A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 19:29 On 1 Mar, 19:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 7:13 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > And I did not call you an idiot. > > > No, I was gloatingly referring to what others have alleged. > > At this point, I have to say I'm disappointed. You came here a short > time ago ostensibly to ask of experts (like any student might) for an > elaboration or a better explanation of things you did not understand > about relativity. In the course of the early conversations, you asked > several insightful question and pressed for clarification, just like > any fairly decent student would, and I believe I encouraged you on > that. Indeed. You are by far the most reasonable poster I've spoken to here Paul. Whatever our differences, we are able to conduct a fairly reasonable discussion. > Now it appears that you have been less interested in getting what you > said you came for than in the sport of verbal jousting. It's a common > game on newsgroups, where an amateur comes in to see how long he can > mix it up with the experts, and a "win" is to be had if the amateur > can catch the expert in the act of making an inaccurate or misleading > statement. It's not that I'm looking to catch out experts. We all make mistakes, and often (probably too often!) I find it necessary to climb down when I realise I've shot from the hip. > Anybody put in a teaching position is well familiar with the > experience of telling a student, "You're right, I could have said that > better," or "Yes, you're right, what I just said is not quite right," > and then the expert revises his explanation to better and more > accurately represent what he's trying to explain. It's nothing really > to gloat over. As I say, I was gloating over the fact that I've been subjected to the forces of hell by the hubristic riff-raff here, who are now backtracking as it slowly emerges that I know a great deal more than in their previous estimations, and that they know a great deal less than in their previous estimations.
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 19:44 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:560598b9-c94c-4976-a646-81d89e8630ff(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On 1 Mar, 19:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 1, 7:13 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > And I did not call you an idiot. >> >> > No, I was gloatingly referring to what others have alleged. >> >> At this point, I have to say I'm disappointed. You came here a short >> time ago ostensibly to ask of experts (like any student might) for an >> elaboration or a better explanation of things you did not understand >> about relativity. In the course of the early conversations, you asked >> several insightful question and pressed for clarification, just like >> any fairly decent student would, and I believe I encouraged you on >> that. > > Indeed. You are by far the most reasonable poster I've spoken to here > Paul. Whatever our differences, we are able to conduct a fairly > reasonable discussion. > > > >> Now it appears that you have been less interested in getting what you >> said you came for than in the sport of verbal jousting. It's a common >> game on newsgroups, where an amateur comes in to see how long he can >> mix it up with the experts, and a "win" is to be had if the amateur >> can catch the expert in the act of making an inaccurate or misleading >> statement. > > It's not that I'm looking to catch out experts. We all make mistakes, > and often (probably too often!) I find it necessary to climb down when > I realise I've shot from the hip. > > > >> Anybody put in a teaching position is well familiar with the >> experience of telling a student, "You're right, I could have said that >> better," or "Yes, you're right, what I just said is not quite right," >> and then the expert revises his explanation to better and more >> accurately represent what he's trying to explain. It's nothing really >> to gloat over. > > As I say, I was gloating over the fact that I've been subjected to the > forces of hell by the hubristic riff-raff here, who are now > backtracking as it slowly emerges that I know a great deal more than > in their previous estimations, and that they know a great deal less > than in their previous estimations. Not the case at all. You have an over-inflated sense of your own importance. And are still very confused about SR. You also do not appear interested in doing anything about that ignorance.
From: mpalenik on 1 Mar 2010 19:52 On Mar 1, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:560598b9-c94c-4976-a646-81d89e8630ff(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 1 Mar, 19:26, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 1, 7:13 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > And I did not call you an idiot. > > >> > No, I was gloatingly referring to what others have alleged. > > >> At this point, I have to say I'm disappointed. You came here a short > >> time ago ostensibly to ask of experts (like any student might) for an > >> elaboration or a better explanation of things you did not understand > >> about relativity. In the course of the early conversations, you asked > >> several insightful question and pressed for clarification, just like > >> any fairly decent student would, and I believe I encouraged you on > >> that. > > > Indeed. You are by far the most reasonable poster I've spoken to here > > Paul. Whatever our differences, we are able to conduct a fairly > > reasonable discussion. > > >> Now it appears that you have been less interested in getting what you > >> said you came for than in the sport of verbal jousting. It's a common > >> game on newsgroups, where an amateur comes in to see how long he can > >> mix it up with the experts, and a "win" is to be had if the amateur > >> can catch the expert in the act of making an inaccurate or misleading > >> statement. > > > It's not that I'm looking to catch out experts. We all make mistakes, > > and often (probably too often!) I find it necessary to climb down when > > I realise I've shot from the hip. > > >> Anybody put in a teaching position is well familiar with the > >> experience of telling a student, "You're right, I could have said that > >> better," or "Yes, you're right, what I just said is not quite right," > >> and then the expert revises his explanation to better and more > >> accurately represent what he's trying to explain. It's nothing really > >> to gloat over. > > > As I say, I was gloating over the fact that I've been subjected to the > > forces of hell by the hubristic riff-raff here, who are now > > backtracking as it slowly emerges that I know a great deal more than > > in their previous estimations, and that they know a great deal less > > than in their previous estimations. > > Not the case at all. You have an over-inflated sense of your own > importance. And are still very confused about SR. You also do not appear > interested in doing anything about that ignorance.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - +1
From: paparios on 1 Mar 2010 20:25 On 1 mar, 21:00, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 1 Mar, 16:28, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:33 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 28 Feb, 17:20, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 27, 8:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > You should give Ste a specific book recommendation: > > > > > > Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler > > > > > > The second edition can generally be picked up used for about $25. > > > > > The first edition is frequently found on eBay with a "Buy it now" > > > > > price of $5 to $10. > > > > > [...] > > > > > IMO that book stinks for explaining SR. It presents the math but > > > > doesn't provide the underlying reason for the math. > > > > Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand > > > in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading > > > lists! > > > Ah, so you're looking for a reference that is GUARANTEED by universal > > acclamation to satisfy your learning needs? > > No, I'm simply justifying my failure to "work through this reading > list"/"go back to education"/"learn some maths", when it my > apprehension at the outset that embarking on these courses of action > would not have resolved my questions, but would simply have wasted my > time and money. And hence, when I say I want to discuss things instead > of just going off and reading a book, it's not because I'm being > awkward or just want to sound off cranky ideas to an audience, but > because I genuinely apprehend that the interactive discussion is > necessary for the questions at hand. What gave you the idea that using a text only discussion group would help you to understand SR??? Nothing is better that having a face-to-face discussion with a SR teacher. There in front of a blackboard and with the appropiate material, you and your child or barmaid would for sure learn SR in half an hour or less. Miguel Rios
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 20:40
On 1 Mar, 16:12, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 28, 2:37 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 27 Feb, 16:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 7:15 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 26 Feb, 18:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 25, 10:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > You have then questioned why you should adopt the scientific metric > > > > > for "working". And the answer is, you don't have to. It's just that > > > > > when you decline, you're no longer doing science. > > > > > But this lends credibility to my assertion in the first place, which > > > > is that science is a religion. > > > > No more than the practice of law, medicine, music, architecture, or > > > plumbing, as we've discussed. > > > Practitioners of law and medicine are undoubtedly ideological. > > And so law is a religion? > And medicine is a religion? > Not in my understanding of the word religion. To go back to my original formulation of this issue, the question is whether science, scientists, and adherents of science more generally, have the same hallmarks as traditional religions, theologians, and religious believers more generally. These are not questions of the supposed scientific method, but of the psychology and sociology of how science is actually practiced. In the same way that the question of how Christianity has been in fact practiced is not determined by reference to the Bible. To start asking questions like "is law a religion" or "is medicine a religion" is like asking whether canon law "was a religion", or whether faith healers "are a religion", and of course the answer is no. Canon law is informed by religious belief, and faith healers are religious, but neither of them alone comprise "a religion". Also, my point here is not to get into a long (and surely fruitless) debate of arguing how exactly religion is defined. My point is that, from a social and psychological perspective, an adherence to science cannot be distinguished from religious belief in any meaningful and significant way, and that the supposed differences tend to be either based on a misapprehension of what function religion actually performed and how it was practiced in the past, or on a literal appeal to concepts like "the scientific method" that bears little correspondence to how science is really practiced. > > > You've said those are different because the stakes are somehow higher > > > with science. I also disputed that. > > > Did I say that? I don't recall saying that, and if I did say it I can > > only imagine it was said in a different context. > > You said that plumbing and architecture make no claims about the > fundamental nature of the universe, implying that this somehow excuses > them where physics should not be. What I meant, if I remember correctly, was simply that plumbing and architecture don't make claims as to their own "truth" or the truth of anything else, and especially not the kind of truth that has any sociological relevance. > > > Just because there is an agreed-upon methodology by the collective > > > that practices in the discipline does not warrant that discipline > > > being called a religion, at least as I understand the meaning of > > > "religion". > > > There is more to religion than an "agreed-upon methodology", but there > > is more to the practice of science than this, too. > > Then you'll have to be precise about your meaning of the word > "religion" and therefore how it is that science satisfies it. I personally think it's more convenient to compare and contrast, rather than trying to establish a definition for either religion or science. Indeed, attempts to establish a consistent definition of science, by men better than me, have time and again died a thousand deaths. |