#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Absolute stillness doesn't exist, but does absolute velocity exist?
Yes.
Side Score: 27
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 25
|
|
We have a theoretical limit on velocity with the speed of light. We do not have a minimum limit of stillness because the Big Bang Theory proposes that all is moving away from everything else. For absolute stillness to exist (which I believe it does) there must be a flaw in the currently popular theory (which I believe there is). Side: No.
I'm pretty sure that the temperature of absolute zero is defined by absolute stillness. The reason why observing absolute zero is impossible is because of the nature of what we are talking about. If something were to be frozen to the temperature of absolute zero, it would be cut off from the rest of causality in the universe. The simple act of observing absolute zero would raise the temperature, because the observation in itself is evidence of a causal link. Absolute Zero. There is nothing. Zip. Zero. Totally disconnected from causality and the rest of the universe. Yet that is how it is defined, by the lack of any motion. Absolute stillness is the same thing as absolute zero as far as I can tell. It is one of those things that could not be observed if it did exist. Does absolute zero exist? Does absolute velocity exist? Maybe they are somehow united through The Singularity. Side: Yes.
If something were to be frozen to the temperature of absolute zero, it would be cut off from the rest of causality in the universe. No it wouldn’t. The simple act of observing absolute zero would raise the temperature A thing need not be observed in order to exist. Even so, the the near-zero that we achieve is illusory when considering the movement of the planet on which near-zero is attempted. The stillness I am referring to would be a macro stillness of motion. In this case, a person could be considered still if they could stop their motion relative to other bodies, dispite being unable to stop the cellular motion within their own body. Side: No.
I say, "If something were to be frozen to the temperature of absolute zero, it would be cut off from the rest of causality in the universe." You say, "No it wouldn’t." I say, It most certainly would. For something to be frozen to the point to where there was absolutely no movement, it would by definition be cut off from physics and causality. There would be nothing there. If you were to observe it, you would destroy it. That is what absolute zero means. For something to be absolute zero, it has to be cut off from the rest of the universe. If causality is effecting it, there would be a temperature above absolute zero. It's very necessary. Side: Yes.
Absolute zero is the lowest temperature that is theoretically possible, at which the motion of particles that constitutes heat would be minimal. It isn’t the theoretical ceasing of molecular activity, not quantum activity (which would be impossible). Thus a thing at absolute zero is failing to produce heat, not failing to have a causal relationship. If you could eliminate the zero-point energy resulting from quantum activity, it would still have causal potential energy. Furthermore, if a thing is caused to drop to absolute zero, and to stay there, the. It is obviously not removed from causality as that is what keeps it at absolute zero.. Side: No.
See, I definitely am talking about the ceasing of quantum activity. I'm pretty sure that quantum activity has an effect on temperature. Other than that particular discrepancy, which seems to be what we consider to actually be absolute zero, I think we are in agreement. See, true absolute zero is not "minimal motion of particles that produce heat", it is "No motion that produces heat". If there is any heat at all, it is not really absolute zero. I say that all motion creates heat. Causal potential energy might be what causes the universe to restart after heat death, eh? The heat death of the universe is probably the closest you could get to absolute zero. Zero-point energy is definitely something that makes achieving the temperature of absolute zero impossible. I am aware that a few years ago some physicists claimed to have reached temperatures below absolute zero, and to me that is proof that they weren't actually below absolute zero. Absolute zero means that there are no negative temperatures. That was the whole point of absolute zero to begin with, to determine the lowest possible temperature. I suppose that is the key operating word there though... Possible. NOTHING is impossible! Hah! Side: Yes.
Absolute zero doesn’t refer to the quantum, which necessarily moves but does not directly create heat. But There’s another problem. Even theoretical absolute zero is moving if it is achieved on earth. If you go into space and achieve absolute zero, you still haven’t found stillness unless you are also not moving on a macro level, which is theoretically impossible given our current models. On the other end of the spectrum, from the perspective of the speed of light, there is no space and no time. This means that achieving the speed of light would remove the traveler from all 4 dimensions of length, width, height, and time. The universe that exists appears to be made of things that we can’t really say exists. Side: Yes.
So we agree that absolute stillness doesn't exist. If it takes time for light to travel extremely large distances, how can you say, "from the perspective of the speed of light, there is no space and no time"? What do you mean by "from the perspective of the speed of light"? Side: Yes.
The faster I go, the slower I move through time from my perspective. If it took an astronaut 3 rather months to travel to Pluto and back, he may only experience 2 months of time (this isn’t an actual figure). Additionally, space becomes shorter as well (people seem less interested in the relativity of space). If a person could travel at the speed of light, we may observe it taking them some light years to get somewhere, but for them it takes not time at all. Furthermore, at that speed it takes no distance at all. This is why light is the upper limit of possible velocity. Side: Yes.
Moving at any speed alters one’s experience of time from anyone moving at a different speed. As one moves faster, they move through time more slowly (and get “narrower”). When one approaches the speed of light, they move through time exceedingly slowly until, when reaching light speed, they cease to move through time (they also cease to have any length). The conundrum is that when moving at any speed slower than the speed of light, all observers, regardless of their speed, observe light in a vacuum to be traveling the same speed relative to them (almost 300 million meters/second). So yes, the speed of light is the absolute velocity (though a photon can be slowed). Side: Yes.
Frame of reference tricks do not make reality, they make illusions. Clearly there is no way to experimentally prove that moving at the speed of light removes the passage of time. Not only this, but there is no such thing as "speed" without time. I can't believe what you are saying. Just because you are pointing me to study up on something doesn't mean that you have a grasp on that thing you are telling me to study up on. If you truly do have a grasp on this, surely you can be more creative in trying to explain it to me than deferring to.... google... Side: Yes.
But you are not making this claim, you are claiming something more along the lines that time is nonexistent at the speed of light. I can't see how this is true. If I can't see how this is true, it is not knowledge to me. If it is not knowledge to me, it is not science to me. It has not been proven to me. The problem I have is that you are claiming, as I said, that light speed removes the passage of time. What does that even mean? Side: Yes.
There is a thorough explanation here: http://www.emc2-explained.info/ Using a time dilation calculator, you can see that travelling at 99% the speed of light will slow your passage of time to roughly 14% it’s usual value. If travel at the speed of light, time passage slows to 0% it’s usual value. You can play with the time dilation calculator here: Side: No.
If we cannot agree on the validity of the sources at hand, then there is no conversation to be had. We have no shared premises. My premise is that the theory of relativity is not only science, but it is a valid theory. What I am presenting comes from this scientific theory. If you don't want to believe it is science, then there is no way for me to show you that it is. Not only am I operating from the premise of a well established scientific theory, but you are not countering it. You are merely disbelieving it. Saying it isn't science "for you" isn't an argument. Time is relative, reality isn't. Side: No.
"Science" means "knowledge". The scientific method is a means of obtaining knowledge. You haven't shown me any scientific method that is being followed. You aren't showing your work. It looks to me like you are simply believing what you read. Perhaps your faith is misplaced. You are not expressing faith in science here, you are expressing faith in the wizards, priests, witch doctors, and shamans in academia who call themselves scientists. Your faith is not in science. If your faith was in science, you'd understand why I'm not finding you convincing despite the fact that I am open minded to being mistaken or wrong. I don't believe something is "science" because someone says it is "science" to them. Besides that, just because you know something doesn't mean that your knowledge is in line with reality. Why do I say something isn't science to me? Because knowledge is inherently personal. I'm taking accountability because it is easy to claim that someone elses knowledge is your own, it is harder to speak for yourself. I'm being honest. That's really what it comes down to. That should also make it really easy to work with me. Side: Yes.
If people only relied on information they independently, personally verified, science wouldn't advance very far at all. The better alternative is to think critically about what sources to accept. I haven't shown my work because the work is not mine. If you reject the work of Einstein and those who confirmed it, that's fine. But it means we have nothing to talk about. Side: No.
Science wouldn't advance very far at all if we didn't constantly question it. You aren't doing this, your faith is blind. I am not convinced by your science falsely so called. I can say this because you are admitting that this isn't science to you. You haven't followed any scientific method, you are just parroting off things you've heard. There isn't anything to talk about, because you aren't talking about anything you really know. Side: Yes.
Science wouldn't advance very far at all if we didn't constantly question it. The state of cosmology will remain unaffected regardless of whether you personally question it. Would you decline a necessary urgent surgery for the sake of independently learning the underlying science? I wouldn't. I can say this because you are admitting that this isn't science to you. That's right. It is information to me. Information acquired through someone else doing the science. Having scientific knowledge does not require doing all the scientific work. It requires knowing what sources of scientific knowledge are valid. Side: No.
I don't think it is too far out there to suggest that scientists of the future will look back at today's cosmology as being religious superstition. You are clearly not in a position to judge what scientific sources are valid. You are obviously not a scientist. You don't even understand what you read well enough to explain it to me. I think I'm being very reasonable here. Side: Yes.
You’ve gone back and changed your posts after I responded to them. If that was not an accident, then it isn’t very honest. Science is not knowledge, science is a method by which knowledge is acquired. To guage the validity of a scientific source, I need not independently confirm the results of the source with my own tests. Nor do I need to be an actual scientist. Nor do I need to have the depth of knowledge that a specialist in a given field would have. I merely need to be reasonably certain that the scientific method was adhered to. Whether a theory qualifies as science is not a subjective matter. There isn’t science for you but not for me. The validity of the theory of relativity does not change depending on whose reading it. Side: No.
I have not intentionally edited my posts after you've responded. You've at least done this once already to me today. I assume it wasn't intentional. If I edit, it is for the sake of clarity. Usually within the first 5 to 10 minutes of me posting. Communication is important to me, I'm not trying to make things confounding. Science literally means "knowledge". You say that science is te method by which knowledge is acquired. That is fine. See, I don't believe you put these things through enough scrutiny to really be a good judge of what sources are valid. As I said, you simply are believing what you read because they are said to be reputable sources. You say that you need to be reasonably certain that the scientific method was adhered to, but you can't even outline how the scientific method was used to come up with the conclusions you are presenting. See, the reason why i am skeptical of all these things that are called "science" has to do with the fact that in my youth I damn near had a science fetish and I took my studies very seriously. It was because of scrutiny that I came to realize that a lot of the things that are said to be science are not in fact science. Look at how some of these conclusions are reached, even by the so called scientists who are well known. There is a lot of posturing going on, and you aren't going to see this if you don't look at things more closely. Putting your faith in these people because they are said to be scientists and they have the backing of many other so called scientists is not an indication that these people are actually performing science. Knowledge is absolutely subjective, and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Someone can't know something for me. If they do, I would say "I don't know" rather than try to pass someone elses knowledge off as my own. Side: Yes.
Science literally means "knowledge" Not anymore it doesn’t. Etymology is not a replacement for current definitions. Putting your faith in these people because they are said to be scientists and they have the backing of many other so called scientists is not an indication that these people are actually performing science. If faith is belief without cause or reason, then I am not putting faith in scientists. If a geologist explains to me various things about different layers of soil, it is reasonable to believe him, given it is reasonable to believe that as a specialist in that field he has researched the matter. It actually is an indication that people have done science when their work is accepted as science by numerous others whose work is science. Yours is a kind of argument from ignorance wherein you assert that a matter is not scientific if you are ignorant of its results or the specific means by which those results were derived. This is likely due to your conflating the etymology of science with its definition. One need not know the specifics behind a theory to be reasonably certain of its validity. While it is true that scientists can be corrupted and their work invalidated, one must have cause to believe this is the case. I see no incentive for Einstein, or everyone presenting his work, to falsify the matter at hand. Especially when his errors and corrections are well documented. Your argument from ignorance does not provide you with greater objectivity, but rather serves as a barrier to further discussion. Side: No.
No, I think it is very clear that the barrier here is your inability to substantiate your claim that what you are speaking of is science. Faith is not belief without cause or reason. Faith is "something that is believed, especially with strong conviction". Strong conviction tends to come from cause or reason. Do you have cause or reason to believe what you do? I'm sure you do. I even said you have faith. Of course you have faith. You say I am making an argument from ignorance. I am not claiming what you are saying is true or untrue. I am saying that I don't know, but I don't find your argument convincing enough to believe. What am I doing? I'm waiting for you to make an actual argument instead of an appeal to authority. If you are going to make an appeal to authority, make an appeal to science. Appealing to what scientists say is not the same thing as appealing to science. Why don't you present me with an experiment so that it can be examined? No outside links, please. Keep it confined to this platform. Be clear, simple, and concise as possible. Side: Yes.
I'm waiting for you to make an actual argument instead of an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority is valid if the source to which you appeal is actually authoritative. I do not have the depth of understanding of the subject required to properly teach it. That is why I refer you to those who do have the depth of understanding required. Even when I understand the implications and results of the theory of relativity, I am not familiar with the complex mathematics behind it. It is sufficient for me to understand the confirmations of time dilation and the observation of Eddington during his famous eclipse experiment. If there were a competing theory that held any prominence, I would be able to compare and conclude which I find more reasonable. As it is, I am not aware of a strongly validated competing theory. As such I do not have reasonable grounds to disbelief the explanations of relativity in favor of some other explanation. Lay persons can discuss topics and implications of E=mc2. I do not personally understand the mathematical proof of E=mc2. This is not sufficient grounds for me to discount what is now commonly understood concerning the matter. My ignorance is not evidence of a lack of science at work. If I am unwilling to accept that the mathematical proof is valid, I ought to walk away as we do not share the same premises. This is not unlike the situation you and I are currently in. Side: No.
I still think it is better to say "I don't know" than to pretend to know. Just because something is explained really well, makes sense, or is even the best explanation you've heard doesn't mean that you should call it knowledge. If you don't know, you don't know. There is no shame in that. It is better to admit ignorance than to be a know it all. Besides that, it is more scientific to admit ignorance than to pretend to know based on other people's observations. I'm more interested in The Truth than vain imaginings. Side: Yes.
If I don't know, it isn't science to me. If you'd rather maintain this superstitious idea that there is such a thing as science independent of a knower, It would be my suggestion that you consider introducing operationalism into your assertions. Otherwise, what are you doing? You are making all these divine declarations of fact without taking into account the relativity involved. For the sake of science, you must factor in the tool that is being used to measure. That is why I say, "If I do not know, it is not science to me." I'm not being arbitrary by saying this. The only reality that I am expressing is that I don't know. If I don't know, I am not wrong to say that something isn't science to me. This isn't the same thing as calling something pseudoscience. We'll get to that later when it is revealed how your so called scientific beliefs aren't actually based on any conclusions that were drawn from following the scientific method. Of course, until you actually show your work, we can keep playing this futile game of disputing over words. See, as far as I can tell, we are in the same boat. It appears to me that you have a lack of knowledge as well. The difference is that I can admit my lack of knowledge, while you persist in pretending to have it. I'm not trying to destroy your faith in science. If anything, I'm pushing you to become more scientific in your thinking. Side: Yes.
We'll get to that later when it is revealed how your so called scientific beliefs aren't actually based on any conclusions that were drawn from following the scientific method. I don't believe you can show that Einstein's theory of relativity was arrived at by means other than the scientific method. If you can show that, I would be interested in further conversation. Until then, I think we are probably done here. See, as far as I can tell, we are in the same boat. It appears to me that you have a lack of knowledge as well. The difference is that I can admit my lack of knowledge, while you persist in pretending to have it. No, the difference is that I don't believe my lack of knowledge equals an actual lack of scientific validity. I am willing to accept the information provided by people who are thoroughly invested in the validity of said information, when said information has been confirmed by others who are also thoroughly invested in the validity of said information, to have been scientifically deduced. I find it reasonable to believe them, while you don't. Side: No.
I don't believe you can show that Einstein's theory of relativity was arrived at by means other than the scientific method. If you can show that, I would be interested in further conversation. Until then, I think we are probably done here. I'm pretty sure that the burden is on you to show that "Einstein's theory of relativity" was arrived at through the scientific method. What you are asking of me is unreasonable. What I am asking of you is very reasonable. If you are too lazy to understand what it is you believe, why should I care enough to show these things to you? You aren't even going to be paying attention. I'll give you some time to play catch up if you'd like. Take your time. Really think about how you are going to respond. No, the difference is that I don't believe my lack of knowledge equals an actual lack of scientific validity. I am willing to accept the information provided by people who are thoroughly invested in the validity of said information, when said information has been confirmed by others who are also thoroughly invested in the validity of said information, to have been scientifically deduced. I find it reasonable to believe them, while you don't. You are really missing the point. Is your faith in science, or is it faith in wizards? If you believe these wizards so much, present their experimentation here so that we can put it to scrutiny. If these wizards are really scientists, you should be able to present an experiment without much issue. Otherwise what, you are just believing these people because they are all part of the wizard club? You believe they are actually invested in these things? How do you know? Prove it. Show me some science. I'm waiting. The burden is on you, not me. Like I said, take your time to make a good case. Side: Yes.
I'm pretty sure that the burden is on you to show that "Einstein's theory of relativity" was arrived at through the scientific method. It's not. When the consensus view is that Einstein adhered to the rigors of the scientific method, all I could offer after a review would be my agreement. If the consensus is wrong, and there is some illogical leap or unreasonable premise, the burden is on you to illustrate as much. This is not unreasonable. You aren't even going to be paying attention. If you could show that Einstein failed to utilize the scientific method, I wouldn't be the only one paying attention. But you can't. Side: No.
You can't demonstrate that Einstein followed the scientific method, so I have nothing to disprove. I'm not going to prove a negative for you. You can't demonstrate that Einsten followed the scientific method because you CAN'T. And I'm not even debating Einstein, I'm debating your claims which you assert are the claims of Einstein. I'll be here when the authority you appeal to is SCIENCE and not the priest class of academia. Side: Yes.
When you are not in a very good position to know if a particular theory is in line with truth and reality, while a bunch of academics are in a better position to know, it is appropriate to believe their position is more likely in line with truth and reality than the alternative. Side: No.
My alternative is to say, "I don't know", which is a great deal more appropriate than believing someone simply because they are said to be authoritative. See, if I was a tyrant, I would exploit the fact that people believe as you do. Indeed, it has been done since time immemorial. Side: Yes.
When you are not in a position to know, it is fine to say "I don't know". It is also fine to say "Those who know say this". The fallacious appeal to authority, as utilized by tyrants, is only fallacious if the authority is not valid. In this case the validity of the authority in question is well established. That being the case, the burden of proof is most certainly on you to show that this authority is not to be trusted. Side: No.
That isn't what I'm debating. Your inability to demonstrate the scientific process only gives me more reason to believe that you have no idea what you are talking about. That's what your so called science amounts to. Vain imaginings and intellectual masturbation. Truly, you have nothing to offer. I'm very disappointed, for some reason I was expecting you to be better than that. Whatever Side: Yes.
-1
points
The twin paradox has been verified. Amarel, the twin paradox has not been verified because astronauts are not able to travel anywhere near to the speed of light. Please shut up. Not only are you saying stupid things, but you are trying to use these stupid things to deflect away from the stupid things you have said previously. This is a recurring pattern of behaviour with you. Side: Yes.
Maybe you are the one who needs to sod off. No one cares about your stupid personal attacks that aren't relevant to the discussion. "Amarel, the twin paradox has not been verified because astronauts are not able to travel anywhere near to the speed of light." Maybe that is all you needed to say. The rest is simply you not being useful. Side: Yes.
I know you just say stupid shit to troll. The twin paradox illustrates time dilation and does not require travel at anywhere near light speed. "Time dilation has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites." Side: Yes.
1
point
I know you just say stupid shit to troll. The twin paradox illustrates time dilation I am not saying "stupid shit to troll". I am trying to explain that you have no idea what you are talking about. The apparent paradox arising from relativity theory that if one of a pair of twins makes a long journey at near the speed of light and then returns, he or she will have aged less than the twin who remains behind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinparadox Time dilation has certainly been illustrated in theory, but not by the twin paradox. For God's sake shut up. Side: No.
I always love when you use real sources because they always work against you. From your source: "Time dilation has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment. It was also confirmed in particle accelerators by measuring time dilation of circulating particle beams." Side: Yes.
1
point
All are reduced with speed until they are ultimately reduced to zero at the speed of light, though only from the perspective of the one traveling at that speed. You have things precisely the wrong way around, as per usual. Time is relative to the observer, not the traveller. Time passes as normal for anybody travelling at light speed. The disagreement happens when people watch from another frame of reference. Side: Yes.
Time is relative to the observer, not the traveller. Time is relative for everyone smart guy. If you travel very quickly to a distant star and back taking 20 years from my perspective on earth, but 10 years from your perspective in space, you have literally only experienced 10 years. If you travel faster, your experience of the trip will be even shorter relative to my experience of your trip. If you could travel at the speed of light, you would experience your trip taking no time at all and you would travel no distance. While we see a photon taking 8 minutes to reach us from the sun, from the photons perspective, it takes no time at all. Side: No.
1
point
Time is relative for everyone smart guy. No it isn't. Time is relative to the observer, not the traveller. Time does not appear to slow down to a person who is travelling fast. It appears to move at the same rate that it did when he was standing still. If you are going to comment on this stuff then at least have the integrity to learn it first. Side: Yes.
Time does not appear to slow down to a person who is travelling fast. It doesn't appear to slow down, it actually slows down. The traveling twin is actually younger. If you are going to comment on this stuff then at least have the integrity to learn it first. You're funny. “According to a photon in free space, time, or for that matter distance, has no meaning whatsoever, and it gets from wherever it is to wherever it is going instantly!” http://www.emc2-explained.info/ “From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again. It doesn't experience distance either.” https://phys.org/news/ “We know that if you travel close to the speed of light, Einstein's theory of special relativity kicks in, and time dilates while lengths contract.” “When you move at the speed of light, this means the following: • You absolutely cannot have a mass; if you did, you’d carry an infinite amount of energy at the speed of light. You must be massless. • You will not experience any of your travels through space. All the distances along your direction of motion will be contracted down to a single point. • And you will not experience the passage of time; you entire journey will appear to you to be instantaneous.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/ Side: No.
0
points
It doesn't appear to slow down, it actually slows down. Jesus Christ, you literally have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Firstly, my problem was with your claim that time appears to slow down for the traveller because that claim is not true. Secondly, time does not "actually slow down" because there is no universal rate at which time moves. That's the entire point. Two different observers can experience two different rates of time, and neither is more correct than the other. I wish you would stop trying to deflect the issue every time someone points out that you have no idea what you are talking about. It makes conversation with you difficult and frustrating. Side: Yes.
There is a professor at Cornell who was nice enough to explain this to a middle school kid. Perhaps he can help you understand. As can the other sources I provided for you. Side: No.
“According to a photon in free space, time, or for that matter distance, has no meaning whatsoever, and it gets from wherever it is to wherever it is going instantly!” http://www.emc2-explained.info/ “From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again. It doesn't experience distance either.” https://phys.org/news/ “We know that if you travel close to the speed of light, Einstein's theory of special relativity kicks in, and time dilates while lengths contract.” “When you move at the speed of light, this means the following: • You absolutely cannot have a mass; if you did, you’d carry an infinite amount of energy at the speed of light. You must be massless. • You will not experience any of your travels through space. All the distances along your direction of motion will be contracted down to a single point. • And you will not experience the passage of time; you entire journey will appear to you to be instantaneous.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/ Side: No.
|
