For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Thank you.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pmWell so far, I read all you had there and like HOW you expressed science with excellent illustrations, good humor, and connectivity of the material with respect to the historical logic that went into developing significant scientific theories. I definitely recommend this to others here.
Yeah-why time slows down the faster you go. Why it appears to speed up or slow down, depending on which way round the world you fly. How gravity affects time. Bonkers stuff like that.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pmI'm guessing what isn't published there is going to lead to Einstein and trains?
Have no fear-everyone gets out alive.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pmI think you need to add a warning about whether any stick animals were actually harmed during your creation, though.
What you call "facts" are NOT necessarily FACTS, in and of themselves.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:47 pm The new book is now available on Amazon (at least in the UK and US) You can read a lot of it here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com All comments and feedback (especially nice stuff) gratefully received.
I try to be clear about what I mean by 'facts' in the introduction, where I say:
Granted I have skipped some fairly outré metaphysics and assumed that there is a universe, that things happen in it, and that there are people to observe and measure it, but I think that is a reasonable starting point for the type of book I have written.In the book I wrote:"The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them."
Well, the how is what physics is primarily interested in-observing and measuring so that we can predict and manipulate our environment. The why goes beyond that-it is metaphysics in that sense. For example:
And yes, I am still searching.In the book I wrote:Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which includes a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff. Relativity explains all the known facts that Newton could, and the ones he couldn’t. So does that mean the story is true? Not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories.
What do you think is the difference between the sort of curiosity that I have, and "REAL curiosity"?
True, but it saves me the trouble of building my own Large Hadron Collider and Hubble Space Telescope.
Well, the idea was to write the book I wish I could have read when I was 15; a cartoon strip that shows what scientists think, rather than explain the maths.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 amIn fact the current literature, when this is written, will only cause more confusion than clarity. Just start reading if you do not believe this. Your book just adds to the list of literature. Lines like "The Universe is big" does NOT really help anyone in understanding. Unless of course they are of a particular understanding. Who is this repeated literature actually created for?
Fair enough, I do presume and believe that the best way to understand a thing is to start by looking at it, but I accept that some people think that is unnecessary.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 amYou write from a very relative, presumptive, and believing perspective, which translates into distorting the actual and real truth of things sometimes. For example words like "mind-boggling big", "scientists think", "started out", could infer concepts which are not true at all. Some might start thinking that the actual size of the Universe is unfathomable and/or even unknowable, let alone already known and understood by some, is just one for example of how words can distort and twist that from what is real and true.
That is waaaay beyond the scope of the book, but if you can show me where I used that word, I could perhaps put it into context.
Well, I accept that the Doppler Effect is an good explanation of the observed red-shift of galaxies. It's in the book.
As I conceded, I am still searching, but if you know "the actual Truth", I'd love to hear it.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 amBy page 14 there is NO wonder why people like yourself are still searching for HOW and WHY the Universe "works" the way it does. The ASSUMPTIONS, and then the BELIEFS, based on and made from those WRONG assumptions, have distorted "your" ability to LOOK clearly AT and SEE what the actual Truth of things IS.
I'm sorry you think so, but if there is one message that has been passed down through the generations, it is that the universe is an amazing and mysterious place, that we are still finding out about.
I'm not sure which quote you are referring to, but the only one you cite is:
Which is true.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:47 pm The new book is now available on Amazon (at least in the UK and US) You can read a lot of it here: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com All comments and feedback (especially nice stuff) gratefully received.
Just as long as you are aware that sometimes so called "facts" end up NOT actually being FACTS at all, then we are on the same path.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 am Thank you Age for taking the trouble to provide feedback and giving me the opportunity to clarify.I try to be clear about what I mean by 'facts' in the introduction, where I say:Granted I have skipped some fairly outré metaphysics and assumed that there is a universe, that things happen in it, and that there are people to observe and measure it, but I think that is a reasonable starting point for the type of book I have written.In the book I wrote:"The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them."
WHY predict, when the answers can already been observed?
Nothing much here to do with the actual WHY to the Universe, but anyway.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 amThe why goes beyond that-it is metaphysics in that sense. For example:In the book I wrote:Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which includes a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff. Relativity explains all the known facts that Newton could, and the ones he couldn’t. So does that mean the story is true? Not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories.
Yes I know. That was evidenced within your book.
You make assumptions, jump to conclusions, and believe things, all of which are based on past experiences. REAL curiosity is complete OPENNESS.
LOL those silly little human made things will NOT provide the answers to HOW and WHY the Universe works the way It does.
That is fair enough. But NOT all scientists think the way that you are portraying they do here.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 amWell, the idea was to write the book I wish I could have read when I was 15; a cartoon strip that shows what scientists think, rather than explain the maths.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 amIn fact the current literature, when this is written, will only cause more confusion than clarity. Just start reading if you do not believe this. Your book just adds to the list of literature. Lines like "The Universe is big" does NOT really help anyone in understanding. Unless of course they are of a particular understanding. Who is this repeated literature actually created for?
NOT looking at things, is NOT some thing that I have even thought about let alone have written about, so only you would KNOW WHY you went down that path.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:55 amFair enough, I do presume and believe that the best way to understand a thing is to start by looking at it, but I accept that some people think that is unnecessary.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:54 amYou write from a very relative, presumptive, and believing perspective, which translates into distorting the actual and real truth of things sometimes. For example words like "mind-boggling big", "scientists think", "started out", could infer concepts which are not true at all. Some might start thinking that the actual size of the Universe is unfathomable and/or even unknowable, let alone already known and understood by some, is just one for example of how words can distort and twist that from what is real and true.
'Mind-boggling'. But, although putting a word into context may help readers to gain a better understanding of where you are coming from exactly, that "putting a word into context" does NOT explain what the 'mind' actually IS, which is exactly what I am talking about and referring to.
Okay I accept that you accept that the doppler effect is a good explanation of the observed red-shift of galaxies. This could be more or less grasped from in your book. However, I am not after what is a good explanation of the observed red-shift of galaxies. The question I posed here, asked in another way, is; What exactly informs human beings what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? What exact tool distinguishes close galaxies from further away galaxies?
I know.
As I explained, there is NO wonder WHY you are still searching considering the assumptions you make and the beliefs that you have and hold onto.
When "you" say "we" who/what are you referring to exactly?
Great.
Without getting into precise definitions, I will just use the term 'fact' in reference to the observed red shift in galaxies. The tools required to observe this are a telescope and a prism, as detailed in the book. It is a fact that there are points of light in the night sky. It is also a fact that the smaller they appear, on average, the redder they look. Since we can demonstrate, quite simply on Earth, that the further away something is, the smaller it appears, the inference is that the same is true about points of light in the night sky. It is also a fact that can be demonstrated relatively easily, that the longer the wavelength of light, the redder it looks. The movement of sources and recipients of waves can be demonstrated to stretch and compress waves, it's called the Doppler Effect. So all in all, it is a plausible explanation that the smaller, redder points of light are more distant than the larger, bluer ones.
I hope I have done that to your satisfaction.
While I think that the above explanation is plausible, I don't assume any explanation for the facts is true. If you have a more compelling explanation for any of these claims...
...I am willing to entertain them.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pmThe actual Truth IS:
The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.
Well that is one strange "inference" to be basing 'facts' off and from, from my point of view. The fact is a grain of sand can be much closer to an observer than a rock is, but the grain of sand will appear much smaller than a much larger rock does. By definition what 'appears' to be the case may not be so.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm This, I guess, is the nitty-gritty:Without getting into precise definitions, I will just use the term 'fact' in reference to the observed red shift in galaxies. The tools required to observe this are a telescope and a prism, as detailed in the book. It is a fact that there are points of light in the night sky. It is also a fact that the smaller they appear, on average, the redder they look. Since we can demonstrate, quite simply on Earth, that the further away something is, the smaller it appears, the inference is that the same is true about points of light in the night sky.
Great time to point out and note that a 'plausible explanation' is still only an assumption and/or guess at best.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm It is also a fact that can be demonstrated relatively easily, that the longer the wavelength of light, the redder it looks. The movement of sources and recipients of waves can be demonstrated to stretch and compress waves, it's called the Doppler Effect. So all in all, it is a plausible explanation that the smaller, redder points of light are more distant than the larger, bluer ones.
Honestly I am still not really sure on your answer and point of view, but again this is because I do not know how to phrase my question better and clearer.
I have yet to understand your claims properly and fully. For example; IF, it is a plausible explanation that the smaller, redder points of light are more distant than the larger, bluer ones, and if redder infers closer while bluer infers more distant, then HOW does this red/blue shift also translate to direction of travel as well? (Yes I have read and seen this in your book.) What I have considered is how can red/blue shift infer two completely different scenarios.
Okay great.uwot wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:44 pm...I am willing to entertain them.Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pmThe actual Truth IS:
The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.
I think you might have missed the point of the title: Einstein on the train and other stories. In the introduction I try to make clear that any "inference" is essentially a story to explain the 'facts':
In the book I wrote:Richard Feynman, one of the great 20th century physicists, put it like this: “Every theoretical physicist that’s any good, knows six or seven different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics.”
The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them. “Theoretical representations” are stories about why they work, but there are lots of different stories. Some physicists believe one thing, some another, some don’t have any strong opinion and some couldn’t care less.
That in a nutshell is what sometimes makes physics so bewildering, because depending on which theoretical physicist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories. Many of them might seem absurd, but assuming the physicist is ‘any good’, the story will be based on solid facts. This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how physicists think the universe actually works.
The red shift is the evidence that supports the inference that the universe is expanding. By itself, it doesn't tell you the distance. There are a range of techniques used to establish that, which if you are interested, are outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
You are free to make up any story you wish to account for whatever facts are known to you, but this exchange...
...suggests you think you can discover how everything works without even looking at it. So well in fact, that you assert it as "The actual Truth".
So if my story is wrong, which I accept may be the case, how can you demonstrate that your "actual Truth" is correct?Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pmThe actual Truth IS:
The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.
I dunno Imp; why were the locomotive passengers thirsty?
You can see the animations here: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theo ... index.htmlProfessor Leinweber wrote:Dear Will
You are certainly welcome to use the animations to promote your book. Best wishes! I hope it is very well received and read.
Do you remember when I stated: What you call "facts" are NOT necessarily FACTS, in and of themselves.?uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 amI think you might have missed the point of the title: Einstein on the train and other stories. In the introduction I try to make clear that any "inference" is essentially a story to explain the 'facts':
In the book I wrote:Richard Feynman, one of the great 20th century physicists, put it like this: “Every theoretical physicist that’s any good, knows six or seven different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics.”
The “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work - the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them. “Theoretical representations” are stories about why they work, but there are lots of different stories. Some physicists believe one thing, some another, some don’t have any strong opinion and some couldn’t care less.
That in a nutshell is what sometimes makes physics so bewildering, because depending on which theoretical physicist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories. Many of them might seem absurd, but assuming the physicist is ‘any good’, the story will be based on solid facts. This book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how physicists think the universe actually works.
So, when exactly WAS the inference made that the Universe is expanding, was it BEFORE or AFTER observing the red shift? And, what exactly were "they" basing that that theory of expansion, if it was NOT on the red shift?
The very reason I asked you: How do you know what are relatively close galaxies to what are more distant galaxies? is because from within your book it was not purely clear if red shift confirms distances or not. Even your very response to my question here alluded to the "fact" that it is red shift of galaxies that that is how "you" know what are CLOSE galaxies to what are MORE DISTANT galaxies.uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 am By itself, it doesn't tell you the distance. There are a range of techniques used to establish that, which if you are interested, are outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
But as I continually ask; WHY make up ANY assumptions, ANY stories, and/or ANY theories, et cetera, about what COULD BE true when all that is needed is, to KNOW what the actual and real Truth IS, is to just LOOK AT what IS actually Real and True?
You MUST OF missed what I have been saying, for quite a while now. I also did actually say it to "YOU", in this thread. That is; NOT looking at things, is NOT some thing that I have even thought about let alone have written about, so only you would KNOW WHY you went down that path.
If any of these could be True, to you, then by just LISTENING and LOOKING I could DEMONSTRATE HOW?uwot wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:15 amSo if my story is wrong, which I accept may be the case, how can you demonstrate that your "actual Truth" is correct?Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:39 pmThe actual Truth IS:
The Universe did NOT have a beginning.
The Universe is NOT expanding.
The Universe is made up of two fundamental things that have co-existed always.
At least two things are needed to create any thing.
The Universe is one thing that creates every thing.