|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Does Science Truly Represent Reality? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
cavediver writes: Yes, there is actually It is a hang-over from SR that gives the incorrect impression that time is relative. The Universe itself provides a standard of time - that measured by a 'comoving' observer. We are such an observer, ignoring our non-relativistic motion caused by our Galactic orbit, and Galactic local peculiar velocity. It is certainly possible to measure a smaller time since the BB, simply by ensuring a constant relativistic motion (or equivalently hanging out on the fringe of a black hole since the BB), but you cannot get a longer time. The 13.7 billion years is the maximum time it is possible to measure since the BB. This makes sense in relativity as the longest distance between two points in space-time is a straight line - i.e. a non-accelerating observer. Thank you. I actually understand that. (Except for a little problem with the straight line in space time.  )
cavediver writes: ignoring our non-relativistic motion caused by our Galactic orbit, and Galactic local peculiar velocity. The Galactic orbit is non-relativistic because it is the universe expanding and not the same thing as velocity. Is that correct? Can we eliminate the Galactical local peculiar velocity because the velocities are too small to be significant? Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Son Goku writes: All observers however would agree on the spacetime interval between now and the big bang.If you draw two points on a sheet of paper, depending on what coordinate systems you use the points will have different numerical values. However all coordinates systems agree on the actual distance. It's the same in relativity, people can use different "time" coordinates, but they'll still get the same spacetime distance. Isn't that a bit like comparing a car travelling at 60 mph for 1 hr to a car travelling at 30 mph for two hours? Both cars have gone 60 miles, but the time component is still different. Also if I go back to the idea of a photon of light. From its perspective time doesn't exist or is zero. Again from its perspective space or distance don't exist either as 0 x c is still zero. I realize that you are very highly qualified in this area and I am the layman's layman so I hope I'm not sounding argumentative. This whole discussion is probably more philosophical than it is scientific. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
DominionSeraph writes: Things that are outside the realm of human science because they can neither be directly nor indirectly detected are meaningless to me, as they can't affect me. Regardless of their actual status, they effectively don't exist. They're irrelevant. And the fact that your response to the concept of an existent but non-affecting object will be inappropriate as your experiential sample of existent objects necessarily doesn't include any non-affecting objects (if it doesn't affect you, you can't experience it), disbelief is warranted regardless of existential status. How do you determine what is outside the realm of human science. Let's consider gravity. It certainly has an affect on us and we know a great deal about how to measure and use it but we don't know what it is but science keeps looking for gravitons or whatever else might be fundamental to it. Science keeps trying to learn about dark matter and dark energy. All I'm saying is that we perceive the world through 5 basic senses. We can augment those senses but in the end the universe is how we perceive it. Maybe if we had different senses we would perceive dark matter and what we call visible matter would be unknown to us. That would give us an entirely different perception of the universe. Dark matter has gravitational properties so we can't say that it doesn't affect us. Unless I have things all wrong, if it wasn't for dark matter helping to hold the universe in balance we couldn't exist. I know that guys like Roger Penrose suggest that consciousness is the fundamental property of the universe as I understand it.Welcome | Stuart Hameroff, MD I'm just suggesting that there is may well be other ways of perceiving the universe that at this point we know nothing about. Maybe in the future we will. Incidentally, in one way radar gives us a different way of perceiving things to give one example of how we have already done that. DominionSeraph writes: Remember, having the truth is not in itself a good thing. And human science being unable to determine the existence of things whose existence is irrelevant to humans, isn't exactly relevant to humans. It matters not if a tool fails to accomplish a meaningless task. Isn't science, (and for that matter phiosophy and theology), all about trying to find out as much truth as we can. How are we to determine what truth is irrelevant? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: Is that really the case? How we perceive the Universe is not necessarily "how the universe is." Actually you are agreeing with the point I was trying to make. The problem was in how I said it. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I'll use an example. Scientists are very interested in theorizing about dark matter. We can observe its gravitational affects but we can't perceive it. Maybe, if it does exist, and we had a different type of sense, we would be able to perceive it. Science in this case is very interested in finding something we can't perceive.
Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Archer Opterix writes: Science represents that aspect of reality that can be empirically verified. Are we really sure that what we can demonstrate empirically actually represents reality? we always talk about our measurement of time and space as representing reality but here is a quote from Discovery magazine.
Don Page, a cosmologist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton who frequently collaborates with Stephen Hawking, raised his hand that day. "I think Julian's work clears up a lot of misconceptions," says Page. "Physicists might not need time as much as we might have thought before. He is really questioning the basic nature of time, its nonexistence. You can't make technical advances if you're stuck in a conceptual muddle." Strangely enough, Page feels that Barbour might actually be too conservative. When physicists finally iron out a new theory of the universe, Page suspects that time won't be the only casualty. "I think space will go too," he says cryptically. Here is the link: http://discovermagazine.com/2000/dec/cover If time and space don't represent reality then how can we have faith that anything we know empirically does? (I once again add the disclaimer that I am not trying to make a case for a young earth. I am not YEC.) Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dominion Seraph writes: Doesn't change the fact that only things which affect you are relevant. That attitude might have slowed down some of the great scientific advances. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
