Facts - what are they?

[Carborundum]

Continuation of off-topic discussion from Demons - what are they?

Yea they are. Example, someone is raised under the light given Off by our sun, they see a red rose, they will say that rose is red. A person is raised under another sun that gives off a different color, they will say that that same rose is not red, but whatever the color is given off based on the light they are given.

Scientific fact is anything that is verifiable by means of repeatable experiments.

If you change the parameters of the experiment (by, say, moving it to a different planet), you might very well get different results. The fact remains: the rose is red under Sol.

[ExLibrisMortis]

That's why I defined the system as such. Observations, and what happens, depends solely upon your model and your system. That's why I specified my system, and my model, and thus it is fact also.

I can show you many "laws" of science/physics that only work within certain models/systems. That's the main reason why science is relative to the observer.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

That's why I defined the system as such. Observations, and what happens, depends solely upon your model and your system. That's why I specified my system, and my model, and thus it is fact also.

I can show you many "laws" of science/physics that only work within certain models/systems. That's the main reason why science is relative to the observer.

And the 'frame of reference' principle in Physics is an established fact....

[Carborundum]

That's why I defined the system as such. Observations, and what happens, depends solely upon your model and your system. That's why I specified my system, and my model, and thus it is fact also.

The model has no effect on what happens; it merely attempts to explain why it happens. The observations represent the system, and by fitting a model to the observed data we can describe its behavior. The model is an approximation and can never perfectly describe the system, but the more data/observations/facts are available, the better the approximation will be.

If the collected data were indeed subjective, this wouldn't work. There would be no foundation on which to build the model, and the inner workings of the systems would remain a mystery.

I can show you many "laws" of science/physics that only work within certain models/systems. That's the main reason why science is relative to the observer.

There is as of yet no ToE, so all models are limited in their applicability to certain specific systems. I don't see how that makes science relative.

And the 'frame of reference' principle in Physics is an established fact....

I'm not sure I'm familiar with this principle. Could you explain it a bit further?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Ya know, I looked back at our conversation thus far and I noticed that we are both arguing the same point but with different words. It was quite funny looking at it, but we are necessary arguing the same position but just sing different words. Heh.

[Carborundum]

Ya know, I looked back at our conversation thus far and I noticed that we are both arguing the same point but with different words. It was quite funny looking at it, but we are necessary arguing the same position but just sing different words. Heh.

I noticed that too.
I don't think we really disagree about anything other than semantics.

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

And the 'frame of reference' principle in Physics is an established fact....

I'm not sure I'm familiar with this principle. Could you explain it a bit further?

In physics, one must realize that everything is moving in relation to everything else. There is no absolute point to where this movement is measured. Instead, the movement of things is observed by an observer, either to themselves, or to a fixed (but really moving) point of their choosing. The point of observation, either the observer, or the point of their choosing is called a frame of reference. And, 'facts' can be very different, depending on your frame of reference.

Take for instance, the thought experiment that Einstein did for one of his most famous equations. Imagine a cube of a perfectly black (absorbs all electromagnetic energy) material 1 meter in a side, and it has some arbitrary mass. You are standing next to it. You then observe two beams of light hit the cube from each side, and the beams of light are exactly opposite each other. The beams of light last only (and exactly) a second, and are equal in intensity.  They are completely absorbed by the cube. Electromagnetic energy exerts a pressure, known as 'radiation pressure', which can move objects. Since the beams of light are equal and opposite each other, their radiation pressure cancels out, and the cube is observed not to have moved. Another observer happens to be flying over the cube in a starship, traveling very nearly the speed of light. He is going fast enough that he can see the beams of light are not going straight, but are at a slight angle from being perfectly opposite. He observes the cube move forward, ever so slightly, from the fact the radiation pressure from the two light beams hit at an angle and do not completely cancel each other out. When you and the starship pilot meet each other, you argue about who was correct. The pilot was absolutely sure he saw the block move, but you, standing next to the cube, swear up and down it did not move. Who was correct? You are both correct. It turns out that the observed effects are different because they are being observed from different frames of reference. The pilot saw the block move due to radiation pressure. You did not see the block move. Instead, the block increased ever so slightly in mass because it absorbed the energy in the light radiation, and converted it to mass. If you do a little algebra based on the differences in the observations, you end up with an interesting relationship: E=mc².

You may be asking: How real is radiation pressure? Real enough that geosynchronous communication satellites are pushed out of their orbits by radiation pressure as they beam signals towards earth. Every now and then, they have to do a maneuver to compensate for the radiation pressure from broadcasting.

[Carborundum]

Thank you `Eylan Ayfalulukanä.Turns out I had heard of this before, although I knew it by its Swedish name.

In this thought experiment, the observations of both the observers are - as you said - equally correct. Even though they appear contradictory at first, a model can be found that explains both in a satisfactory manner (special relativity). Thus, both observations are objectively true simultaneously (of course, they would be both be true even if no model had been found to consolidate them).

[Clarke]

Take for instance, the thought experiment that Einstein did for one of his most famous equations. Imagine a cube of a perfectly black (absorbs all electromagnetic energy) material 1 meter in a side, and it has some arbitrary mass. You are standing next to it. You then observe two beams of light hit the cube from each side, and the beams of light are exactly opposite each other. The beams of light last only (and exactly) a second, and are equal in intensity.  They are completely absorbed by the cube. Electromagnetic energy exerts a pressure, known as 'radiation pressure', which can move objects. Since the beams of light are equal and opposite each other, their radiation pressure cancels out, and the cube is observed not to have moved. Another observer happens to be flying over the cube in a starship, traveling very nearly the speed of light. He is going fast enough that he can see the beams of light are not going straight, but are at a slight angle from being perfectly opposite. He observes the cube move forward, ever so slightly, from the fact the radiation pressure from the two light beams hit at an angle and do not completely cancel each other out. When you and the starship pilot meet each other, you argue about who was correct. The pilot was absolutely sure he saw the block move, but you, standing next to the cube, swear up and down it did not move. Who was correct? You are both correct. It turns out that the observed effects are different because they are being observed from different frames of reference. The pilot saw the block move due to radiation pressure. You did not see the block move. Instead, the block increased ever so slightly in mass because it absorbed the energy in the light radiation, and converted it to mass. If you do a little algebra based on the differences in the observations, you end up with an interesting relationship: E=mc².

I'd be surprised if Einstein was doing thought experiments with physically impossible objects. Besides, I don't think there's any possible arrangement of reference frames that cause that particular effect, i.e. Relativity doesn't let you twist light in that way.

Where E=mc² actually comes from is as a simplification of the energy 4-vector through spacetime...