A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 04:02 > 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, ___________________________ Well, yes, they are, at least primarily. What differentaites "science" from "religion" is in fact the scientific method, you are excluding the correct answer to most of your questions. 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. _________________________ At this point I actually laughed. What little you know of science, you know less about scientists, have you ever even met one? Do you read many scholarly journals, or attend scientific conferences? Tell us, what is the closest personal knowledge you have of an actual scientist? 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". ________________________ But science is not religion. The core of science is the scientific method. The core of religion is faith, which is almost the anti-thesis. Scemtific theories are fundamentally different to religious beliefs; scientific theories have to be falsifiable and withstand the process; religious beliefs do not. If we are talking about science vs religion, them's teh facts. 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, __________________________ Except through the scientific method. 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. ___________________________ What do you know exactly about how science is practiced, and why do you think that scientists don't folow the scientific method? Do you actually know any scientists? > > > 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.
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 04:15 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. _____________________________ That is obviously not true. You don't ask questions trying to learn. You state your open disbelief that SR is true, you constantly dispute reasonable explanations, you hide behind word games, you change the topic when cornered on some matter of technical fact, you play passive/aggressive games, you constantly go off at tangents, you criticise science as a whole when you are pretending to try and learn it, and the whole time you are telling us what an expert you are in physics and evolution ... These are not the marks of somebody trying to learn, but they are the marks of a crank.
From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 06:09 On 1 Mar, 23:39, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > You see, it is not at all obvious that there is a "gravity" at all, > though the effects that we would attribute to gravity are certainly > there. But perhaps there is no physical gravity at all. As you say, no > one --- including you --- would be able to supply any undeniable > description of gravity other than by virtue of its effects. Newton did > not attempt. Thus it is open whether there is any such "thing" at all. I agree. Personally I'd put money on gravity being a manifestation of electromagnetism, but that is besides the point. > > The fact that no one here seems to be able to give an answer is to me > > evidence that some people here don't really know, or certainly don't > > have a well-developed and well-thought-out knowledge of what Minkowski > > actually means. > > I don't know why you would conclude that. If you stood on a street > corner on London, near a busy taxi stand, and demanded that someone > explain alternation of generations in plants, and no one responded to > you, would you be right in concluding that none of the people at the > taxi stand have well-thought-out knowledge of alternation of > generations in plants? Would it be true even if the taxi stand was > outside a conference of biologists and you were doing the same? It has to be a judgment Paul, but when people are willing to spend a lot of time claiming to know all about SR, but are not willing to spend any time explaining it, then one has to ask whether they actually know what they claim to know. It is one thing to waylay a biologist in the street and be told "This is the way it is, but I'm afraid I do not have more time to explain. Good day to you, Sir", but I do not think those are the circumstances here. In any event, I don't want to get into a long discussion about what factors I take into account in making such a judgment. Inevitably, I'm drawing on a lifetime of interpersonal experience and donkey's years of using discussion boards and newsgroups, and one naturally acquires an intuition for other people's psychology.
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 06:45 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:9d641967-efb9-4c3b-a038-d42f7d92cc9e(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... On 1 Mar, 23:39, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > You see, it is not at all obvious that there is a "gravity" at all, > though the effects that we would attribute to gravity are certainly > there. But perhaps there is no physical gravity at all. As you say, no > one --- including you --- would be able to supply any undeniable > description of gravity other than by virtue of its effects. Newton did > not attempt. Thus it is open whether there is any such "thing" at all. I agree. Personally I'd put money on gravity being a manifestation of electromagnetism, but that is besides the point. ____________________________ Gee, that's funny, I thought you were here to learn, not tell us your own crackpot theories. > > The fact that no one here seems to be able to give an answer is to me > > evidence that some people here don't really know, or certainly don't > > have a well-developed and well-thought-out knowledge of what Minkowski > > actually means. > > I don't know why you would conclude that. If you stood on a street > corner on London, near a busy taxi stand, and demanded that someone > explain alternation of generations in plants, and no one responded to > you, would you be right in concluding that none of the people at the > taxi stand have well-thought-out knowledge of alternation of > generations in plants? Would it be true even if the taxi stand was > outside a conference of biologists and you were doing the same? It has to be a judgment Paul, but when people are willing to spend a lot of time claiming to know all about SR, but are not willing to spend any time explaining it, then one has to ask whether they actually know what they claim to know. ________________________________ What hasn't been explained to you? Have you any actual questions about SR that haven't been answered? You asked many times for a "physical explanation" of it, but every answer that you are given isn't good enough for you. Assume there isn't one, and learn it anyway. Many other people, brighter and less lazy than you, do it everyday. It is one thing to waylay a biologist in the street and be told "This is the way it is, but I'm afraid I do not have more time to explain. Good day to you, Sir", but I do not think those are the circumstances here. ____________________________ What part of SR don't you understand, and would like explained to you? In any event, I don't want to get into a long discussion about what factors I take into account in making such a judgment. Inevitably, I'm drawing on a lifetime of interpersonal experience and donkey's years of using discussion boards and newsgroups, and one naturally acquires an intuition for other people's psychology. __________________________ As lifetime cranks and trolls so often do.
From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 06:53
On 1 Mar, 23:49, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 5:33 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > secondly > > > > the degree to which opponents seem to be unclear about the conceptual/ > > > > qualitative basis of SR, > > > > I'd be careful about this. It may be that they are clear on the > > > conceptual/qualitative basis, but are declining to present it to you, > > > out of a personal preference for using the clarity and condensed > > > efficiency of mathematics. This unwillingness to cater to your > > > pedagogical needs should not be construed as their being unclear. > > > Paul, there is nothing "clear and efficient" about mathematical > > statements made without any indication as to their meaning. > > Yes, there is, for people who have learned that skill. This is one of > the reasons why the skill is so important for physicists to learn -- > because it so promotes clear and efficient communication among those > so trained. Not, as I say, if the discussion is at a qualitative, conceptual level. Maths in that event becomes utterly useless, because it does not describe phenomena qualitatively - in fact it quantifies phenomena that have already been (explicitly or implicitly) described qualitatively. > Likewise, auto mechanics is so much simpler for people who have the > right toolbox and know how to use them, and auto mechanics are not > very inclined to teach someone how to service cars if all they know > how to use is a spanner and a screwdriver. It really depends. > > The > > argument here is not about the mathematical form of SR, but about its > > physical meaning. I'm willing to concede that certain posters may be > > unaccustomed to discussing anything but maths, and may therefore find > > it difficult to articulate the relevant information, and that's an > > allowance that must be made, but that's not a preference for being > > "clear and efficient" - in fact the effect is to make much of what is > > written utterly obscure and ineffectual.' > > For those that are not so trained, it IS utterly obscure and > ineffectual. But then accomplishing the task of explanation *overall* > is optimized if you do learn that skill, because the gain in > efficiency following learning the skill more than offsets the burden > of learning the skill in the first place. It's like learning how to > play music and the requirement that you read music. You CAN learn > musical pieces without learning how to read music -- it's just not > recommended. More to the point, one can understand the principles of music without reading music or being able to play an instrument with any real aptitude. The discussions here have followed a script something like "Q: how does the instrument make the sound. A: Oh, well, I can't explain that unless you know how to read music." The problem is that there seems to be some disagreement about whether knowing maths is essential to describing physics qualitatively, and it is my contention that it isn't. To explain why supposed experts here take a different view, I can only conclude that they don't really understand the nature of my questions - the evidence to support this conclusion is, for example, the fact that no one here seems to know immediately what the word "physical" means when I and others have used the word. This makes me less confident in trusting those who say that learning the maths will answer my questions. > I understand that you JUST DON'T WANT to learn that skill. It's that I'm not interested in learning the skill for its own sake, or worse on the false pretense that it will actually answer any questions. > However, > this then asks people to use a relatively inefficient means to > communicate the physics to accommodate this disability. No. > > > > and thirdly the preconceptions and > > > > psychological style of many posters. > > > > In other words, your basis for deciding what is correct depends on the > > > manners of the people you discuss it with? > > > No, I'm saying some of the personalities that one must grapple with > > here are not the sort of personalities who make good discussion > > partners. Indeed many posters seem to have preconceptions or styles > > that are designed to avoid or deter productive discussion and sharing > > of knowledge. > > Indeed. I think you'll find that the university environment, where > discussion partners have placed themselves in the position of being > more friendly and accommodating, is more productive. That may well be the case, but inevitably I don't have casual access to a university environment, or the inclination to follow a course of study in physics, most of which I would have absolutely no interest in. > > > I'm sorry, but I've got a lot of classroom experience that shows that > > > this is simply a bogus expectation. I can set up a series of simple > > > experiments on a daily basis in class where I can display all the > > > elements of the experiment and show them plainly how the simple set-up > > > is put together, and then I can ask everyone in the class what their > > > intuition tells them will happen, and at least have of them will get > > > it wrong, which the subsequent observation will show. > > > Yes, because there is a discrepancy between intuition and observation. > > But as I say, there is no room for a discrepancy - in the sense of > > "this town ain't big enough for the both of us" - and inevitably > > intuition is the one which must leave town (which in practice means > > either refining an existing intuition, or overhauling it to a greater > > or lesser degree). > > Exactly. And so when you say that what I described just isn't > "realistic" according to your intuition, then it is your intuition > that needs to be overhauled. Just because someone else *says* something is irreconcilable with intuition, does not mean intuition must be immediately overhauled. If I had done that, for example, when people said "what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", then I'd have thrown away perfectly legitimate intuitions which said that this statement was wrong. > > > Yes, I see what you are thinking of. And it is true that IN THIS CASE, > > > E1 and E2 will be viewed as simultaneous by both observers. I do > > > concede this. > > > > This is not the situation we were discussing before, however. > > > I wasn't talking about the train case. I was talking about this > > specific scenario, which I had posted before, and which last time > > indeed you conceded without fuss. > > > But for some reason everyone, including you apparently[1] but > > certainly not limited to just you, seemed to go back to talking about > > "what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", > > when in fact the veracity of that statement is contingent on the > > circumstances, and there are in fact cases (i.e. the one above) where > > what is simultaneous in one frame *is* simultaneous in another. It is > > that contingency that allows reconciliation with my intuitions. > > > [1] I quote you from above "It is very much true in SR that two > > spatially separated events that are simultaneous in one frame are not > > simultaneous in another frame moving relative to the first". > > I've already noted to you that the statement I made is not accurate > and needs revision, which I'm happy to do. That's fair enough, but hence I've found that my intuitions were, at least in this respect, in agreement with your understanding all along. Now that is cleared up, what I'm still not clear about is whether this non-simultaneity is a mere function of finite propagation speeds, or something else. |