# For the alternative theorists:

Yet to have any discussion about alternative theories means having a discussion on the points that you , yourself , brought up in your post #113

That was an excellent example of three silly hypothesis put by two posters, that failed all 12 points.

river

So if you measure a board and write down that value on a piece of paper, that paper becomes an identical board? The measurement does not create the board, the board does not just come into existence by the act of your measuring it, it will be laying there whether or not you measure it and the measurement is a construct, a model of the board, not the board itself. It's the difference between a map(the measurement)and the territory(the time you are measuring). Spacetime, our 4 dimensional Universe.

Grumpy

How is territory , time ?

A fact is an observation or a measurement, and this is not: . . .
an observation would be prone to the subjectivity of the observer.

FR, at what point does either a hypothesis or a theory "become" a fact?
i don't think either one ever becomes a "fact".
the closest you can come is scientific law.
keep in mind that we are talking science here, not math.

i don't think either one ever becomes a "fact". the closest you can come is scientific law.
The term "law" is rather colloquial in science. We talk about the "law of gravity," but that is merely one of the four fundamental forces. We talk about "Avogadro's Law," pV=nRT (you youngsters write it differently but it's the same equation), but that is a fact derived from millions of consistent empirical observations.

Stick with the terms "fact," "hypothesis" and "theory."

keep in mind that we are talking science here, not math.
The key difference between mathematics and science is that, while a scientific theory is derived from observation of the natural universe, and is therefore always only one observation to the contrary away from being refined or falsified, a mathematical theory is derived from abstractions and is proven true by logic rather than empirical observation. The fact that 2+2=4 has always been found to be true in observations of the natural universe makes arithmetic very useful, but it's not essential to the validity of arithmetic.

We have developed theories of geometry for non-linear universes, and they are 100% true even though we have no non-linear universe in which to test them.

river

How is territory , time ?

River, if you don't understand the simple things, then physics is not something you should talk about at all. A map describes the territory. The measurement(by event)describes the time. The map does not create the territory. The measurement of the event does not create the time. The territory is what you are actually walking on, the time is what you are existing in. You cannot walk on the map, because it is a construct, a description of that territory, not the territory itself. Your MEASUREMENT of time is also a construct, a map, for describing that real time's existence. Time is a dimension the whole Universe travels through, at one rate or another(there is no universal time, though there could be said to be an average, overall time the Universe has experienced), just like all the matter moves through space at various speeds. We can only travel one way in time, toward the future(higher entropy), but we cannot NOT move through time, though we can slow our pace with speed, energy, acceleration or gravity(events).

These are all facts, deal with them.

Grumpy

Stick with the terms "fact," "hypothesis" and "theory."
i dunno.
i got a problem with using the word "fact" when it comes to hypothesis, theories, and scientific laws.
yeah, i know, it's a fact that if you drop an anvil on your toe it's gonna hurt.

while a scientific theory is derived from observation . . .
the hypothesis is derived from observation, the theory is developed ( and refined ) by measurement.
a mathematical theory is derived from abstractions and is proven true by logic . . .
i believe math is the only "real" facts of science.
We have developed theories of geometry for non-linear universes, and they are 100% true even though we have no non-linear universe in which to test them.
that's the problem with ANY model, finding the right controls.
also, math models do not always correlate to reality.

i dunno.
i got a problem with using the word "fact" when it comes to hypothesis, theories, and scientific laws.

the hypothesis is derived from observation, the theory is developed ( and refined ) by measurement.
Consider this. It blows my mind whenever I look at it. These are Galileo's sketches of what he saw each night (each clear night) as he looked at Jupiter for the first time through his homemade telescope:

At first he thought they were stars near the planet so he drew them as stars. But to his astonishment, they were orbiting the planet. That much is indisputable -- to him alone, at least, since no one else on Earth had any idea this was true. But by the end of this two week period, he realizes he has seen the moons we call Ganymede, Callisto, Io, and Europa (the 4 largest of 60+ moons).

So they are facts, but at first he alone knows the facts. What hypothesis might come from this? Let me use the definition a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Let's go with the hypothesis that other planets may be orbited by moons. What others did he know of? Earth. If we move away from the conventional wisdom that says that the moon orbits the Earth. What theory develops from that? Here I'll apply the definition a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.. The theory that he arrived at was actually older than this. It was the one published by Copernicus long before this. But Copernicus had based his theory on the fact that planets did not travel in rings around the Earth. And even before Galileo had found this new data, Kepler had figure out that the planets are actually traveling in elliptical orbits around the Sun. So Galileo had found a particular case which extended the facts used to support the findings of Copernicus, Brahe and Kepler. That theory is called the heliocentric theory.

i believe math is the only "real" facts of science.

that's the problem with ANY model, finding the right controls.
also, math models do not always correlate to reality.

The only math Galileo does is to record which day he saw the moons, and where they were. Brahe did the same thing, in painstaking detail, for the location of the planets as they orbit the Sun. Kepler took Brahe's data and arrived at a model for all orbits: the ellipse. And it's remarkably accurate -- to within about two digits -- based on the raw data from Brahe, now over 400 years old. But how crucial is the math to adopting the heliocentric theory? Even if we ignore Kepler's work, Galileo still independently discovered a basis for adopting it using no math at all.

AQ-
10 points off for equivocating. Your score is -135. You know you have not read Prinicipia nor have you read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", nor "On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It", nor any related work of Einstein's, nor have your read a synopsis of either Einstein's or Newton's works, nor can you explain what any of these works propounds.

Actually I have read Principia Mathmatica and am familiar with QED. To save time I am going to ignore a massive appeal to authority and just say this. We could both read the same thing and develop completely different opinions not on the facts themselves but where they lead today. You would make a better student than a teacher, but what is the point of learning something if you can't teach it to someone else. (On a side note this is the main reason anyone truly intelligent in their own paradigm writes books. To pass it along for someone to understand better than individuals in their own time.)

Allow me to outline the main series of your now clockworked mind. You have very specific answers in very specific places that do not move or flow through your glial cells. They are stagnated and as you have gotten older and realized which person knows what and what information they believe is new to them, (quite subconsciously. I'm fairly impressed) you have forgotten or failed to realize when new information is released into your mind it searches for a place to land for quite a while. Not because it is nearly full, but because all this old information is so spread apart, used to certain paths, and connected to the new information the new information fails to find a specific area. Which is a good thing, except for the fact that you won't let this old information connect and flow with the new causing the initial stagnation and anger that a process you have striven your whole life to perfect isn't working to its full potential.

AQ-

Actually I have read Principia Mathmatica
You could not possibly have read it, or else you could not possibly have understood it. Thus far you are posting as a person who has no idea what it contains.

and am familiar with QED.
The question is whether you read and understood what Einstein said about his motives for his work in relativity.

To save time I am going to ignore a massive appeal to authority and just say this.
I am only responding to what you purport to give as an appeal to authority, on materials you demonstrate no knowledge of. You opened with an appeal to the authority of Newton and Einstein, except it was not them, but your own imagination, which followed with the explanations.

We could both read the same thing and develop completely different opinions not on the facts themselves but where they lead today.
Your opinions are developed out of your imagination. Everyone else gets their understanding of physics by studying it, usually in college.

You would make a better student than a teacher,
Every teacher is first and foremost a student. But it's not a reversible process. You for example can't teach material you never mastered in the first place.

but what is the point of learning something if you can't teach it to someone else.
More to the point, what is the point of teaching something if you never bothered to learn it yourself?

Allow me to outline the main series of your now clockworked mind. You have very specific answers in very specific places that do not move or flow through your glial cells. They are stagnated and as you have gotten older and realized which person knows what and what information they believe is new to them, (quite subconsciously. I'm fairly impressed) you have forgotten or failed to realize when new information is released into your mind it searches for a place to land for quite a while. Not because it is nearly full, but because all this old information is so spread apart, used to certain paths, and connected to the new information the new information fails to find a specific area. Which is a good thing, except for the fact that you won't let this old information connect and flow with the new causing the initial stagnation and anger that a process you have striven your whole life to perfect isn't working to its full potential.

Well I guess since my glial cells are processing Lorentz in connection with Einstein, and Kepler in connection with Newton, and yours aren't, then it says something is wrong with your glial cells. :shrug:

I won't go into the state of glial cells that claim to know what they never studied.

The only math Galileo does is to record which day he saw the moons, and where they were. Brahe did the same thing, in painstaking detail, for the location of the planets as they orbit the Sun. Kepler took Brahe's data and arrived at a model for all orbits: the ellipse. And it's remarkably accurate -- to within about two digits -- based on the raw data from Brahe, now over 400 years old. But how crucial is the math to adopting the heliocentric theory? Even if we ignore Kepler's work, Galileo still independently discovered a basis for adopting it using no math at all.

Then there is hope for me too! I try so hard to understand physics and when someone explains it just right or draws a diagram, chart or even a cartoon sometimes my brain goes ding ding ding EUREKA! But then they go and put it in mathematical terms and my brain goes ding ding ding DINGBAT!

Then there is hope for me too! I try so hard to understand physics and when someone explains it just right or draws a diagram, chart or even a cartoon sometimes my brain goes ding ding ding EUREKA! But then they go and put it in mathematical terms and my brain goes ding ding ding DINGBAT!
It's hard to understand physics without a lot of math. Of all the "hard sciences" (excluding the "soft sciences" like psychology and linguistics), I'd say that physics is the most math-intensive.

Well, maybe second after astronomy. But when astronomers talk to us, they manage to avoid math almost completely. I don't think a physicist can do that.

This is probably why SciForums has just one board for "Physics & Math."

You could not possibly have read it, or else you could not possibly have understood it. Thus far you are posting as a person who has no idea what it contains.

The question is whether you read and understood what Einstein said about his motives for his work in relativity.

I am only responding to what you purport to give as an appeal to authority, on materials you demonstrate no knowledge of. You opened with an appeal to the authority of Newton and Einstein, except it was not them, but your own imagination, which followed with the explanations.

Your opinions are developed out of your imagination. Everyone else gets their understanding of physics by studying it, usually in college.

Every teacher is first and foremost a student. But it's not a reversible process. You for example can't teach material you never mastered in the first place.

More to the point, what is the point of teaching something if you never bothered to learn it yourself?

Well I guess since my glial cells are processing Lorentz in connection with Einstein, and Kepler in connection with Newton, and yours aren't, then it says something is wrong with your glial cells. :shrug:

I won't go into the state of glial cells that claim to know what they never studied.

Teach a man to fish and he will believe he is a better fisherman...

Teach a man to fish and he will believe he is a better fisherman...

Let a man troll a science thread and he goes on *Ignore*

See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

:wave:

Let a man troll a science thread and he goes on *Ignore*

See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

:wave:

Being led into a lead basement, chased down the road by Columbians, poisoned with nicotine, and thrown to the ground by a policeman who used to sell marijuana just to hear a couple people complain about their knowledge. I think I'm doing alright.

aqueous,
hypothesis, theories and scientific laws are not facts unless they happen to be that.
without the proper testing and measurement you can build a pretty nice house of cards, all supported by hypothesis and theories.
it's one of the dangers of statistical correlation.

Quote Originally Posted by dumbest man on earth View Post,

FR, at what point does either a hypothesis or a theory "become" a fact?

At the moment the experiment "demonstrates" the factual truth of the theory . Thereafter it becomes a theory again.

At the moment the experiment "demonstrates" the factual truth of the theory . Thereafter it becomes a theory again.

So..., is the ^^above quoted^^ statement : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : 3.) a fact? : or, 4.) a momentary fact (which hereafter "becomes a theory again") ?

So..., is the ^^above quoted^^ statement : 1.) a hypothesis? : 2.) a theory? : 3.) a fact? : or, 4.) a momentary fact (which hereafter "becomes a theory again") ?

It is my opinion, I make no other claims.

The sources I used are below.

From wiki,
Fact,
A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
Which factually confirm or falsify the theory.

and

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

After the measurement any further growth of the plant is again only theoretical, until the next growth measurement gives us factual results.

Seems to me that my statement was not far off the mark.

What i was trying to say that, when an experiment produces a theoretically predicted (observable) result, we have a factual confirmation of the theory. The more often experiments shows factual confirmation of a theory, the stronger the theory.

Succinctly stated, a theory is a description of a function, a fact is the result of an experiment used to test the theory.

IMO, this is very much related to the emergence of "time", during the measurement itself. During the experiment (measurement), "duration" becomes part of the set of facts, and if pertinent, also a property of the theory.

Last edited:
river

Yes, it does, it's an integral part of the spacetime that makes up the Universe. You are simply another ...poster who does not understand the difference between MEASURING time and time's existence.

Actually, there can be no event or change without time in which to occur. Time is always there, whether there is change or not.

Grumpy

While I agree with the general thrust of the answer that time is "available" for events, the question is what came first: time or action? It is like asking : was mathematics before the formation of the Universe? It is a false equivalency, if not circular. IMHO. Time is created "during the creation of physical space", regardless if it is the action of a quantum event or the movement of the enire Universe. It "requires" time to complete a function or an event. Until the task (experiment) has been completed no time or time frame can be assigned to the event.

IMO, Time is the upper speed limit in which reality can become manifest, or form itself. Space is always changing, requiring and creating time in the process. There is no "future time" for the Universe, for the universe there is only the Past and the Now. For us time is limitless, because it has already been created by space and for us the universe is infinite. But, IMO, the physical work dictates the creation of a time frame and the action or change (the event) must complete before we can speak of a "spacetime event". I propose that the action precedes and creates time. As the Universe has been expanding for 13+ billion years, it would be unwieldy to assign spacetime coordinates to objects, especially as we have no clue where to start from, so we invented ways of measuring everything. If we can measure it, we can make it.
I am more interested in individual "time lines" because they tell a personal story.

But, this may be of real interest to scientists as a point of discussion,
In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. They argue that well-known time dilation experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction. According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities.