Faith and Evidence

[Satan's Sister]

Originally Posted by Praxis

Would you like us to split it off and put it somewhere the discussion can continue.

Well, maybe that's a good idea, if others are happy to continue with this topic.

"When a proof is mathematical it is absolute within the confined of the axioms used"
Point taken, it depends on its axioms.Special relativity is well grounded in making predictions about time rate…however…the length contraction/time expansion combination is theoretically self – contradictory. I’m happy to show anyone the equations in a private post, including an alternative interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 that found the speed of light is constant. Or you can google, for example Professor Robert J. Buenker “A Modified Theory of Relativity Based on the Global Positioning System”. His conclusions are similar.
"I am refusing to pretend to know something other than what I have experienced. I do not have faith that that is the truth in any sense, but its what I can know. No faith is required"
That’s a very stark view. Not that it’s wrong, but it’s stark.
You might decline to raise the status of an axiomatically derived proof (e.g. 1 + 1 = 2) to the status of absolute truth. Evidence “outside the veil of knowledge” might show up to refute it. Of course, by definition we have no way of knowing. But we can settle for 1 + 1 = 2 as a conditional proof and do just fine.
However, suppose someone claims 1 + 1 = 3 on the basis of on an exceptionally well supported theory that seems logically self-consistent. Here, is a little doubt warranted? If so, then what is the philosophical basis for doubt if there is no philosophical basis for faith? Is this context valid? The two terms may be different sides of the same coin.
"There is no evidence that consciousness is other than an effect of matter"
While I agree, it seems to me the “just” matter proposition only adds to the wonder of matter. It’s like saying “it’s just a mindless ant”. Yeah? Try building one. Try creating energy. It’s still pretty amazing, consciousness.
I don’t know if this thread has done a complete circle. My definition of faith is a kind of acceptance of the validity of experience while holding onto the possibility that unknowable but absolute truth sometimes leaks into consciousness. It might be an illusion. Perhaps “hope” is a more accurate term. Without hope, the universe seems stark. Again, I’m not saying a faithless or hopeless view is necessarily wrong.
Enjoy the darkness.
-Satan's Sister

[the_gelf]

Originally Posted by Satan's Sister

…however…the length contraction/time expansion combination is theoretically self – contradictory.

Awaiting you to supply evidence in the form of four dimensional Riemannian space tensor transformations, and point out where Einstein, Lorentz and the other 115 years worth of relativity physicists all got it wrong. You are inadvertently claiming that the concept of space time is a myth. Please stop it, or provide a refereed journal article that supports your claim. Your working GPS claims otherwise.

[Satan's Sister]

Q. What would this "hope", if fulfilled, motivate to act?
A. Hope is just a story. Everybody loves a good story.

Please stop it

I’ll agree to stop it, but the basis of tensors rest on assumptions.
Minkowski said time and space are different aspects of a unified whole. Therefore the universe doesn’t know the difference between space and time. Any difference is an interpretational bias on our part. OK. The assumptions of Minkowski space rest on “x, y, z and t”. That is, three space dimensions and one time dimension. The use of these assumptions to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, which unexpectedly found light waves remained in phase (because light is constant) led to the conclusion time expands and space contracts due to Pythagoras' theorem. (Anisotropy). Naturally, to reach a contradictory result you assume three time dimensions and one space dimension. Just swap all the terms. To reconcile the two views requires that space and time be isotropic, i.e. expands and contracts together, an end conclusion Professor Buenker supports. (His conclusions are not accepted by his peers). When this is assumed, you will find pi holds true in an isotropic universe, whereas pi does not hold true in an anisotropic universe.
Anisotropy creates the need for a specific spacetime geometry to explain an anomaly. The anomaly is, of course, the refutation of pi. By analogy, it is like claiming 1 +1 =2 can be refuted unless its arithmetic belongs to a particular topology of number theory. It’s easier to just accept the arithmetic. Likewise, it’s easier to just accept pi.
Finally, remember there is no direct evidence for length contraction, a fact too easily dismissed. But you will find physicists who state length contraction is fact, not theory. That should ring alarm bells. Faith is accepted to mean belief in something without evidence. I rest my case, and my thread.

[the_gelf]

Direct evidence of length contraction is our ability to observe particles such as muons whose decay time are so short, unless they travel close to the speed of light.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

Sorry to burst your bubble, this has been proved beyond doubt.

[Satan's Sister]

[quote=
Sorry to burst your bubble, this has been proved beyond doubt.[/quote]

I like bubbles! I'm not questioning spacetime, far from it. But a different model is worth a look.

It’s a good link you gave. A better example of the muon is given when studied in particle accelerators.

Let’s say before starting up our particle accelerator we measure its circuit as 300m long. When the accelerator is powered up, a muon is propelled around the circuit. A muon’s “clock” slows relative to a stationary observer’s clock. The muon does one revolution of the 300m circuit in 10 units of its time. The muon does its sums, and works out the distance covered based on the time is only 100m.
Now, an external observer, Jack, checks his clock and finds the muon took a longer time, 30 units.

Jack: Hey there little muon, how can you claim you travelled only 100m when I saw you travel 300m?
Muon: The markings on your measurement stick are too close together, buddy!

You see, the muon’s measuring stick expanded relative to the observer’s measuring stick. This is because the muon’s spacetime “bubble” expanded by the gamma factor, which is the same as the time dilation factor.

Another example is the case of the spinning disc or “tornado ride”. Jim paces around its spinning perimeter while Jack measures its radial strut. The circumference of this circle is equal to pi times 2 times the radius squared. We are usually told measuring sticks contract perpendicular to the direction of motion, so Jim’s stick contracts in length, but not width. Conversely, Jack’s stick contracts in width but not length, because he is moving parallel to the motion. Using these measurements, the ratio of the circumference to the radius will not hold i.e. pi is rebutted. However, if we insist on holding onto the truth of pi we just need to assume both measuring sticks expand uni-directionally, and the problem is solved. There is no need to assume circles are only true in certain hypothesised geometries, as conventionally taught in special relativity classes.

The relativity of motion is what determines the significance of the electromagnetic field. When different fields interact during an experiment, as when particles of different speeds interact, the outcome may be consistent with length contraction as predicted by the gamma factor. However, the same outcome may be consistent with the mathematics of an expanding spacetime bubble paradigm. So physicists are not necessarily finding evidence for just length contraction. In theory!

Richard Feynman, a physicist who never accepted theory as fact, said in “Six Not So Easy Pieces”

"Although the contraction hypothesis successfully accounted for the negative result of the [Michelson-Morley] experiment, it was open to the objection that it was invented for the express purpose of explaining away the difficulty, and was too artificial."

Anyway, I think my rant belongs in a physics forum. I was just trying to show what happens when pi is relied upon to test a theory. Everyone, including atheists, needs something to believe in to judge truth by, and pi is a good example in my opinion.


SS