From: PD on
On Mar 3, 3:22 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 18:38, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:36 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > And if science is not likely to deliver the goods, then it's useful to
> > > > > know ahead of time.
>
> > > > I would judge that on performance. If someone is the world record
> > > > holder in the 100 m dash, and you ask the question how it is that the
> > > > record holder trained to be the fastest, and you were not convinced
> > > > that those methodologies were sound or were guaranteed to produce a
> > > > world-class sprinter, there is still the fact that he is the world-
> > > > record holder.
>
> > > Yes, but it is relevant to determine whether he is the record-holder
> > > because of his naturally strong physique, or whether it is the
> > > training regime, or indeed whether it is the various expensive snake-
> > > oil supplements and drugs that he has been given.
>
> > Good. Then you tell ME why science has a track record of studying the
> > aspects of nature that it does in a successful way.
>
> Well that is what we're discussing.
>
> I think science is so successful because it has naturalistic axioms.
> It is a naturalistic faith. The defining characteristic of science is
> not verificationism, or falsificationism, or any of what is
> traditionally considered to demarcate science, but the fact that it
> holds axiomatically that (which is to say, its followers have faith
> that) the world is wholly orderly, consistent, and basically
> mechanistic, and that the principles by which the world operates can
> be discovered by humans.

And this is not an accurate statement of fact, as evidenced by the
fact that something that IS classified as a science (physics) has
followers that DO NOT have faith that the world is basically
mechanistic and deterministic, nor do the followers hold that ALL that
in nature is understandable in this fashion. What is a more accurate
statement about its followers is that they believe that a certain
class of reliably replicable phenomena in nature can be understood by
rules that are discoverable by humans, though those rules may not be
deterministic or basically mechanistic. Those followers also believe
in the demonstrated practical efficacy of a particular methodology of
investigation, though it need not be assumed that it is a priori the
best methodology either in general or in specific.

>
> This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism from
> science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump through, it
> will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is what
> *fundamentally* sets it apart from science.

And also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion. Thanks.

> And a naturalistic
> approach is, in fact, the only common thread that links together all
> of what is, and has been, considered science.

From: PD on
On Mar 3, 6:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:

>
> > So you understand it and think it is correct?
>
> > What exactly *IS* your position?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I understand it and think it is correct.
>
> My position is that far more people would understand it if it was
> explained differently.

Like all pedagogical strategies, something is best understood if it is
explained in several different ways. Some readers will "see" it with
presentation B, rather than A, C, or D. Other readers will need to see
both A and C but find B incomprehensible. Others still will get it
after reading A, B, and C, and will only appreciate D after having
grasped the others.

Again, there is a marked difference between the value of a theory, and
the value of the different ways to explain the theory.

From: mpalenik on
On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > remember that?
>
> > I beg to differ.  It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO.  RoS only took it
> > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > frame.  If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> either observer. Since the distance from the events to the observer is
> equal, as verifiable at any time by each observer, we learn from this
> that each observer KNOWS the propagation delays from each event to the
> observer are equal. This acknowledges the propagation delays
> completely, but simply allows for verification that they are the same.
> Then the determination of simultaneity or nonsimultaneity of the
> original events is completely unambiguous: If the observer receives
> both signals at the same time, then (because the propagation delays
> are the same) the original events were simultaneous; if the observer
> receives both signals at different times, then (because the
> propagation delays are the same) the original events were
> nonsimultaneous.


Ste, there is a very easy thought experiment that I posted a few pages
back that proves this wrong. Get someone to run through it with you.
I don't have the patience or time. Even if a moving observer receives
two pulses at the same time while half way between the two sources, he
will conclude that they were not emitted at the same time BECAUSE the
speed of light is the same in every frame. If the speed of light were
different in the moving observer's frame (like it is with sound), you
would be correct. But since the speed of light is the same in the
moving observer's frame as in the rest frame, he has no choice but to
conclude that the two pulses were emitted at different times, despite
the fact that he receives them at the same time and he is half way
between the two emitters.
From: Ste on
On 3 Mar, 11:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > (a bit like how
> > Christians claim the Bible characterises the practice of their
> > religion).
>
> They don't .. not if they know what they are saying.  They may claim that
> concepts and principles that they chose to find in the bible are the basis
> for how they practice their religion .. but Christian religious practice
> (which varies considerably from denomination to denomination) is certainly
> never solely based on the bible.  Indeed, much of what is practiced has no
> valid biblical basis, but is rather cultural and historical traditions.
>
> However, as with most religions, there are a set of beliefs that one who is
> to be a member of a religion must hold to be true, whether or not there is
> any evidence or proof of those beliefs.

Indeed. And the same is true of science! The "scientific method" is
about as correspondent with reality as the Bible.



> > I'm not gloating because some here were proved wrong.
>
> Not so much wrong, but the way they expressed what SR says was poor

Yes, and more than one person managed to "express themselves poorly"
on more than one occasion, even despite my repeated corrections.
From: PD on
On Mar 3, 11:04 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > > remember that?
>
> > > I beg to differ.  It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO.  RoS only took it
> > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > > frame.  If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> > either observer. Since the distance from the events to the observer is
> > equal, as verifiable at any time by each observer, we learn from this
> > that each observer KNOWS the propagation delays from each event to the
> > observer are equal. This acknowledges the propagation delays
> > completely, but simply allows for verification that they are the same.
> > Then the determination of simultaneity or nonsimultaneity of the
> > original events is completely unambiguous: If the observer receives
> > both signals at the same time, then (because the propagation delays
> > are the same) the original events were simultaneous; if the observer
> > receives both signals at different times, then (because the
> > propagation delays are the same) the original events were
> > nonsimultaneous.
>
> Ste, there is a very easy thought experiment that I posted a few pages
> back that proves this wrong.  Get someone to run through it with you.
> I don't have the patience or time.  Even if a moving observer receives
> two pulses at the same time while half way between the two sources, he
> will conclude that they were not emitted at the same time BECAUSE the
> speed of light is the same in every frame.  If the speed of light were
> different in the moving observer's frame (like it is with sound), you
> would be correct.  But since the speed of light is the same in the
> moving observer's frame as in the rest frame, he has no choice but to
> conclude that the two pulses were emitted at different times, despite
> the fact that he receives them at the same time and he is half way
> between the two emitters.

???