Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 The Law of Perception
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 7

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  13:27:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
Hi,

I want to apologize again for my incredible poor gramatical composition and terrible spelling in English, however, I should like to view some comments from above.

About Hawking and his misusing of scientific terms.

Hawking used the same word evaporate in his papers presented to the journals, by this action it is discarded the opinion that he used that word in a book for layman readers only.

In science we have the proper terms to describe the different phenomena and events, specially in physics. I don't know who made the review of Hawking writings but the correct scientific term might be gasify-gasified. By saying evaporate, Hawking is implying that black holes are made of liquid.

Sorry, but scientific terms are not toys to play at our will, if this is serious science focused to people who want to learn properly about about universe, there is no need to deviate the right meaning of words into something which is not their property or characteristic.

I guess that you are demanding from me to clarify the discovery of the Law of Perception, and if I do it using words other than the proper scientific terms you will say that my writings are invalid. I want you please, to think the same about that word evaporate.

I think that Hawking must correct what he wrote and talk science with the correct scientific terms...even to the layman.

About the Law of Perception.

I will post the literature which corresponds to the Law of Perception with the introduction of continued... . This word in the beginning of the message will mean that you are reading another page about this law of physics.

You will notice that the first pages will be the overview of the current status of the theories of science in general, specially physics. Philosophy will be also overviewed, as well that psychology.

This is a necessary task which is acceptable in science and it is traditional, because you will find the same proccedure in past presentations of theories and discoveries.

I guess that from the first and second page the literature is focusing in the presentation of a new approach in science, because the current method of doing mathematical calculations first and later start to look like crazy for their mate in the physical universe is not correct. And this point will be on my next message from the Law of Perception.

You may find the next message very controversial and some kind of frustrating, however, to all those negative actions made by some individuals in the past, there is a new hope to do things right.

Please be patience. I'll prepare its translation first.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  14:03:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message
Unfortunately you have lost our respect by saying...

quote:
By saying evaporate, Hawking is implying that black holes are made of liquid.


This statement is very foolish, that is not what he is implying, it is what you assumed.

Better to think the other way around, both liquids and black holes are made of matter and both can evaporate by vastly different methods.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  14:07:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

Hi,

I want to apologize again for my incredible poor gramatical composition and terrible spelling in English, however, I should like to view some comments from above.

About Hawking and his misusing of scientific terms.

Hawking used the same word evaporate in his papers presented to the journals, by this action it is discarded the opinion that he used that word in a book for layman readers only.


Ah... No. Hawking does not suggest that black holes are liquid. He does suggest that the mass of a black hole gets slowly converted to a type of radiation which can escape a black holes gravitation thereby decreasing the mass of the black hole. The term evaporation concerns transferrence of mass to energy in this case. (Hawking Radiation to be precise) The comparison is accurate to the concept.

quote:

In science we have the proper terms to describe the different phenomena and events, specially in physics. I don't know who made the review of Hawking writings but the correct scientific term might be gasify-gasified. By saying evaporate, Hawking is implying that black holes are made of liquid.

Sorry, but scientific terms are not toys to play at our will, if this is serious science focused to people who want to learn properly about about universe, there is no need to deviate the right meaning of words into something which is not their property or characteristic.


See above. The term refers to mass being converted to a state whereby it leaves the original body lessened however slightly. It does not take away from the visual concept which can be applied to the proposed phenomenon.

quote:

I guess that you are demanding from me to clarify the discovery of the Law of Perception, and if I do it using words other than the proper scientific terms you will say that my writings are invalid. I want you please, to think the same about that word evaporate.


Prejugdical language fallacy.

quote:

I think that Hawking must correct what he wrote and talk science with the correct scientific terms...even to the layman.

About the Law of Perception.

I will post the literature which corresponds to the Law of Perception with the introduction of continued... . This word in the beginning of the message will mean that you are reading another page about this law of physics.

You will notice that the first pages will be the overview of the current status of the theories of science in general, specially physics. Philosophy will be also overviewed, as well that psychology.

This is a necessary task which is acceptable in science and it is traditional, because you will find the same proccedure in past presentations of theories and discoveries.


The Law of Perception as you have presented it, appears to be a truism (we see what we see in the here and now) that does not address physics such as the speed of light and distances between objects. While it is true that when we look at the sun from earth, we see it as everyone else sees it. The light, however, is eight minutes old. Your "Law of Perception" seems to indicate that the light from a the sun shows the surface as it exists right now. That is not supported by science at all.

quote:

I guess that from the first and second page the literature is focusing in the presentation of a new approach in science, because the current method of doing mathematical calculations first and later start to look like crazy for their mate in the physical universe is not correct. And this point will be on my next message from the Law of Perception.

You may find the next message very controversial and some kind of frustrating, however, to all those negative actions made by some individuals in the past, there is a new hope to do things right.

Please be patience. I'll prepare its translation first.



Quite frankly, I'm not seeing anything probative on the scientific aspects of your hypothesis. Controversial, perhaps. Compelling, no. And liberally sprikled with prejudgical language fallacies throughout. You really haven't made a strong case for your hypothesis especially in the wake of such endavours as the Voyager and Pioneer projects. It takes over 12 hours to transmit data to the Voyager probes. When Voyager picks up the transmission, it immediately initiates a response transmission. We recieve the response over 24 hours after we send the starting transmission.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 03/03/2005 14:08:34
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  19:53:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

In science we have the proper terms to describe the different phenomena and events, specially in physics. I don't know who made the review of Hawking writings but the correct scientific term might be gasify-gasified. By saying evaporate, Hawking is implying that black holes are made of liquid.
Not at all. Scientific terms can mean different things in different contexts. "Entropy" means one thing with regards to thermodynamics, another thing with regard to poopulation genetics, and still something else in the field of information theory. "Spin" means one thing to quantum physicists, and something else to aeronautical engineers.

Hawking's use of "evaporate" in regard to black holes has nothing to do with classical physics and liquid evaporation, and instead everything to do with quantum physics. After all, for his use of "evaporate" to mean a liquid turning into a gas, not only would it imply that black holes are liquid, but that space is full of gas, and that those gas molecules are knocking "black hole molecules" off the "surface" of the black hole. (See Feynman's lectures on physics for a wonderful overview of the mechanics of evaporation.)

In reality, as Valiant Dancer pointed out, singularities are not liquid, and do not evaporate by turning into a gas, but by emiting radiation.
quote:
Sorry, but scientific terms are not toys to play at our will, if this is serious science focused to people who want to learn properly about about universe, there is no need to deviate the right meaning of words into something which is not their property or characteristic.
You've broken my irony meter. And by 'meter', I mean a device used for measurement, not 100 centimeters.

See? You cannot get away from the multiple meanings of words. Your attempt to force Hawking to mean that black holes are liquid is a transparent attempt to make him look ridiculous.
quote:
I guess that you are demanding from me to clarify the discovery of the Law of Perception, and if I do it using words other than the proper scientific terms you will say that my writings are invalid.
Well, you've already used "gassify" incorrectly, since black holes do not turn into gas as they evaporate.
quote:
I think that Hawking must correct what he wrote and talk science with the correct scientific terms...even to the layman.
Well, considering that he thought up the idea of black hole evaporation, he can name it whatever he wants to.
quote:
I will post the literature which corresponds to the Law of Perception with the introduction of continued... . This word in the beginning of the message will mean that you are reading another page about this law of physics.
Do you own the rights to publish this material?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  22:42:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
I really apologize for the following, but I disagree with you. The dictionaries of science disagree with you, the books of science disagree with you.

I'm skeptic about the interpretations given above about the meaning of the word evaporate

With all the respect that you deserve, but it appears that for some of you Hawking is perfect and he is not.

There is no reason at all to avoid the use of the proper word "gasify or gasified" in his writings. Not at all. "Disingtegrate" is another proper word for the phenomena expressed by Hawking.

Any other word can be used to represent that radiation coming out of the imaginary black hole but evaporate, because evaporation according to all -read the whole- the dictionaries of science, is the conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by latent heat.


You can use the same word evaporate as you disappear from a place, but such is just one of the figures of literature, here we are talking of science, and science has its proper terms well defined.

Unless Hawking was writing poetry, his use of the word evaporate can be accepted in a scientific dialogue as we have here.

I beg you please, not to tell me that I can call order to the breaking of plates in my kitchen and the food spolied in the floor, I really stand with what is reality, and that "assumed" new language of science does not sound scientific at all.

Science has rules, anything outside of those rules is not science... it's imagination.
Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/03/2005 :  23:32:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
Continued...

In addition to the controversy mentioned above, in an overview made about the validation of theories, even when it is against the scientific method, there is a risk that the conclusions can be also manipulated with intentions directed to support the theory in question. This controversial situation has been observed for example when the theory of Relativity was validated in 1919 in a middle of controversial results obtained by the plates taken by two British expeditions. It is known that the validation of that theory resulted by ignoring in purpose the plates which would invalidate the theory in question.

The Book Einstein's Luck by John Waller, relates about the results obtained from the calculations of the arc of displacement of stars observed in a total eclipse of the Sun, results which were validated in 1919 by the wrongdoings of Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington. This scientists manipulated the calculations obtained from the plates of two British expeditions to match the predictions of the theory of Relativity. This theory implies that light continues traveling straight regardless of the phenomena of gravity, but it will be bent by keeping its straight path through a distorted space-time caused by the Sun's gravity. [The statement of this theory is inconsistent with reality as to wear shoes that squeak and after walking and hearing the squeaky noise of the shoes, the person who wear the shoes says that the "earth squeaks"] The prediction given by this theory was a light deflection of 1.7 seconds. Centuries before Einstein, Newton predicted the arc of displacement of those stars as being 0.8 seconds. In 1918 an American expedition went to the State of Washington to verify the statements of this theory by observing the stars in a total eclipse of the Sun.Their report was that such deflection did not exist. After knowing that result, in 1919 two British expeditions (one to West Africa and the other to Brazil) were sent to verify the arc of displacement of the stars. Their intentions were to validate either Newton's or Einstein's predictions. The expedition which went to Brazil obtained nineteen plates from their astrograph telescope and eight plates from a 4-inch telescope. The expedition which went to Africa under the leadership of Eddington took sisteen plates of a very bad quality and only two of those were useful. The plates from the astrograph telescope of the expedition from Brazil, showed an arc of displacement of 0.86 seconds. With this result Newton was vindicated. On the other hand, the plates from the 4-inch telescope of this same expedition showed arcs of displacement between 1.86 and 2.1 seconds, giving an average of 1.98 seconds. This average was too high to be compatible with Einstein's prediction. The two useful plates from the expedition from Africa showed arcs of displacement of 1.31 and 1.91 seconds. By obtaining their average, the arc of displacement was 1.62 seconds, well below the prediction of Einstein. The totality of the images of those plates can be easily explained with a phenomena of reflection of images in the turbulent atmosphere of the Sun. The teams of the British expeditions considered that possibility. However, Eddington and his team refused to accept other explanation but the prediction made by Einstein. Eddington had great influence over Frank Dyson who was the Astronomer Royal and by an obscure act of complicity, the theory of Relativity was vindicated over Newton's prediction. According to Waller, Eddington manipulated his calculations and ignored the plates from the Brazil expedition. In those years, there were several obstacles to perform similar expeditions by other scientists, and it was common to accept the other's interpretations by honoring their words. Trust in the words of other scientists is the case with Lorentz, who wrote in 1919 that he did not measure the plates from the British expeditions, but that he heard about the results from Van der Pohl who visited the British Association at Bournemouth. In Bournemouth Van der Pohl only listened Eddington's opinion that the deflection was certain and it lied between 0.87 and 1.74 seconds. In Leiden, Lorentz only received a letter from Eddington informing the final results confirming the theory of Relativity as correct. Several other expeditions have been made for the same purpose, from them, the measurements of the arc of displacement of the stars were over 2 seconds. The science historians John Earman and Clark Glymour wrote in 1980 about this controversial validation of this theory in 1919, "the eclipse expeditions confirmed the theory only if part of the observations were thrown out and the discrepancies in the reminder ignored." Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time published in 1988 wrote, " It is ironic, therefore, that the later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon ocurrence in science." Dennis W. Sciama in 1972 wrote, "one might suspect that if the observers did not know what value they were supposed to obtain, their published results might vary over a greater range than they actually do." The American commentator W. Campbell wrote in 1923, "Professor Eddington was inclined to assign considerable weight to the African expedition, but, as few images on his small number of astrographic plates were not so good as those on the astrographic plates secured in Brazil, and the results from the latter were given almost negligible weight, the logic of the situation does not seem entirely clear."
Go to Top of Page

woolytoad
Skeptic Friend

313 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2005 :  03:17:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send woolytoad a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

I'm skeptic about the interpretations given above about the meaning of the word evaporate

Any other word can be used to represent that radiation coming out of the imaginary black hole but evaporate, because evaporation according to all -read the whole- the dictionaries of science, is the conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by latent heat.


You can use the same word evaporate as you disappear from a place, but such is just one of the figures of literature, here we are talking of science, and science has its proper terms well defined.



This just further confirms your lack of understanding of physics and the english language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evaporate
quote:

3. To deposit (a metal) on a substrate by vacuum sublimation.



Are you going to tell us that all metals are liquids now?

I also don't understand how an experiment done wrongly almost a century ago supports your point.
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2005 :  08:07:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

I really apologize for the following, but I disagree with you. The dictionaries of science disagree with you, the books of science disagree with you.

I'm skeptic about the interpretations given above about the meaning of the word evaporate

With all the respect that you deserve, but it appears that for some of you Hawking is perfect and he is not.


No man is perfect. Hawking's description accurately depicts what happens to mass changing into radiation by using the term evaporation. As your command of English improves, you will learn that words have more than just dictionary meaning. It also has contextual meaning. In the context that Hawking uses "evaporate", the meaning he has for it is quite clear.

quote:

There is no reason at all to avoid the use of the proper word "gasify or gasified" in his writings. Not at all. "Disingtegrate" is another proper word for the phenomena expressed by Hawking.

Any other word can be used to represent that radiation coming out of the imaginary black hole but evaporate, because evaporation according to all -read the whole- the dictionaries of science, is the conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by latent heat.



As pointed out before, even terms within science change meanings dependant on specific study.

quote:

You can use the same word evaporate as you disappear from a place, but such is just one of the figures of literature, here we are talking of science, and science has its proper terms well defined.


The mass from a black hole does not disappear. It is converted to radiation.

quote:

Unless Hawking was writing poetry, his use of the word evaporate can be accepted in a scientific dialogue as we have here.

I beg you please, not to tell me that I can call order to the breaking of plates in my kitchen and the food spolied in the floor, I really stand with what is reality, and that "assumed" new language of science does not sound scientific at all.

Science has rules, anything outside of those rules is not science... it's imagination.



Science does have rules, language has exceptions.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2005 :  10:14:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

I really apologize for the following, but I disagree with you. The dictionaries of science disagree with you, the books of science disagree with you.
And yet, you fail to offer a citation of even a single one of those dictionaries and/or books as to the meaning of "evaporate" in the field of quantum electrodynamics. Or perhaps you could cite a single professional work which takes issue with Hawking's use of the word in regard to black holes.
quote:
With all the respect that you deserve, but it appears that for some of you Hawking is perfect and he is not.
Apparently, that's not much respect at all, if you're going to insult us by suggesting that Hawking is some sort of sacred cow, when in reality, he's just another expert who used an old term in a new way (which happens all the time in science).
quote:
There is no reason at all to avoid the use of the proper word "gasify or gasified" in his writings. Not at all.
Yes, there is: black holes do not become gasseous.
quote:
"Disingtegrate" is another proper word for the phenomena expressed by Hawking.
Anything that stop being integrated disintegrates. Evaporation is a form of disintegration. If you'd prefer Hawking be vague, that's your problem.
quote:
Any other word can be used to represent that radiation coming out of the imaginary black hole but evaporate, because evaporation according to all -read the whole- the dictionaries of science, is the conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by latent heat.
So, how do you reconcile your unreasonable insistence that "evaporate" means one thing and one thing only with the many different uses of other words in science, including entropy, spin, color, mass, orbit and moment, for just a half-dozen examples?
quote:
I beg you please, not to tell me that I can call order to the breaking of plates in my kitchen and the food spolied in the floor, I really stand with what is reality, and that "assumed" new language of science does not sound scientific at all.
Nobody is saying that terms can be used to mean the opposite of established meanings (with the exception of things like "flammable" and "inflammable"), and Hawking did not mean "evaporate" to mean anything like "condense," so your objection is completely off the mark.
quote:
Science has rules, anything outside of those rules is not science... it's imagination.
Right, it is imagination to think that the word "evaporate" can have only a single, fixed meaning, and that all applications of the word must be in reference to the classical physics of liquids.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2005 :  10:24:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules

...the theory of Relativity. This theory implies that light continues traveling straight regardless of the phenomena of gravity, but it will be bent by keeping its straight path through a distorted space-time caused by the Sun's gravity. [The statement of this theory is inconsistent with reality as to wear shoes that squeak and after walking and hearing the squeaky noise of the shoes, the person who wear the shoes says that the "earth squeaks"]
This bracketed thought shows a gross ignorance of relativity, and the fact that its dissonance with "common sense" is widely acknowledged and well-understood to be reality for photons.

To the rest of the story: so what? Relativity has been validated thousands of times since then, so a single case of dishonesty and/or gross incompetence only discredits Eddington and whoever else was involved, it doesn't discredit science as a whole.

By the way, using the default font size, and adding some paragraph breaks, would make reading such large chunks of text much easier.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 03/04/2005 :  13:04:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
Here is part of a review of Einstein's Luck:
quote:
Still, Waller faults Eddington for massaging his data. In the long run, Einstein was right, but Eddington's demonstration was flawed by his excessive zeal to vindicate the new theory. Waller judges that this brought Einstein's theory into the mainstream perhaps five years earlier than would otherwise have occurred, but at the cost of means that serve "to debase the whole scientific enterprise."

These cases highlight both the danger and the importance of such scientific risk-taking. By itself, Eddington's result was not sufficient. However, Waller does not dwell on the larger picture we have from many more-accurate measurements that came afterward confirming the correctness of Einstein's prediction. Can these absolve Eddington's sins? Here Waller does not consider the theoretical issues of the beauty and logical force of Einstein's theory, which moved Eddington and the others who early on opted for the theory even in advance of definitive experimental confirmation. Given that this process takes a long time, such arguments are of real importance. Waller's emphasis on experimental cruxes would have been enriched by including these larger questions.

I wish you would get to the point, Lawrules. What are you trying to say???

edited to include the link to the review: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/29780


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Edited by - furshur on 03/04/2005 13:08:52
Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2005 :  12:34:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
With all the humble respect to your excellent presentation of the different definitions of the word evaporation, the results from the Princeton University is

Evaporate

v 1: lose or cause to lose liquid by vaporization leaving a more concentrated residue; "evaporate milk" [syn: vaporize, vaporise] 2: cause to change into a vapor; "The chemist evaporated the water" [syn: vaporise] 3: change into a vapor; "The water evaporated in front of our eyes" [syn: vaporise]


Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University

I guess that if you look for the word "degenerate" in the web, you will find different kinds of definitions, but if you look in a dictionary of biology, the definitions are very different, then, such scientific terms "must be translated" in layman's language if a lecture is made to the public in general.

In the case of "evaporate", I should ask for the specific explanation of the definition below presented as "evidence" by woolytoad:

3. To deposit (a metal) on a substrate by vacuum sublimation.

Please apply that defintion to the the evaporation of the black hole.

I'm skeptic, and such definition doesn't fit at all in what Hawking tried to express, it appears that in his imagination, the imaginary black hole was hot and sending vapors to outer space...

As the history of black holes was presented above, everything about such imaginary phenomena started with that, an imagination based in abstract mathematics.


Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2005 :  13:32:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
Rules are rules.

That is what science claims. Science cannot accept the existence of a God without proof. Philosophy can accept the idea of the existence of God without the need of evidence, any other branch of knowledge can accept that idea but science.

Please, read the following.

Allow me to write an analogy, so you may understand better.

An individual called Albert Einstein wants to build a ten floor building. He made the blueprints of the building. He presented the blueprints and the list of materials to be used based in his calculations.

The License and Permits Office of the city reviewed the blueprints and the calculated materials of this individual Albert Einstein.

A person inside this office was and admirator of Einstein because Einstein demnonstrated to be a great builder in former ocassions. When a review of Einstein's plans were made, they found that the foundation of his building did not have enough strenght and consistence to support the rest of the building. So, in a middle of discussions, the admirator of Einstein, who had great influence over the director of that office, manipulated the calculations in order to give the reason to Einstein.

The construction of the building was approved. Even when the foundation, this is to say, the place where the entire building is supported, was not strong enough to support in a long run neither one floor or ten floors, the construction was approved anyway.

So, over a weak foundation, the ten floor building was built. The floors are beautiful, they have the best ornamental decorations, the quality of the materials in every floor is of a good manufacturing.

The building of this monumental craftman work still in progress....when...someone says..."the basement is weak, their walls are cracking, this building has been built in a mixing of 90% sand and 10% concrete..."

The Department of Reality came and closed the building.

The building still looking great, but by law, it can not be occupied.

Some people complaint about that closing, it simply can't be. The building looks georgeus, and Einstein was the planner and architect, who is the one with doubts about Einstein?

When you read the events of the validation of the theory of Relativity, its base foundation, the assumed distorsion of the imaginary space-time and the calculations of Einstein simply failed.

His calculations did not pass the requirements of science to build a theory. A fraudulent worker in the License and Permits Office (scientific community) manipulated the approval of such construction.

When the base foundation is invalidated, the entire building is invalidated as well.

Check the laws in your jurisdiction, a weak basement is a hazard.

I know that your claims are that "other" evidence have been presented to prove the veracity of Relativity, as Waller tries to justify in his book as well, but...I'm skeptic.

First things first.

The theories of science must start with a strong and factual foundation. Without one, those theories are not scientific.

You yourselves are skeptic of any other "new" theory if that theory can't pass the requirements of the scientific method. Well, the theory of Relativity did not pass the requirements in 1919.

It did not.

Regardless of how much assumed evidence is presented today (read the beautiful floors and ornaments of the building), that failure makes the theory of Relativity invalid.

So far, nobody have enjoyed the assumed benefits of that theory, which in the past promised travel through time, also to stay younger by traveling outer space at fast speeds, and other similar floating dreams. This is to say, no one has occupied that building yet. Its construction still in progress.

The idea of the earth as the center of the universe and the Sun orbiting around us was a conventional thought for several centuries until facts demonstrated the contrary.

With my sincere respects I can tell you that facts will demonstrate that the theories that imply time as a physical dimension are false.

Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2005 :  14:30:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrules:

Regardless of how much assumed evidence is presented today (read the beautiful floors and ornaments of the building), that failure makes the theory of Relativity invalid.

So far, nobody have enjoyed the assumed benefits of that theory, which in the past promised travel through time, also to stay younger by traveling outer space at fast speeds, and other similar floating dreams. This is to say, no one has occupied that building yet. Its construction still in progress.



I'm not sure who promised time travel, but we are enjoying some of the benefits of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The conversion of mass to energy is likely providing at least some of the electricity powering your computer right now.

The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley

The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
Go to Top of Page

Lawrules
New Member

26 Posts

Posted - 03/05/2005 :  14:55:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Lawrules a Private Message
continued...

The same as well, predicted effects are subjected to the factors which may intervene in the process or development of the phenomena and won't be validated unless it is verified with facts. As an example, the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment implies that the cat is therefore both dead and alive until the box is opened. The possibilities obtained in this thought are that the cat is alive because not enough radioactive material has yet decayed to release the hammer which breaks a bottle with poison, or that the cat is dead and the poisonous fumes have done their work. Several other possibilities can be obtained to cause the dead of the cat or keeping the cat alive. As an example, we can also imply that the cat is alive because a malfunction of the mechanism which triggers the hammer, or that the cat is dead because a heart attack. The possibilities are many, however, they must be in accord to the rules of the laws of the physical universe.

By an understanding of physical reality and in contradiction to a common belief, not everything in possible in our physical universe. Laws of physics rule over the physical universe and those laws impede several imaginations to become a physical reality. These limits ruled by the laws of physics apply both the micro-cosmos and the macro-cosmos. These laws rule and show what is possible and what is not possible. An example is the traveling of humans to outer space. This task has been fulfilled following the laws of physics, not so by violating these laws. However, and example of impossibility is that humans cannot breath in outer space as we do inside our atmosphere because our limited physical characteristics. Inside the possible is the environment in outer space which creates changes in the bodies of humans to which some adaptations may happen. The negative effects of space traveling in humans are many, and the solutions are focused to minimize those effects. Theories made before the current space traveling by humans did not consider the negative effects caused by such a different environment, for this reason the consequences of those theories are found invalid.


There is a contradiction in the Twin Paradox thought about space traveling. This idea relates that Peter and Paul are assumed twin brothers who born at the same time. After reaching a certain age Paul will fly away in a spaceship at great speeds. Peter will stay on the ground. To Peter the view of Paul traveling at such speed will appear as if all things inside that ship move slow. To Paul everything is perceived as usual in his traveling.

After a while, when Paul comes back, Paul will be younger than Peter. Richard P. Feynman in his Lectures of Physics, Relativistic Energy and Momentum, The Twin Paradox, concluded about this idea by saying, "That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated." In this imaginary event, it is included the possibility that from the point of view of Paul, Peter is moving slow as well, and by this view, Paul will also say that Peter appears to age slowly and, by simmetry, the result is that Paul and Peter should be the same age when they meet. Feynman argued to such possibility, according to him, that is why this imaginary event is called a "paradox", but it does not have to be so.

He said that in order to make the comparison, Paul has choices as to compare clocks or simply to come back. In his return back to earth Paul will feel the space ship in motion by observing things pressed against a wall, the motor going off, and other "unusual" things. Such perception, said Feynman, will make Paul the man in motion. Feynman applies a rule of his, The man who has felt the accelerations...is the one who would be younger.

The caricatures and jokes about such Twin paradox were many in those years, so the best way to be sure about that possibility was consulting with Einstein. In an interview with the journalist Alexander Moszkowski, Einstein explained that the Twin Paradox, imposible in reality, was the result of carrying the mathematical calculations to the limits of the absurd. Einstein explained to Moszkowski that our current vehicles travel at speeds so slow in comparison to the sped of light that no changes will be noticeable.

However, if the space ship travels 19 billion miles at 600 miles a second -about 1/320 of speed of light- the traveler returning to earth would be a second younger. A billion in US and French is 1'000,000,000, so Einstein's thought will mean a year of traveling. Nine expeditions to the Russian space station have stayed each and average of six months in space. The space station's orbit around the earth had a speed of 5 miles a second -about 1/37,2000 of light speed-. From that period of six months staying in spacxe, the American astronauts -the men who felt the accelerations- suffered of [1a] distortions in their bodies, their chest and arms increased while their legs became skinny, body fluids surge to chest and head, [2a] fast aging of their bones (osteoporosis), according to Adrian D. LeBlanc of the Baylor College of Medicine, on earth we renew our bones continually but in space this renewing does not happen, the astronauts lost great percent of bone density, and their recovery took from two to three years, NASA administrator Daniel Goldin said about the risk of such lose bone mass "We don't even know if a broken bone will heal in space"[3a] anemia, [4a] weal immune system, [5a] deformed spinal discs, in space a disc increase its size and astronauts may increase their height up to two inches more, [6a] low amount of blood cells, [7a] weak muscles [8a] severe signs of disorientation, the MIR orbit was about 15 times a day around the earth, and the astronauts were disoriented by such change of perceiving shorter days, the same happened when they returned back to earth to adapt to a twenty four hours day. [9a] They hardly can walk in their return back to earth, their physical health in general was very bad.

A way to diminish those health problems is doing exercises, as proived by the Russian astronaut Yuri V. Romanenko who stayed 329 days in space, aboard the MIR he did a continuing sessions on bicycles and treadmills, and when he returned back to earth, by petitions of the reporters, he performed a one-arm handstand. His general health, however, was also affected as the rest of astronauts. Russian astronauts have staying periods of more than a year in space, as Vladimir Titov and Musa Manarov. Their return has proved that space traveling cause anything but returning younger or slowing the process of aging. Drugs and other solutions may be necessary to keep the astronauts in good health in a longer traveling in outer space.

A faster speed won't change those negative effects in the astronauts caused by the strong change of their environment. On the contrary, great concerns about the possible effects of cosmic rays and solar winds hitting the space ship and causing cancer and other diseases in astronauts are other risks whichb still present and cannot be ignored. Ignoirance about the effects of space traveling was the reason of why ideas as the Twin Paradox spread out and scientists used them as an example of time dilatation. Those ideas were accepted as possible by many because the lack of facts which were revealed in recent years to us. Einstein's ignorance about the negative effects of space traveling in humans can be considered as well as carrying his mathematical calculations to the limits of the absurd.
[Edited to increase the font size and add some paragraph breaks - Dave W.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 7 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.62 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000