A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 2 Mar 2010 07:22 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:826536ad-6078-4cd4-a2d1-61b25bec5bf0(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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", Which in general is correct. There is a particular set of exceptions. Whoever phrased it that way was a little sloppy. > then I'd have thrown > away perfectly legitimate intuitions Not perfectly legitimate at all .. your ideas about simultaneity are very much wrong. > which said that this statement > was wrong. It wasn't absolutely wrong .. it just wasn't *always* right .. there was a relatively small exception case. It was more often right than wrong. You STILL do not understand the simultaneity issue, and rather seem more interested in discussing what you see as the shortcomings of science than fixing the shortcomings in your understanding of it. If you wish to learn, there are many here, including me, who will help you. You just seem more interested in gloating than learning.
From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 07:36 On 2 Mar, 03:41, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > You may note my second reason that you don't want to do it, that you are > scared you won't understand it and its a hence a waste of time to try. You > have now confirmed this is a reason. Peter, if anyone ever accused me of anything, it was not of underestimating my ability.
From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 07:50 On 2 Mar, 08:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Well I'm not sure I'd rely on Wikipedia for a contentious subject like > this, but in any event we needn't talk specifically about how the > basic DNA first developed. If we simply talk of the diversity of life > on Earth, evolution is still unfalsifiable, because it makes no > definite predictions about what you will see. Indeed it does not > describe the characteristics of any common ancestor, and nor does it > predict the evolution of any particular animal with any particular > traits. > > _________________________________ > So, just to confirm, despite (apparently) "having forgotten more about > evolution than I will ever know", when you said evolution explained the > origins of life, you were in fact completely wrong, demonstrating that you > don't even know what evolution is about? No, I'm just making a concession to you that, even if we constrain ourselves to talking about a situation where DNA already exists, and by no means do I accept that evolution constrains itself to this, then *still* evolution makes no definite predictions about what sort of organisms you will see develop. It is completely retrodictive in this respect. Of course, this isn't a problem for me. I can still say that evolution is "science". But you, having constrained yourself to saying that science is a "falsifiable theory" now have to either accept that evolution is not really falsifiable (because there is no conceivable animal that cannot be viewed throught the rubric of "its physiology must have been sufficiently fitted for its circumstances"), or you have to revise the meaning of "falsifiable" to the point that it loses all meaning as a means of demarcating science from non-science (usually by introducting additional constraints into the requirements of "falsificationism" that presuppose the very thing in question).
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 09:32 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. __________________________ I don't think there is any dispute that lots of people have a qualitative feel for SR without knowing the equations; they know that time goes slower if you are moving faster, etc. Its just that you are not one of them. 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. ___________________________ Yes, you used to claim that there was no "physical" explanation. In true crank style, you have now moved on to another poorly defined and irrelevant term - "qualatitive". Yes, we know you have no idea of SR "physically"; "qualitatively", "informally", through "intuition" or in any other way. Why you are so proud of your ignorance is the question. <SNIP> 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. __________________ So that's why you don't bother learning about physics! It sounds like hard work, and you aren't that interested. That of course explains why you know so little about it. What it doesn't explain is why you run off at the mouth in public on a subject you know nothing about.
From: Ste on 2 Mar 2010 09:57
On 2 Mar, 09:15, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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, Peter, I can only put you to the proof of showing where I said I disbelieved SR. > you constantly dispute reasonable explanations, Because the explanations disputed are not, in fact, reasonable. > you criticise science as a whole when you are > pretending to try and learn it, I have only "criticised" science in the sense of objecting to the patent inaccuracies, or even mendacities, that are perpetuated by some who claim to follow science. |