A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 25 Feb 2010 10:40 On Feb 25, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ab0ad038-f849-4d36-a73d-8bbb7bf7e366(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a > > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish > > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually > > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and > > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's > > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time > > > dilation. > > > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all > > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time > > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of > > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far > > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations. > > > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in > > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle > > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on." > > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However, > > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to > > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is > > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate > > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same > > thing this very day. > > As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is > conceptually very clear. > > _____________________________ > Have you tried? Found a simple link or book explaining Minkowski space time > and tried to go through it? Where do you get stuck? I think it's the lack of actual physics therein... The model is pure mathematics devoid of any physical basis... Thus it cannot stand on its own, it needs an actual physical basis, just like Maxwell equations do. In 'isolation' both are neither right or wrong. Paul Stowe Paul Stowe
From: mpalenik on 25 Feb 2010 12:15 On Feb 24, 10:22 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm afraid I don't accept that this captures the certainty that many > people have in various scientific theories. I've just responded to > Mark who said that a theory with a 95% confidence should be accepted > universally by all I said I'm done with this conversation, but I'm not going to let you misquote me, you pathetic idiot. I said "it should be accepted by all as HAVING A 95% CHANCE OF BEING TRUE". I did not say it should be accepted as being true. I said it should be accepted that THERE IS A 95% CHANCE THAT IT IS TRUE BY EVERYONE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I REPEAT, I DID NOT SAY IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE--IT SHOULD ONLY BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS A 95% CHANCE THAT IT IS TRUE. If you are so mentally degenerate that you can't understand the difference, then it makes me wonder how you can make it through your every day life, you moronic imbicile. Once again, I will not discuss anything with you, but I sure as hell am going to call you on it if you make retarded inferences about things that I've said and then try to pass that off as my viewpoint.
From: PD on 25 Feb 2010 12:42 On Feb 24, 9:22 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 24 Feb, 17:32, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 23 Feb, 15:57, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > And as I've > > > > > said, repeatedly, what you call my "cogs and levers" approach is far > > > > > more flexible than your caricature would imply. > > > > > Yes, to the point where your cogs-and-levers picture permits almost > > > > immediately obvious internal contradictions, as I've pointed out. > > > > Indeed, but that's why I don't disparage a mathematical refinement of > > > it, and I see the maths as "adding detail to the picture". > > > I'm sorry, but in my mind there's a big difference between "adding > > detail to the picture" and "showing that the picture is self- > > contradictory". > > But you didn't show that it was contradictory. All you did was further > constrain the relationship between gravity and distance. Oh, please. You said that a linear fall-off of gravity with distance was perfectly compatible with your mental image of gravity. But it ISN'T, because there are unexplored implications of those permitted assumptions that lead to contradictions. This is more than a detail refinement. > > > The simplest example I can give you is your claim that > > a cogs-and-levers view has no problem whatsoever with gravity falling > > off as the distance rather than as the distance squared, while also > > being fully consistent with observed comet orbits. Showing that these > > two circumstances are completely incompatible is not "adding detail to > > the picture". It is showing a serious shortcoming of your qualitative > > approach. > > All you have shown is that the qualitative approach is not > mathematically rigorous, but I've admitted as much. No, it leads to PHYSICAL impossibilities. A linear fall-off of gravity, plus elliptical orbits of comets, cannot be entertained simultaneously in a PHYSICAL model. > > > > > > > > You're characterising my position as being far more hardline than it > > > > > is. What I'm saying, at it's most simple, is that I'm not willing to > > > > > simply take the word of "authority". Separate from that, I've also > > > > > made it clear that I have certain axioms that are not in principle > > > > > unquestionable or irrefutable, but which would require such an > > > > > overwhelming amount of evidence to overturn that they are, in > > > > > practice, probably irrefutable. > > > > > Then by all means study physics the way it is intended to be studied. > > > > That is, accept nothing without test. There is a reason, as I said, > > > > why physics courses contain a laboratory element, so that you can see > > > > how experiments can be designed to distinguish between different > > > > models, and you can see with your very own eyes the results that make > > > > that distinction. There is no better authority than your own eyes. > > > > I'm more concerned with how experiments fail to distinguish between > > > models, > > > You'll have to give me some examples. I'll start. It is certainly true > > that two models can be compatible with the results of a *given*, > > isolated experiment. I've described this before, and I'll recap > > briefly with a toy example because you found the last exposition of > > this too "technical" to follow. Suppose you have three models -- A, B, > > and C -- and two experiments E1 and E2. Experiment E1 may rule out B > > but be compatible with both A and C. Experiment E2 may rule out A but > > be compatible with both B and C. But with the pair of results from E1 > > and E2, you can firmly say that C is favored over both A and B, even > > though neither experiment can clearly pick out one model from the > > others. > > Of course. I wasn't really looking to discuss this sort of simple > logic with you. I was making a much broader statement about how some > hypotheses can be very difficult to test definitively. I gave you the > example earlier about the coin-toss scenario. And that's a case of constraining the observation to ONE experiment. The two models of the nature of the coin would have other implications, OTHER THAN just continuing the coin-toss experiment, that would lead to a clearer experimental distinction. The coin-toss experiment is experiment E1 that does not clearly distinguish between models B and C. So? Now you have to find the place where they make clearly distinguishable predictions, and design an experiment E2 that will make that discrimination. > > > In our present state of the Standard Model, there are numerous > > extensions that are permitted by the present data -- supersymmetry, > > any number of string models, spin-foam quantum gravity, and so on. > > You forgot "spaghetti". > > > > and moreover I'm interested in how often the availability of > > > experimental evidence, and its interpretation, is constrained by the > > > theory, rather than the other way around. > > > And on this point, I've repeatedly maintained that it isn't. All > > you've offered in the converse is a quote by Einstein that it is. > > No, I've also referred you to the works of Kuhn and Lakatos. And > indeed, the very method that you describe involves formulating a > theory and then testing its predictions - in other words, the tests > that are carried out are constrained by the predictions made by the > theory. Not quite. Testing the predictions made by a *number of theories*. (A, B, and C in the toy case above.) > One would be unlikely to test for something that the theory > does not predict in the first place. Of course. You're trying to pit one model vs another. > > > > I dare say that, unlike you, > > > I don't have actual faith in the practice of science, even though I > > > don't discount its usefulness. > > > Precisely. And since you do not believe in the process of science, > > there is no way possible for science to convince you of the truth of > > its claims. Nor is it the *task* of science to convince even those who > > do not believe in the methodology. After all, you cannot teach a > > lamppost algebra and it is futile gesture for algebrists to try, not > > to mention a futile expectation that algebrists succeed. > > Indeed, but then do you concede that science amounts to a religion? It > certainly ought to strike you as one. Not at all. Is plumbing a religion because plumbers agree on a methodology for the craft? Is music a religion because musicians agree that reading music and practice are essential activities? Is airplane piloting a religion because there is a checklist of skills and procedures that pilots are all expected to be familiar with? Is structural engineering a religion for similar reasons? Are you calling ANY activity wherein there is a communal agreement about practices and skills in the undertaking of the activity, a religion? If you are, then you have a much looser definition of religion than I do. > > > > Yes but in reality the theory itself is not applied independently of > > > human intervention. As I say, if a theory is subtly given lots of > > > leeway and lots of room for interpretation, and if the opportunities > > > for definitive tests are relatively limited, then it's possible that > > > it will be regarded as "true" even though it is not, simply because it > > > "works" either as a sufficient approximation and/or because it only > > > accidentally manages to account for the real variables involved. > > > And that's what we MEAN when we say a theory is accepted. > > I'm afraid I don't accept that this captures the certainty that many > people have in various scientific theories. Then let me clarify that you are to read "we" to mean "scientists" in the sentence above. This is what SCIENTISTS mean when SCIENTISTS say that a theory is accepted BY SCIENTISTS. I have absolutely no control over what Roscoe in the corner tavern will accept in the way of a theory. > I've just responded to > Mark who said that a theory with a 95% confidence should be accepted > universally by all And I don't make any such claim. > - that clearly doesn't seem to acknowledge not only > the problem of accurately ascertaining confidence in the first place, > but secondly an acknowledgement that other avenues should be explored > in parallel lest the most likely theory turn out to be totally wrong > (which it inevitably will at some point, if its confidence is less > than 100%). > > Ironically, Mark's psychology revealed there actually describes what I > was saying to you weeks ago, which is that only when scientists are > disciplined by starvation of further progress do they seriously start > to go back and reconsider avenues which were held to be less likely to > bear fruit when they were first encountered. While there still seems > to be further progress that can be wrung from existing avenues, then > scientists (in conduct if not in words) do not seriously entertain > doubt at all. They follow Mark's logic of treating the most likely > explanation as the universally correct one, and probably even go as > far as disparaging those who pursue alternative paths. > > > This is not > > a flat-out statement that is TRUE beyond all alternate possibilities. > > It is a statement that it is the BEST model available to us at the > > moment, and is accepted provisionally until a better one comes along. > > > You'll not find a physicist who is willing to claim that he KNOWS the > > Standard Model is the correct description of nature. He will certainly > > tell you that it is the best model (in the sense that it is > > demonstrated to work in the way described above) to date. He will also > > likely tell you that it will eventually be replaced by a better model, > > but that we have a poor idea of what that better model might be. There > > are some promising leads, however. > > We'll see about that. Lol. > > > > > > > > > But it does beg the question of whether the *method* is the one to be > > > > > > pursued to determine the truth. You've said you're not sure you > > > > > > believe it is, but you don't have a better way of proceeding. > > > > > > Because like I say Paul, I'm not here to sell anything. After hours of > > > > > chiselling, conservatives always fall back on the question "is there > > > > > any better way?", and of course the very method you're espousing may > > > > > well be better if only its proponents actually acknowledged it's > > > > > systematic deficits and failings. > > > > > I'm not claiming the process is perfect. Neither is Christianity, free- > > > > market capitalism, democracy, or justice by jury of peers, in any of > > > > the forms those are practiced. But what is true is that diligence and > > > > faithfulness to the principles of each of those do tend to remove or > > > > correct excursions over a period of time. > > > > Well sticking to the subject of the scientific method, you're probably > > > right that over a period of time abiding by its principles probably > > > keeps the whole thing on track. > > > Right. > > > > The problem is of keeping scientists > > > in conformity with their principles - particularly where they've > > > developed elaborate belief systems that allow them to think that they > > > are in conformity while not being in conformity at all or where the > > > principles come to be interpreted in a way that they lose all value. > > > I don't know what principles of investigation have come to be > > interpreted in a way that they have lost all value. > > One example is the lip-service paid to doubt and uncertainty, whereas > I can give you Mark who holds that a theory with 95% confidence should > not just be accepted by most people, but all people. I don't hold the same conviction about this that he does. People CHOOSE what they believe and they CHOOSE the methods by which they become convinced of what they should believe. If you CHOOSE NOT to adopt the scientific method, that's your prerogative, but it just marks what you DO choose to do instead as something other than science. Poetry perhaps. > > > Note again, I'm talking about the principles *of investigation* and > > not axioms about nature itself. Science DOESN'T HAVE mandatory axioms > > about nature itself, though it does have assumed principles about how > > to investigate nature. > > I think it's probably very difficult to extricate axioms concerned > with nature from axioms concerned with the investigation of nature. I > think you might find any attempt to do so renders the resulting > statement trite and meaningless. I'm not so convinced, thanks.
From: PD on 25 Feb 2010 12:46 On Feb 24, 8:35 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a > > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish > > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually > > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and > > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's > > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time > > > dilation. > > > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all > > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time > > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of > > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far > > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations. > > > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in > > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle > > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on." > > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However, > > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to > > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is > > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate > > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same > > thing this very day. > > As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is > conceptually very clear. It's obvious that it is not clear to you. This is different than saying it is not clear, even if given the right exposure to the materials. Medical diagnoses are not clear to those who have no experience making medical diagnoses, and a given medical diagnosis will be completely unclear to someone that has just been reading Good Housekeeping articles with "Your Health" in the titles. I've given you several pointers to materials that I am guessing will be better than the ones you've availed yourself of up to this point (but not having the list of the latter, I can't be certain).
From: PD on 25 Feb 2010 12:48
On Feb 25, 9:40 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:ab0ad038-f849-4d36-a73d-8bbb7bf7e366(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com.... > > On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a > > > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish > > > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually > > > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and > > > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's > > > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time > > > > dilation. > > > > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all > > > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time > > > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of > > > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far > > > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations. > > > > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in > > > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle > > > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on." > > > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However, > > > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to > > > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is > > > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate > > > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same > > > thing this very day. > > > As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is > > conceptually very clear. > > > _____________________________ > > Have you tried? Found a simple link or book explaining Minkowski space time > > and tried to go through it? Where do you get stuck? > > I think it's the lack of actual physics therein... The model is pure > mathematics devoid of any physical basis... And for you, too, it's plain that what you've been exposed to is either shallow popularization or full of mathematics, and you've obviously not been exposed to the materials that go to length to describe the physical basis of relativity. > Thus it cannot stand on > its own, it needs an actual physical basis, just like Maxwell > equations do. In 'isolation' both are neither right or wrong. > > Paul Stowe > > Paul Stowe |