Relativity defeats itself

[JC1]

oh yeah, it does. To any relativists, I would like to discuss with you the relativistic notions. But I do not care for einstein's theory of relativity that has absolutely no practical application to my life or yours. Lets keep it on the plane of real life relevance. Let's get the ball rolling...

[RyanJ]

oh yeah, it does. To any relativists, I would like to discuss with you the relativistic notions. But I do not care for einstein's theory of relativity that has absolutely no practical application to my life or yours. Lets keep it on the plane of real life relevance. Let's get the ball rolling...

 

Yes it does... it is used to track planets orbits accuratly, its used are unlimited - jest because you think it does have no efect on everything does not mmean that it does not have any use - this should probably be moved to the Metaphysics section...

 

I'm no expert on relativity, but there are a few people on this forum who could be considered to be - maybe they will be able to give you some practical applications.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[timo]

- What´s a "relativist"? Neither my online dictionary nor wikipedia knew that term.

- If you have questions considering something go ahead and ask.

- If you don´t care for something I see little point in mentioning it - mentioning something is not really the smartest way not to talk about it.

[bascule]

I think JC1 is simultaneously trying to talk about GR/SR *and* the post-modernist notion of (moral) relativism, which is in turn coupled with a sort of scientific relativism which stems from the inherent potential for falsifiability of any scientific ideas provided that's what the evidence corroborates.

 

People want Divinely Inspired Absolute Truth, and that simply doesn't exist in our world. It's frustrating, but get used to it.

 

As for practical applications of SR/GR, if these weren't taken into account the Global Positioning System wouldn't work. So when that airplane you're flying on stays on course, you can thank relativity for that.

[swansont]

oh yeah, it does. To any relativists, I would like to discuss with you the relativistic notions. But I do not care for einstein's theory of relativity that has absolutely no practical application to my life or yours. Lets keep it on the plane of real life relevance. Let's get the ball rolling...

 

Can you demonstrate any technical competence in the subject area? How about rolling the ball in that direction first.

[JC1]

I think JC1 is simultaneously trying to talk about GR/SR *and* the post-modernist notion of (moral) relativism' date=' which is in turn coupled with a sort of scientific relativism which stems from the inherent potential for falsifiability of any scientific ideas provided that's what the evidence corroborates.

 

People want Divinely Inspired Absolute Truth, and that simply doesn't exist in our world. It's frustrating, but get used to it.

 

As for practical applications of SR/GR, if these weren't taken into account the Global Positioning System wouldn't work. So when that airplane you're flying on stays on course, you can thank relativity for that.

 

The relativity I speak of is the general notion that there isn't any absolute truth.

 

Formulaic relativity just accounts for the variable conditions and its appropriate laws to tabulate what is or will be observed. These types of relativity is still subject to an absolute truth under the formulas that govern it. Your knowledge of SR/ GR in GPS isn't applicable to the bolded definition I wish to discuss. They are sovereigned under an accepted truth or else you could never study it and make definite conclusions in the first place. If you don't even agree with that, then you are even more ignorant and goggled then I initially perceived. I'll just point you to try and win to defend Relativity to get 50,0000 dollars ( http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm )

 

 

 

"general notion that there are no absolute truth" is what I am relatively speaking of.

 

What must be frustrating to you is that people find real truth from divine inspiration so much so that you have to make futile demands that people should believe otherwise. If you can "competently" disprove it then someone may take notice of it someday.

[JC1]

Can you demonstrate any technical competence in the subject area? How about rolling the ball in that direction first.

 

Swansont, your call for me to demonstrate "technical competence" in (GR/SR) is funny. It's like someone who sticks their nose up against another person just because that person can't answer your baseball trivia. If I never cared for that sport, of course I can't demonstrate "technical" competence in it. But there are "universal truths" to everything and I can still discuss the sport with you if you'll agree.

 

I motioned for the relativists to start so that we could work from their table. But since nobody jumps in, okay I will start:

 

"The notion that there isn't any absolute truth is self defeating. People who upholds relativism of life errently loses reality in a whirl of deception"

[Mokele]

The relativity I speak of is the general notion that there isn't any absolute truth.

 

This concept, in the absolute form described here, is pure sophistry, only used by people pretending to be deep in hopes of getting into easily impressed people's pants.

 

The idea that some "social truths" are not absolute is correct (as we see norms and mores vary from culture to culture) but the "no truth at all" position is utter garbage.

 

Mokele

[bascule]

The relativity I speak of is the general notion that there isn't any absolute truth.

 

There is absolute truth. Humans just can't be absolutely sure of it.

 

Formulaic relativity just accounts for the variable conditions and its appropriate laws to tabulate what is or will be observed. These types of relativity is still subject to an absolute truth under the formulas that govern it.

 

That sounds a lot like what they said about Newtonian Mechanics...

 

Your knowledge of SR/ GR in GPS isn't applicable to the bolded definition I wish to discuss. They are sovereigned under an accepted truth or else you could never study it and make definite conclusions in the first place. If you don't even agree with that, then you are even more ignorant and goggled then I initially perceived.

 

Science: What is demonstratably true is accepted as such until falsified by more compelling evidence.

 

I'll just point you to try and win to defend Relativity to get 50,0000 dollars ( http://members.aol.com/crebigsol/awards.htm )

 

Ooh, while I'm at it, I should try to claim Kent Hovind's $250,000 prize to prove evolution. Or Gene Ray's $10,000 prize to disprove that within the Cubic embodiment of Nature, there are 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth.

 

Nobody has won any of these prizes, therefore by specious reasoning GR/SR is wrong, evolution didn't happen, and TimeCube theory is correct!

 

"general notion that there are no absolute truth" is what I am relatively speaking of.

 

I think the distinction between absolute and relative truth is pointless. The real difference is that if you take something to be an "absolute truth", you expect that such beliefs will never be shown to be incorrect. This is a very unscientific point of view. Science accepts that if a compelling enough case can be presented against even the most fundamental of science's beliefs, then it should be abandoned and the demonstratably more reasonable explanation used in its place.

 

What must be frustrating to you is that people find real truth from divine inspiration so much so that you have to make futile demands that people should believe otherwise.

 

You don't have truth. You have faith.

[JohnB]

And someone actually took some time to create that Gene Ray site? And I thought the Flat Earthers were oxygen thieves.

[swansont]

Swansont' date=' your call for me to demonstrate "technical competence" in (GR/SR) is funny. It's like someone who sticks their nose up against another person just because that person can't answer your baseball trivia. If I never cared for that sport, of course I can't demonstrate "technical" competence in it. But there are "universal truths" to everything and I can still discuss the sport with you if you'll agree.

 

I motioned for the relativists to start so that we could work from their table. But since nobody jumps in, okay I will start:

 

"The notion that there isn't any absolute truth is self defeating. People who upholds relativism of life errently loses reality in a whirl of deception"[/quote']

 

You said einstein's theory of relativity that has absolutely no practical application to my life or yours and I wanted to make sure you were actually talking about this instead of being clueless and spouting nonsense. And you've provided me with the information I was seeking. (it's option b)

 

You can be assured you aren't the only one laughing.

[Tom Mattson]

The relativity I speak of is the general notion that there isn't any absolute truth.

 

You aren't talking about relativity' date=' you're talking about relativISM. There's a huge difference (pun intended).

 

It's a philosophical school of thought that has been discussed for hundreds of years. And yes, the paradox "There are no absolute truths" is very well known, and there exists a great deal of literature on the subject.

 

Let's get the ball rolling...

 

You get it rolling. You're the one who started the thread, so present an argument against relativism. It's your dime, start talking.

[swansont]

It's your dime, start talking.

 

Will the kids of today recognize that expression? I'll bet you have vinyl LPs, too.

[Tom Mattson]

I'll bet you have vinyl LPs, too.

 

I do listen exclusively to CDs at this point, but I swear I will never send or receive a 'text message'. Computers are for email, telephones are for talking, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

[Mokele]

Or Gene Ray's $10,000 prize to disprove that within the Cubic embodiment of Nature, there are 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth.

 

Wow. Just wow. Congratulations Bascule, you have even further erroded what little faith in humanity I have left.

 

Mokele

[JC1]

Pardon me for my timeliness because Relatively speaking I have little of it nowadays.

 

That sounds a lot like what they said about Newtonian Mechanics...

Tell me how I am wrong?

 

Science: What is demonstratably true is accepted as such until falsified by more compelling evidence.

then these universally accepted truths supports the ideal that relativism of no absolute truth is wrong.

 

 

Ooh' date=' while I'm at it, I should try to claim Kent Hovind's $250,000 prize to prove evolution. Or Gene Ray's $10,000 prize to disprove that within the Cubic embodiment of Nature, there are 4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth.

 

Nobody has won any of these prizes, therefore by specious reasoning GR/SR is wrong, evolution didn't happen, and TimeCube theory is correct!

 

I wouldn't reach the conclusion that there are no GR/SR, or no evolution..., but the point of these contests to show that noone can prove it is a point well made and worth reexamining.

 

 

I think the distinction between absolute and relative truth is pointless. The real difference is that if you take something to be an "absolute truth", you expect that such beliefs will never be shown to be incorrect. This is a very unscientific point of view. Science accepts that if a compelling enough case can be presented against even the most fundamental of science's beliefs, then it should be abandoned and the demonstratably more reasonable explanation used in its place.

It is pointless to you until you realize where I am going with relativism. There are obvious separation between people who adhere to either belief, so there is a point you just have refused to recognize. I believe I have ten fingers, You can't prove that to be incorrect unless one is cut off. I think anyone who have seen my fingers will concede to my count of 10.

 

You don't have truth. You have faith.

Faith in what is true. If you don't have faith in truth, then you doubt what is real.

 

You said einstein's theory of relativity that has absolutely no practical application to my life or yours and I wanted to make sure you were actually talking about this instead of being clueless and spouting nonsense. And you've provided me with the information I was seeking. (it's option b)

"Practical"' date=' einsteins theory isn't practical to regular people, especially me and other people here. Now you know that i'm pointing towards relativism, the kind where someone says there are no absolute truths

 

You aren't talking about relativity, you're talking about relativISM. There's a huge difference (pun intended).

 

It's a philosophical school of thought that has been discussed for hundreds of years. And yes, the paradox "There are no absolute truths" is very well known, and there exists a great deal of literature on the subject.

 

You get it rolling. You're the one who started the thread, so present an argument against relativism. It's your dime, start talking.

 

yes, excuse me for the confusion of relativity and relativism. You get my point, I'm not competent in grammar or semantics either, but you know where I am heading. I am so eager to discuss relativism I really didn't even pay attention to the more empirical concept of relativity.

 

My topic is "The notion that there isn't any absolute truth is self defeating. People who upholds relativism of life errently loses reality in a whirl of deception"

[swansont]

yes' date=' excuse me for the confusion of relativity and relativism. You get my point, I'm not competent in grammar or semantics either, but you know where I am heading. I am so eager to discuss relativism I really didn't even pay attention to the more empirical concept of relativity.

 

My topic is "The notion that there isn't any absolute truth is self defeating. People who upholds relativism of life errently loses reality in a whirl of deception"[/quote']

 

 

Then you should not be making any claims about Einstein's theories ("einsteins theory isn't practical to regular people"), as they comprise a very different topic.

[imasmartgirl]

Faith in what is true. If you don't have faith in truth' date=' then you doubt what is real.

[/quote']

 

wait a sec. arn't you supposed to have faith in a belief? The truth is the truth if you know its true, you can't have faith unless there is doubt and if there is doubt then how do you know its the truth??

[bascule]

I wouldn't reach the conclusion that there are no GR/SR, or no evolution..., but the point of these contests to show that noone can prove it is a point well made and worth reexamining.

 

Maybe the fact that none of these prizes have been claimed says more about the person offering the prize...

 

It is pointless to you until you realize where I am going with relativism. There are obvious separation between people who adhere to either belief, so there is a point you just have refused to recognize. I believe I have ten fingers, You can't prove that to be incorrect unless one is cut off. I think anyone who have seen my fingers will concede to my count of 10.

 

There are things that cannot be falsified which are unique to your frame of reference. For example, I know for certain that I exist, because I think (Cogito ergo sum).

 

Then there's things whose chances of being falsified are virtually nil. Do you have 10 fingers? Well, yes, unless all of reality has been an elaborate construction intended to deceive you. But that probably isn't the case.

 

Then there's the rest. Things we can't know empirically. That's where your system of knowledge becomes riddled with assumptions.

 

Faith in what is true.

 

Faith is an assumption, therefore your assertions to the validity of your faiths are likewise based on the same assumptions. Sorry.

 

If you don't have faith in truth, then you doubt what is real.

 

You are the ultimate arbiter of what you accept to be true and what you doubt. Hence the inherent relativism of "truth" as everyone decides this differently.

 

Reality, however, isn't particularly affected by how people interpret it. Whatever is true about reality will continue to remain so.

[JC1]

Maybe the fact that none of these prizes have been claimed says more about the person offering the prize...

yes the person offering the challenge did an outstanding job at issuing a point you cannot counter

 

There are things that cannot be falsified which are unique to your frame of reference. For example' date=' I know for certain that I exist, because I think ([i']Cogito ergo sum[/i]).

well then you don't believe in the relativistic idea that there are no absolutes

 

Then there's things whose chances of being falsified are virtually nil. Do you have 10 fingers? Well, yes, unless all of reality has been an elaborate construction intended to deceive you. But that probably isn't the case.

 

probably? you even have a slight doubt about something as simple an absolute as a count of 1-10? your existence shares no distinction from the existence of my fingers. It cannot be falsified whatsoever. I'd like to see you try to reason how I couldn't.

 

Then there's the rest. Things we can't know empirically. That's where your system of knowledge becomes riddled with assumptions.

Even when you don't absolutely know something doesn't mean there isn't an absolute truth to it. Faith is confidence in truth. It isn't an assumption made out of the whim. If you don't have the "competency" to recognize such things like the existence of God, then of course you would reject something true as something only made up by "assumptions". Your failure to see it as an absolute truth is a result of your own predisposition.

 

Faith is an assumption, therefore your assertions to the validity of your faiths are likewise based on the same assumptions. Sorry.

Why are you apologizing? You think my faith will be changed by your false statements about faith, when you don't even realize the depth of faith? Unless you can you can really challenge what you call my "assumptions", there is no need for saying you are sorry.sorry.

 

You are the ultimate arbiter of what you accept to be true and what you doubt. Hence the inherent relativism of "truth" as everyone decides this differently. Reality, however, isn't particularly affected by how people interpret it. Whatever is true about reality will continue to remain so.

then I would imagine you would agree with the statement that: there are absolute truths, its just a matter of personal choice and experience to decide what is relatively true to you, although the truth was, is, and always will be what it is, absolute.

 

well, I wanted to challenge with any relativists regarding my proposed topic but you don't believe in relativism. I'll find another thread next time where I can catch me some of them.

 

Then you should not be making any claims about Einstein's theories ("einsteins theory isn't practical to regular people"), as they comprise a very different topic.

Einstein theory still isn't practical to me or maybe to you and other people (i don't know). By practical I meant something you would use directly in your daily life, not theoretical calculations.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

yes the person offering the challenge did an outstanding job at issuing a point you cannot counter

All right then, I'll give you ten grand if you can disprove this statement:

The universe was created by a pink fairy last Tuesday, and all of your memories from before then were implanted in your brain during the process of creation. All fossil records were created at that moment as well.

 

well then you don't believe in the relativistic idea that there are no absolutes

That's not necessarily what it says. It simply says that every reference frame is valid--it doesn't say that every reference frame has to be different.

 

probably? you even have a slight doubt about something as simple an absolute as a count of 1-10? your existence shares no distinction from the existence of my fingers. It cannot be falsified whatsoever. I'd like to see you try to reason how I couldn't.

I can have a slight doubt that you have ten fingers. Perhaps you cut one off with a chainsaw five years ago. I don't know.

 

Even when you don't absolutely know something doesn't mean there isn't an absolute truth to it. Faith is confidence in truth. It isn't an assumption made out of the whim. If you don't have the "competency" to recognize such things like the existence of God, then of course you would reject something true as something only made up by "assumptions". Your failure to see it as an absolute truth is a result of your own predisposition.

So there do have to be absolute truths? Oh dear, that ruins most of The Fabric of the Cosmos (a book) when it discusses the fact that particles have no definite location unless they are observed (literally--not just a definite location known to us, a definite location to anything).

 

then I would imagine you would agree with the statement that: there are absolute truths, its just a matter of personal choice and experience to decide what is relatively true to you, although the truth was, is, and always will be what it is, absolute.

Err, no. You can't decide what is true to you, or you could suddenly decide that it is NOT true that you're a human, and suddenly you'd be a snail.

 

Einstein theory still isn't practical to me or maybe to you and other people (i don't know). By practical I meant something you would use directly in your daily life, not theoretical calculations.

Fifty years ago, there were people saying transistors didn't matter to them and it would never be used in daily life. Now you're using more than 50 million of them, just to read this thread with a computer.