regret that. You now throw those words into sentences like salt onto food.
For several years I have told science they are wrong and they have told me I am wrong, however I was mostly talking about the subjective experience rather than your objective thoughts. In fact what I was talking about when thinking about the subjective was correct even though I was told it was wrong, but never mind I have become ''enlightened'' and now understand the science objective thinking.
Where you go wrong here, is that you think subjective experience proves objective reality.
For example, nobody can argue against you if you find "blue" makes you feel happy and "green" makes you sad. That's your subjective experience.
But, while we may need to look at things to measure them, that's not subjective, because it's repeatable common experience - as close to "reality" as we can get. For example, you can take a paint-chip card from a home decorator shop and find that most (non colour-blind) people will (however they subjectively experience, or feel about colour) agree that a cloudless day is "blue" and grass is "green". We can also build devices to measure colour, which will get consistent results from these things. We can even shine white light through a prism and reliably and repeatably generate these things we call "blue" and "green".
So I don't deny your internal representation of how you perceive distance; this "gin clear" thing of yours - but when you try to use that subjective experience of yours to deny or re-wind thousands of years of scientific progress, I certainly say you are wrong.
However, in consideration of time dilation and all experiments that prove time dilation, all these objective thoughts and experiments are view through the subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space, I feel regardless of what happens in the experiment and objective thought, the constant subjective ''visual'' remains constant and sheds some doubt to the authenticity of a time dilation.
Your feeling does not show the actual experiments performed by scientists to be wrong. For example, the experiments that show light speed to be finite; proving your 'subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space' to not be applicable to reality.
For example the objective analogies of things like v shaped path laser beams to show time dilation, are subjectively none existence as we do not ''see'' laser beams naturally in space without a medium.
Seeing the beam in transit has nothing to do with the path the beam is known to take.
Also subjectively and evidently a laser beam does not subjectively have a reflective beam of a brick wall unless there is a mirror re-directing the beam.
What?
What do you think?
You remain wrong.
-
Also subjectively and evidently a laser beam does not subjectively have a reflective beam of a brick wall unless there is a mirror re-directing the beam.
http://web.mit.edu/~velten/www/corner/ <- There is definately a reflection the information is just scattered and hard to decode. You can do it with the right equipment though.
-
Hello, I have just returned after my Ban, elsewhere I learnt two words , objective and subjective.
For several years I have told science they are wrong and they have told me I am wrong, however I was mostly talking about the subjective experience rather than your objective thoughts. In fact what I was talking about when thinking about the subjective was correct even though I was told it was wrong, but never mind I have become ''enlightened'' and now understand the science objective thinking.
However, in consideration of time dilation and all experiments that prove time dilation, all these objective thoughts and experiments are view through the subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space, I feel regardless of what happens in the experiment and objective thought, the constant subjective ''visual'' remains constant and sheds some doubt to the authenticity of a time dilation.
For example the objective analogies of things like v shaped path laser beams to show time dilation, are subjectively none existence as we do not ''see'' laser beams naturally in space without a medium. Also subjectively and evidently a laser beam does not subjectively have a reflective beam of a brick wall unless there is a mirror re-directing the beam.
What do you think?
MODERATOR NOTE: The ban mentioned above was not implemented because of The Box's science views or theories but because of his breaking the Forum Acceptable Usage policy.
No, the visual experience is more than capable of allowing objectivity and causes no difficulties with time dilation whatsoever.
I do not think you have objectively thought it through properly and ask you to re-consider and think !
-
....... things like v shaped path laser beams to show time dilation, are subjectively none existence as we do not ''see'' laser beams naturally in space without a medium. Also subjectively and evidently a laser beam does not subjectively have a reflective beam of a brick wall unless there is a mirror re-directing the beam.
What do you think?
I think you haven't really learnt the meaning of those 2 words in terms of actually understanding them.
Just taking the 2 examples above, these are not subjective.
Edit: looks as though iamreality and I were typing similar thoughts at same time!
-
And gosh do I regret that. You now throw those words into sentences like salt onto food.
Yes indeed, but so people understand me I wish to precise with my meanings.
For several years I have told science they are wrong and they have told me I am wrong, however I was mostly talking about the subjective experience rather than your objective thoughts. In fact what I was talking about when thinking about the subjective was correct even though I was told it was wrong, but never mind I have become ''enlightened'' and now understand the science objective thinking.
Where you go wrong here, is that you think subjective experience proves objective reality.
For example, nobody can argue against you if you find "blue" makes you feel happy and "green" makes you sad. That's your subjective experience.
But, while we may need to look at things to measure them, that's not subjective, because it's repeatable common experience - as close to "reality" as we can get. For example, you can take a paint-chip card from a home decorator shop and find that most (non colour-blind) people will (however they subjectively experience, or feel about colour) agree that a cloudless day is "blue" and grass is "green". We can also build devices to measure colour, which will get consistent results from these things. We can even shine white light through a prism and reliably and repeatably generate these things we call "blue" and "green".
So I don't deny your internal representation of how you perceive distance; this "gin clear" thing of yours - but when you try to use that subjective experience of yours to deny or re-wind thousands of years of scientific progress, I certainly say you are wrong.
For several years science told me I was wrong about my subjective experience explanation of ''gin-clear'', yet you agree with me, this tells me nobody understood me because they only looked at my ideas from an objective perception. Your two words you gave me will expand my ideas and now get them understood.
However, in consideration of time dilation and all experiments that prove time dilation, all these objective thoughts and experiments are view through the subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space, I feel regardless of what happens in the experiment and objective thought, the constant subjective ''visual'' remains constant and sheds some doubt to the authenticity of a time dilation.
Your feeling does not show the actual experiments performed by scientists to be wrong. For example, the experiments that show light speed to be finite; proving your 'subjective constant visual of ''gin-clear'' space' to not be applicable to reality.
The experiments are correct I do agree, but what you are not objectively considering is that the objective experiments are done in the subjective whole of ''gin'clear'', a whole that is constant in it's ''gin-clear''.
It may indeed take 8 minutes for a photon to arrive from the sun, but subjectively my interpretation of distance is correct and we ''see'' the start and end point of the photons journey subjectively simultaneous.
This is a concern to me in that something is just not correct somewhere in the objective science thinking and it is incomplete by not considering the subjective which is the interwoven mind experience.
-
....... things like v shaped path laser beams to show time dilation, are subjectively none existence as we do not ''see'' laser beams naturally in space without a medium. Also subjectively and evidently a laser beam does not subjectively have a reflective beam of a brick wall unless there is a mirror re-directing the beam.
What do you think?
I think you haven't really learnt the meaning of those 2 words in terms of actually understanding them.
Just taking the 2 examples above, these are not subjective.
Edit: looks as though iamreality and I were typing similar thoughts at same time!
Subjective- look it is light outside
objective - what is light made of
I understand Colin.
added- sorry I will continue my conversation talking from objective to subjective
Subjective- look it is light outside
objective - what is light made of
objective - tiny particles called photons
subjective - I can't see any I see an whole of light and it is ''gin-clear''
objective- yes but, we have experiments showing photons exist
subjective - ok but I can't see them travelling
objective - ok but they do believe me
objective - there is also a time dilation
subjective - really?
objective - yes
subjective - but all you experiments I observe in the constant subjective whole
objective - I will think about that for a while.
added-
objective - I thought some more and drew a diagram
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Subjective - yes that is what I subjectively ''see''
added-
objective - Hmmm, I ''see'' now, if we compare the ground state atom with the moving atom we show a change, but then if we compare this change with the whole , the whole remains constant. I will get back to you thank you for the interesting thought Mr subjective.
added-
objective - is this what you are referring to?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
subjective- Yes, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and a perfect ''time'' keeper showing there is no time dilation
objective- I do see your point but obviously I will because I am your critical thinking
subjective and objective - we will see what others think.
-
Yes indeed, but so people understand me I wish to precise with my meanings.
When you miss-use the words, they don't add understanding.
For several years science told me I was wrong about my subjective experience explanation of ''gin-clear'', yet you agree with me, this tells me nobody understood me because they only looked at my ideas from an objective perception. Your two words you gave me will expand my ideas and now get them understood.
No, I'm not agreeing with you in the way you think.
I'm saying that what you feel about something, or how you perceive it, is your business.
Where you are wrong (and this applies whether or not you sprinkle the latest words you've learned into your posts) is in using your subjective experience to pass judgement on reality. Those several years where science told you you were wrong, science was right.
The experiments are correct I do agree, but what you are not objectively considering is that the objective experiments are done in the subjective whole of ''gin'clear'', a whole that is constant in it's ''gin-clear''.
It may indeed take 8 minutes for a photon to arrive from the sun, but subjectively my interpretation of distance is correct and we ''see'' the start and end point of the photons journey subjectively simultaneous.
Again, you show how you are trying to overturn objective science with your subjective experience. That'll never work.
Subjectively, you may well think you see the start and end point of a photons journey simultaneously; but that has absolutely zero impact on reality.
Actual experiments have shown that light travel is not instant, so you can't in reality be seeing the start and end simultaneously. How you feel about it can not overturn those experiments.
This is a concern to me in that something is just not correct somewhere in the objective science thinking and it is incomplete by not considering the subjective which is the interwoven mind experience.
Then you have no idea what science is.
-
Yes indeed, but so people understand me I wish to precise with my meanings.
When you miss-use the words, they don't add understanding.
For several years science told me I was wrong about my subjective experience explanation of ''gin-clear'', yet you agree with me, this tells me nobody understood me because they only looked at my ideas from an objective perception. Your two words you gave me will expand my ideas and now get them understood.
No, I'm not agreeing with you in the way you think.
I'm saying that what you feel about something, or how you perceive it, is your business.
Where you are wrong (and this applies whether or not you sprinkle the latest words you've learned into your posts) is in using your subjective experience to pass judgement on reality. Those several years where science told you you were wrong, science was right.
The experiments are correct I do agree, but what you are not objectively considering is that the objective experiments are done in the subjective whole of ''gin'clear'', a whole that is constant in it's ''gin-clear''.
It may indeed take 8 minutes for a photon to arrive from the sun, but subjectively my interpretation of distance is correct and we ''see'' the start and end point of the photons journey subjectively simultaneous.
Again, you show how you are trying to overturn objective science with your subjective experience. That'll never work.
Subjectively, you may well think you see the start and end point of a photons journey simultaneously; but that has absolutely zero impact on reality.
Actual experiments have shown that light travel is not instant, so you can't in reality be seeing the start and end simultaneously. How you feel about it can not overturn those experiments.
This is a concern to me in that something is just not correct somewhere in the objective science thinking and it is incomplete by not considering the subjective which is the interwoven mind experience.
Then you have no idea what science is.
You are ''attacking'' me and not discussing the actual content of the post in an objective manner, it is not my failure to communicate , it is a person's failure to discuss objectively what I have said in the past and what I am saying in this thread. Your intentions are to defend all science, to say all science is fact and does not have room for improvement.
This is subjective education and the very fact that what you learnt you had to accept even if you had a biased opinion.
You are not being objective if you are not willing to think and only willing to reply defending the present information .
You clearly have not thought in any detail about the constant whole you and I subjectively ''see''.
-
Yes indeed, but so people understand me I wish to precise with my meanings.
When you miss-use the words, they don't add understanding.
For several years science told me I was wrong about my subjective experience explanation of ''gin-clear'', yet you agree with me, this tells me nobody understood me because they only looked at my ideas from an objective perception. Your two words you gave me will expand my ideas and now get them understood.
No, I'm not agreeing with you in the way you think.
I'm saying that what you feel about something, or how you perceive it, is your business.
Where you are wrong (and this applies whether or not you sprinkle the latest words you've learned into your posts) is in using your subjective experience to pass judgement on reality. Those several years where science told you you were wrong, science was right.
The experiments are correct I do agree, but what you are not objectively considering is that the objective experiments are done in the subjective whole of ''gin'clear'', a whole that is constant in it's ''gin-clear''.
It may indeed take 8 minutes for a photon to arrive from the sun, but subjectively my interpretation of distance is correct and we ''see'' the start and end point of the photons journey subjectively simultaneous.
Again, you show how you are trying to overturn objective science with your subjective experience. That'll never work.
Subjectively, you may well think you see the start and end point of a photons journey simultaneously; but that has absolutely zero impact on reality.
Actual experiments have shown that light travel is not instant, so you can't in reality be seeing the start and end simultaneously. How you feel about it can not overturn those experiments.
This is a concern to me in that something is just not correct somewhere in the objective science thinking and it is incomplete by not considering the subjective which is the interwoven mind experience.
Then you have no idea what science is.
You are ''attacking'' me and not discussing the actual content of the post in an objective manner, it is not my failure to communicate , it is a person's failure to discuss objectively what I have said in the past and what I am saying in this thread. Your intentions are to defend all science, to say all science is fact and does not have room for improvement.
This is subjective education and the very fact that what you learnt you had to accept even if you had a biased opinion.
You are not being objective if you are not willing to think and only willing to reply defending the present information .
You clearly have not thought in any detail about the constant whole you and I subjectively ''see''.
The poster wasn't attacking you whatsoever, and was absolutely replying to content. Trust me... I know the difference... lmao
But seriously, you seem hell bent on this idea of yours, and it honestly seems to not make sense, and your overuse as well as misuse of those words makes it even harder to understand what it is you're trying to say. But I agree with the other poster's critiques completely. Just because you have such a strong, subjective, biased opinion towards something, doesn't mean it has the power to overturn reality; no matter how much passion is put behind it, no matter how much feet stomping there is, no matter how many times it's repeated. Science and reality just don't work that way. But I find it just hilariously ironic how you are pointing your finger at the other poster and labeling him as biased, subjective and unwilling to learn... Just hilariously ironic lol.