What is knowledge and is it ever non-empirical?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Terry_Sampson

@Klax

Find an English usage. From an English dictionary.

I don’t know how they do things in your neighborhood, but where I live, intelligent folks who want to know how Oskar Kraus used the word “Relativisten” would search in a German dictionary or in a German-English dictionary, or they’d just Google Translate it like I did.

Why would I need to translate an obsolete German word whose meaning is obvious? Although The Free Dictionary has 2. A physicist who specializes in the theories of relativity. it is impossible to find a usage of it. [Let alone yours.]

So, it’s a retired accountant vs. the physics community of over a hundred years. Like that anti-Covid German lawyer. Who should I listen to?

[And how does your relativistophobia have anything to do with God?]

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

LOL relativistophobia? Is that anything like startrekophilia?

[Peter]

Folks, I have decided to withdraw from the BioLogos forum.

I have enjoyed getting to know some of you. My reason for withdrawing is that I was hoping that speaking with gracious, clear thinking, rationale people would be the norm because there are certainly more of those people in here than not, but by volume of posts, the trolls constitute most of the communication, and so take up way too much time and energy and this greatly detracts from the enjoyment I was hoping to experience.

So, thanks to those with whom I have interacted positively, it was a pleasure.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Peter

I have decided to withdraw from the BioLogos forum.

That is unfortunate, because your posts were thoughtful and clear, but I do understand your reasoning for withdrawing. Good luck.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Thank you for your contributions, Peter. Check back when you are ready, and you will be welcomed.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

We can certainly do with less personal commentary and the flinging of accusations. Perhaps when the trolls flee the preference for scientific evidence over empty rhetoric then the quality of exchanges on this forum will improve.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Something about that bothers me. The parsing.

[Terry_Sampson]

@T_aquaticus

Can you explain why there wouldn’t be a difference in the LIGO experiment, or the Hafele-Keating experiment, gravitational lensing around galaxies, changes in the clock rates in GPS satellites, or muon decay in the atmosphere?

Nice “What aboutism” from someone who didn’t, and apparently still doesn’t, understand the difference between SR and NLR, no matter how simple I’ve tried to make it for you:

1. What about LIGO?
2. What about the Hafele-Keating experiment?
3. What about gravitational lensing around galaxies?
4. What about changes in the clock rates in GPS satellites?
5. What about muon decay in the atmosphere?

So, let’s see if you understand this?

• In a previous post in this thread, I asserted that my “Hypothetical Experiment”, ending with this figure:
  
  

was what was predicted by Non-Lorentzian Relativity.

• Either my assertion is “True” or it is “False”.
  • If you think my assertion is “False”, then you clearly do not understand elementary NLR, because I have it on the authority of an established Neo-Lorentzian Physicist that it is indeed what NLR would predict.
  • If, on the other hand, you agree that my assertion is “True”, then
    • Either Special Relativity predicts the same outcome,
    • Or SR predicts a different outcome.
• If you think that SR predicts the same outcome, you clearly do not understand SR.
• If you think that SR predicts a different outcome, what outcome do you think SR predicts? (Feel free to consult a competent authority.)

Here’s a hint:

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Terry_Sampson

Nice “What aboutism” from someone who didn’t, and apparently still doesn’t, understand the difference between SR and NLR, no matter how simple I’ve tried to make it for you:

What I am asking is how NLR would produce those observations in those experiments. It isn’t Whataboutism.

@Terry_Sampson

In a previous post in this thread, I asserted that my “Hypothetical Experiment”, ending with this figure:

How does that apply to the classic experiments I mentioned?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

What about the clocks?

[Terry_Sampson]

@T_aquaticus

It isn’t Whataboutism.

I suppose you now want me to get on the " 'Tis/'Tisn’t teeter-totter with you, eh? Thanks, but no thanks, I’m not agonna do it.

@T_aquaticus

What I am asking is how NLR would produce those observations in those experiments.

Gee, I don’t know. D’ya think it might have something to do with this?

The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a “preferred” frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz’s immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. LET

@Terry_Sampson

In a previous post in this thread, I asserted that my “Hypothetical Experiment”

@T_aquaticus

How does that apply to the classic experiments I mentioned?

I say: “Foul!”

1. Me: “In a previous post in this thread, I asserted that my “Hypothetical Experiment” …was what was predicted by Non-Lorentzian Relativity.”
2. You: “How does that apply to the classic experiments I mentioned?”
3. Me: When you can tell me what SR predicts in my “Hypothetical Experiment” and how that differs from or is the same as what NLR predicts, I’ll tell you how my statement: "In a previous post in this thread, I asserted that my ‘Hypothetical Experiment’ " applies to the classic experiments you mentioned. (Warning: My response is going to include these words previously quoted: “Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment.”

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Terry_Sampson

Gee, I don’t know. D’ya think it might have something to do with this?

You tell me. I am asking you to explain how NLR plays out in these experiments. For example, how does NLR explain the fluctuations in the laser interference patterns in the LIGO instruments.

[Terry_Sampson]

Which clocks: The Blue ones or the Red ones?

[Terry_Sampson]

@T_aquaticus

You tell me. I am asking you to explain how NLR plays out in these experiments.

Good grief! Way back in post #111, I told you:

@Terry_Sampson

III. The NLR version of the Double Triplet Scenario.
A. In SR, there is no preferred frame. The Blue Triplets assume that they are stationary and that the Red Triplets are in motion relative to them; the Red Triplets assume that they are stationary and that the Blue Triplets are in motion relative to them. In NLR, there is a preferred frame, the Blue Triplets are stationary in the preferred frame, and the Red Triplets are in motion through the preferred frame and relative to the Blue Triplets.

I said, explicitly, “Absolute motion” and, implicitly, “Absolute simultaneity”.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Terry_Sampson

Which clocks: The Blue ones or the Red ones?

Yes. And what’s absolute motion and simultaneity again?

[Terry_Sampson]

LOL! Absolute motion and absolute simultaneity are what SR don’t got.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Terry_Sampson

Good grief! Way back in post #111, I told you:

I don’t see how that applies to the LIGO experiment. Can you explain?

Remember, the LIGO interferometers are stationary on Earth. What they are detecting is a change in the laser interference pattern in the stationary experiment. They are saying this is due to gravity waves moving through the instrument. What is the explanation in NLR?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Terry_Sampson

LOL! Absolute motion and absolute simultaneity are what SR don’t got.

LOL! Correct. LOL! There is no such concept. LOL! The clue is in the words. LOL!

[Terry_Sampson]

Then why would you ask me what they are, unless you’re a troll; which is not entirely impossible.

@Klax

Yes. And what’s absolute motion and simultaneity again?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Great projection/deflection. And fallacy.