A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 04:31 On 2 Mar, 23:21, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:80e0290c-8b1a-4c4d-b46e-77ef85490995(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 2 Mar, 02:12, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > < > >> > 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, > > >> That claim is incorrect. Adherence to religion is based substantially > >> (and > >> at its core) on faith (belief without proof). Adherence to science is > >> not. > > > But when we explore this we find it is not true. > > Wrong No it isn't wrong, Inertial. > > Religion at its core > > is based on a widespread belief amongst its adherents that it "works" > > Belief without proof Then what is proof? > > - in that it performs social functions that those adherents find > > desirable or necessary. But that is also what science is based on. > > No .. it is based on experimental evidence. But so is religion at its core. A religion that, demonstrably, did not produce social stability and cooperation would be rejected. You know nothing about the social function that religion performs, or why it was adopted in the first place.
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 04:34 On 2 Mar, 23:23, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > Why .. you've not come up with any valid reason to disbelieve it, other than > your incredible arrogance and either inability or lack of will to study and > learn I often wonder whether I may as well be on a different planet. When I put Peter to the proof, what I was saying, implicitly, was that I *don't* disbelieve SR. That is why I'm putting him to the proof of showing where I suggested anything to the contrary, because as far as I'm concerned I never said any such thing (and in fact I've repeatedly said the opposite, that I don't dispute SR). How does that amount to an "incredible arrogance and inability to learn"?
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 05:18 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:94bd8899-4add-493c-98c7-4edbe360da78(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 2 Mar, 23:21, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:80e0290c-8b1a-4c4d-b46e-77ef85490995(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 2 Mar, 02:12, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > < >> >> > 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, >> >> >> That claim is incorrect. Adherence to religion is based substantially >> >> (and >> >> at its core) on faith (belief without proof). Adherence to science is >> >> not. >> >> > But when we explore this we find it is not true. >> >> Wrong > > No it isn't wrong, Inertial. Yes .. it is wrong, ste. >> > Religion at its core >> > is based on a widespread belief amongst its adherents that it "works" >> >> Belief without proof > > Then what is proof? Get a dictionary and find out if you don't understand the word. >> > - in that it performs social functions that those adherents find >> > desirable or necessary. But that is also what science is based on. >> >> No .. it is based on experimental evidence. > > But so is religion at its core. Nope. > A religion that, demonstrably, did not > produce social stability and cooperation would be rejected. Demonstrably not the case. Regardless .. even if religions *are* rejected if not they are beneficial, that is not the point at all. We are not talking about whether a religion is successful or not, but what religions puts forward as 'truths' that must be believed without proof for one to be a member of the religion. Science does not do that. > You know > nothing about the social function that religion performs, Of course I do. > or why it > was adopted in the first place. All irrelevant to the issue at hand. Religion is based on faith (belief without proof) .. science is based on scientific method which rejects anything proven false.
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 05:20 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c2abab69-eb5f-4630-8a89-7cc48240701c(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On 2 Mar, 23:23, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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. >> >> Why .. you've not come up with any valid reason to disbelieve it, other >> than >> your incredible arrogance and either inability or lack of will to study >> and >> learn > > I often wonder whether I may as well be on a different planet. I'd vote for that. > When I > put Peter to the proof, what I was saying, implicitly, was that I > *don't* disbelieve SR. But you still do not understand what it says. > That is why I'm putting him to the proof of > showing where I suggested anything to the contrary, because as far as > I'm concerned I never said any such thing (and in fact I've repeatedly > said the opposite, that I don't dispute SR). Yet you keep disputing it. > How does that amount to an "incredible arrogance and inability to > learn"? Obviously you have not read your own posts.
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 05:37
On 3 Mar, 02:02, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > That is incoherent. What on Earth is incoherent about saying "I do not accept that I said what you claim I have said, therefore I put you to the proof of showing *where* I said what you claim I have said"? > You say you are here to learn about SR. I am here to learn more about the *conceptual basis* of SR. > Do you believe SR is true? I accept it's mathematical form has some obvious truth, yes. > >> 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. > > That is not true. That is not the only criticism, It really depends on what you perceive as a criticism. |