A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 21:34 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b8dc352$0$27877$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4b8dc20b$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> Evolution is not accepted because it agrees with experimental data, and >> that has nothing to do why people believe its true? > > I think you meant: Evolution *is* accepted because it agrees with > experimental data > That is my belief, but its not Ste's belief; read what he said. > Either that or your comment doesn't make sense to me :):) > It is what Ste claims. Of course it doesn't make sense. Here is his claim in context: _________________________________ >> Evolution could have been disproved in thousands of experiments across >> dozens of disciplines; it is accepted today because it was falsifiable >> and >> passed those tests of falsifiability. > > No it is not accepted only for that reason (or indeed, for that reason > at all). He doesn't seem to think that people believe in evolution because it it matches observation and experiment, that has nothing to do with it at all (according to Ste anyway, who thinks it is the study of the origins of life).
From: Inertial on 2 Mar 2010 21:41 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b8dc34d$0$5420$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... [snip for brevity] >> 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. > > That is not true. That is not the only criticism, and in fact you have > never made that objection before. What are the patent inaccuracies and > mendacities that you refer to, and what scientists did these? > > I can tell you now what the example will be. The claim that events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames. Of course, it is possible to choose particular pairs of events and particular pairs of frames such that those particular events are simultaneous in both those particular frames. However, the set of simultaneous events in one frame is NOT the same as the set of simultaneous events in any other (non-co-moving) frame, which is clearly the intent of the original statement. STE seems to ignore that, and instead gloats over the fact that he showed a pair of events that were simultaneous it two different frames .. and that is his justification for criticizing all of science and all of those putting forward scientific arguments. Its rather pathetic really.
From: BURT on 2 Mar 2010 21:44 On Mar 2, 6:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4b8dc34d$0$5420$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > [snip for brevity] > > >> 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. > > > That is not true. That is not the only criticism, and in fact you have > > never made that objection before. What are the patent inaccuracies and > > mendacities that you refer to, and what scientists did these? > > I can tell you now what the example will be. The claim that events that are > simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames. Of course, > it is possible to choose particular pairs of events and particular pairs of > frames such that those particular events are simultaneous in both those > particular frames. However, the set of simultaneous events in one frame is > NOT the same as the set of simultaneous events in any other (non-co-moving) > frame, which is clearly the intent of the original statement. STE seems to > ignore that, and instead gloats over the fact that he showed a pair of > events that were simultaneous it two different frames .. and that is his > justification for criticizing all of science and all of those putting > forward scientific arguments. Its rather pathetic really. When lightening strikes the train moves. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 2 Mar 2010 21:49 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b8dcad8$0$11336$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4b8dc352$0$27877$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >> news:4b8dc20b$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> Evolution is not accepted because it agrees with experimental data, and >>> that has nothing to do why people believe its true? >> >> I think you meant: Evolution *is* accepted because it agrees with >> experimental data >> > > That is my belief, but its not Ste's belief; read what he said. > > >> Either that or your comment doesn't make sense to me :):) >> > > It is what Ste claims. Of course it doesn't make sense. Here is his claim > in context: > > _________________________________ >>> Evolution could have been disproved in thousands of experiments across >>> dozens of disciplines; it is accepted today because it was falsifiable >>> and >>> passed those tests of falsifiability. >> >> No it is not accepted only for that reason (or indeed, for that reason >> at all). > > He doesn't seem to think that people believe in evolution because it it > matches observation and experiment, that has nothing to do with it at all > (according to Ste anyway, who thinks it is the study of the origins of > life). I think perhaps his phrasing was clumsy. I think he *MEANT* to say was: == No. Evolution's acceptance is not for the sole reason that it passed the tests of falsifiability(there are other reasons). Indeed, that it passed the tests of falsifiability is not one of the reasons it is accepted at all). == It still is an odd thing to say.
From: Bruce Richmond on 2 Mar 2010 21:56
On Mar 2, 8:33 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 2, 7:06 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 2, 5:34 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Special relativity has been established as true within its > > > domain of applicability. Period. > > > Your appeal to athority is noted. Some of us don't accept things just > > because everyone else believes it, particularly when it leads to > > unexpected results. You would have fit in well with the flat earth > > society. > > Not an appeal to authority. Rather, a modest amateur familiarity > with the literature. > > I have in my file folders nearly one hundred papers dating from > the late 1800's to the present dealing with the experimental > basis of relativity. I have read many more papers than those that > I own. > > This is, of course, a very small number compared with the many > hundreds of papers and subscription journal volumes that I own > and have read which concern my actual field of work. I know my > priorities. I am most definitely not a physicist in real life, > and make no claims to any special expertise. > > Nevertheless, I imagine that I am probably somewhat more familiar > with the experimental literature than you. > > True or false? > > Jerry Seems you have that appeal to athority thing down to a science ;-) Bruce |