Philosophy Now Forum

prothero wrote:

uwot wrote: What I understood Spheres to be saying was that even with the effect of the Earth's gravity taken into account, the clocks still need to be adjusted periodically. This would be because the gravity of the sun and moon are not negligible and, of course, the Earth, Moon and Sun are the original three body problem, making the combined gravitational effect practically impossible.
Incidentally, Spheres apologised for not finishing my blog. That is entirely excusable, as I haven't finished writing it, but there is a page that tries to show why time slows down according to SR: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... ou-go.html

Perhaps you could provide a reference as the main issue appears to be taking into account the effects of relativity. In fact the system would rapidly become useless if these corrections were not built in. I am unable to find a reference to any kind of frequent arbitrary corrections.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys217 ... 02002).pdf



I objected to Spheres seeming to deny the truth of the "time dilation" effects of relativity and attributing the problem to a host of other factors (solar wind, etc.) whereas in truth the main effects seem to be relativistic.
No, my point was that gravity as a cause, cannot be isolated from other factors, that are equally suspect. As well as the clocks on earth and in orbit being at different positions relative to earths gravity they are also relative to the earths magnetosphere as well as the suns electromagnetic energy and solar wind and who knows what else. The scientific method requires that all competing possible causals (variables) be removed from the system being analyzed via 'scientific controls.' Else one can't necessarily attribute a particular causal with certainty. In fact, we deflect the path of electrons and subatomic particles with electromagnetism and electromagnetic energy. We do so in CRT's and at CERN. Not to mention microwave ovens exciting water molecules.


The main point is there is no fixed absolute universal time in the sense of Newton. One can declare a reference and measure all things from that point of view but it has no more validity than any other arbitrary reference except for convention.

The other point is that the rate of all processes physical, chemical, biological vary depending on relative speed and gravitational fields and so the "twin paradox" of relativity is a real phenomena and we have evidence to confirm these effects.
We?? No the scientists that have claimed they do, might believe they do, but all you and I can do, is read their conclusions and either take it on faith or not. In this case, you choose to take it on faith, and I choose to instead think for myself, which doesn't mean that I haven't taken many things on faith like you are now doing. Keep in mind that both the GTR and STR have the word "theory" contained within their title, and for honest reasons. How about you and honesty? Or do you really need to flex your muscles, when in truth they're not yours to flex. Do you understand how the metaphor fits this situation, I will explain it if you require it. I'm accommodating that way!

it is hard to see how time has any reality or meaning except as an abstraction from change (process).

bahman wrote:We experience forms and motions. Time is a concept that we use to have an idea about two motions, one is our standard clock and another is subject of our experience.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys217 ... 02002).pdf

No, my point was that gravity as a cause, cannot be isolated from other factors, that are equally suspect. As well as the clocks on earth and in orbit being at different positions relative to earths gravity they are also relative to the earths magnetosphere as well as the suns electromagnetic energy and solar wind and who knows what else. The scientific method requires that all competing possible causals (variables) be removed from the system being analyzed via 'scientific controls.' Else one can't necessarily attribute a particular causal with certainty. In fact, we deflect the path of electrons and subatomic particles with electromagnetism and electromagnetic energy. We do so in CRT's and at CERN. Not to mention microwave ovens exciting water molecules.

We?? No the scientists that have claimed they do, might believe they do, but all you and I can do, is read their conclusions and either take it on faith or not. In this case, you choose to take it on faith, and I choose to instead think for myself, which doesn't mean that I haven't taken many things on faith like you are now doing. Keep in mind that both the GTR and STR have the word "theory" contained within their title, and for honest reasons. How about you and honesty? Or do you really need to flex your muscles, when in truth they're not yours to flex. Do you understand how the metaphor fits this situation, I will explain it if you require it. I'm accommodating that way!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Keep in mind that both the GTR and STR have the word theory contained within their title and for honest reasons

prothero wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys217 ... 02002).pdf

No, my point was that gravity as a cause, cannot be isolated from other factors, that are equally suspect. As well as the clocks on earth and in orbit being at different positions relative to earths gravity they are also relative to the earths magnetosphere as well as the suns electromagnetic energy and solar wind and who knows what else. The scientific method requires that all competing possible causals (variables) be removed from the system being analyzed via 'scientific controls.' Else one can't necessarily attribute a particular causal with certainty. In fact, we deflect the path of electrons and subatomic particles with electromagnetism and electromagnetic energy. We do so in CRT's and at CERN. Not to mention microwave ovens exciting water molecules.

We?? No the scientists that have claimed they do, might believe they do, but all you and I can do, is read their conclusions and either take it on faith or not. In this case, you choose to take it on faith, and I choose to instead think for myself, which doesn't mean that I haven't taken many things on faith like you are now doing. Keep in mind that both the GTR and STR have the word "theory" contained within their title, and for honest reasons. How about you and honesty? Or do you really need to flex your muscles, when in truth they're not yours to flex. Do you understand how the metaphor fits this situation, I will explain it if you require it. I'm accommodating that way!

I don't suppose you read the article
Or you could 'suppose' that you're convinced and I'm not, that your hero worship might be a factor, while mine is not given lightly. I'm sure that your 'supposition,' suited your 'want.'

explaining how closely GPS time corrections follow the predictions of special and general relativity
Mankind's mathematical 'models,' 'necessarily' model what of the universe? Nanoseconds, 10−9 (one billionth)? You've got to be kidding me! Controls cannot be established here on earth, to ensure accurate conclusions. I submit that further experimentation be conducted during the upcoming maned flight to mars, so as to come, 'Closer to Truth.'

and how little any other theoretical factors have any effect in real time and real life.
So you believe you've read another's words, thus necessarily understand the absolute truth of things.

One should not let ones imagination be limited by the facts it seems.
The same could be said of you, it would surely seem!

For that matter it is the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity.
Yes!

Our best and most useful knowledge comes from science and these theories have stood both the test of time, prediction and empirical verification.
That mathematical models 'seem' to model that which mankind has attributed to them, is not 'necessarily' indicative of the actual case.
Mankind is 'extremely' young when it comes to understanding the universe, else he wouldn't be killing off his biosphere for the sake of a glittering prize, surely representative of the naked ape he so aptly portrays. I won't even start with his, so called, 'progress,' in achieving a state of M.A.D.! Such a fitting acronym for such a fearfully small, insignificant and dumb animal!

Philosophy is "rational" speculation and philosophy which rejects the findings of science seems to me not to qualify as "rational" only as groundless speculations.
Again, rejects, surely suits your wants, as it was never uttered by me.

It is a little like denying climate change despite the overwhelming evidence of its reality.
On this we both agree!

Talking about "time" without talking about science and physics is just talking not doing "rational" speculation or philosophy and acknowledging or referring the current best scientific models we have is to reference our best source of knowledge and not a lack of honesty.
I'm questioning your honesty of conveyance, the honesty of your verbiage, connotations, denotations, as again your supposition surely suits your want.

There is a role for imagination, creative thinking and even for skepticism in both science and philosophy but one should not overvalue such factors or cause them to permit us to ignore established empirical fact.
Yet you don't 'know' that anything we've talked about here is based upon empirical fact. You just choose to believe those you've read, taking it on faith. I have admitted that I have, yet you have yet to do so, which is why your honesty is questionable at best.

Do we ever get absolute certainty, No
'Finally,' you speak truthfully. A sign that your honesty in representation might improve? We'll see.

but we use best models and best evidence.
Yet you seem to either have a mouse in your pocket, or belong to Micky's club. You seem to be like many clones, finding strength only when belonging to a 'supposed' authorities group. Groupism? Cronyism? Of course that has nothing necessarily to do with truth, yet many then beat their chests, as if the strongest of apes, yet merely a simple parrot.

surreptitious57 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Keep in mind that both the GTR and STR have the word theory contained within their title and for honest reasons

You are conflating the lay definition of theory with the scientific one but they are not the same. In science a theory is the highest possible classification and represents an entire body of knowledge. Which has been rigorously tested and found to be true. While nothing in science
can ever be demonstrated to be absolutely true anything that is defined as a theory is as close to it as possible. Therefore your assumption
as to why GR and SR have theory in their title is entirely misplaced

bahman wrote:We experience forms and motions. Time is a concept that we use to have an idea about two motions, one is our standard clock and another is subject of our experience.

uwot wrote:Dunno if anyone still gives a monkey's, but if you want to know whether time exists, consider how it is measured. Plato, ironically the arch realist, argued that time is only the measure of change. To this day, we do not have any means of recording time that isn't based on counting physical events: Earth's orbit around the sun, its rotation on its axis, pendula swinging, atoms vibrating. You are free to believe that there is some discrete 'thing', which is affected by velocity and gravity, even electromagnetism, if you follow Spheres, but not only is it superfluous, it raises the issue of how matter/space affects a completely different 'substance'. Long story short: Kant was probably right, 'time' is simply a concept we invoke to make sense of reality, it is not a thing in itself.

Belinda wrote:Noax, I doubt you will not find a relation that does not involve time. This is true for the same reason as that you will never find a relation that does not involve existence itself.

prothero wrote:

Belinda wrote:Noax, I doubt you will not find a relation that does not involve time. This is true for the same reason as that you will never find a relation that does not involve existence itself.

That is true because reality is a process made up of events and events invariably entail both existence and change, perpetual perishing and rebirth.

Noax wrote:I consider time to be a relation, not a thing, but I struggle to find good examples to illustrate the point.

Noax wrote:I want a different example relation that does not involve time, so relations like velocity are out.

Noax wrote:Time being expressible as another dimension, I also try to avoid the example of a spatial relation. So what is left as a good relation example? Weight is a nice relation, but it is a force, and force is ultimately meaningless without time (students in a good 'statics' class might disagree).

Noax wrote:Lack of proper example aside, a relation is not some discreet thing, not a direct cause of anything. Heck, even the wording 'cause of' is a temporal reference. I don't find physical relations to be mere concepts. Only our understanding of them is the concepts. But are relations considered to be things in themselves?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

prothero wrote:

Belinda wrote:Noax, I doubt you will not find a relation that does not involve time. This is true for the same reason as that you will never find a relation that does not involve existence itself.

That is true because reality is a process made up of events and events invariably entail both existence and change, perpetual perishing and rebirth.

There is no re-birth, only birth and death. matter might be reconsituted, but as some of my atoms enter different worms, others maggots, bacteria, fungi, rats, and other rodents: it is highly unlikely that that I shall enjoy re-birth.
Each of us is unique. The only way I could be re-born is for another universe to evolve an identical earth so that I would be conceived at exactly the same moment - not that I would know it.

I am only me because of a unique and unrepeatable set of causalities changing moment by moment.