Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 14:42
On Feb 17, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 16:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 8:46 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I only agree with you that this is the burden of the expert in a
> > > > constructed teacher-student environment, wherein there is a
> > > > contractual arrangement that the student be taught something by the
> > > > expert.
>
> > > > In an informal discussion group, and in particular a free one, there
> > > > is no such arrangement and hence no such burden, although one might be
> > > > undertaken on an ad hoc and completely voluntary basis.
>
> > > > You and I have already discussed this: that it is NOT the obligation
> > > > of the expert to share knowledge. It is not true in law, medicine,
> > > > plumbing, architecture, music, or engineering. Good musicians may
> > > > offer lessons to students who want to learn, but that is usually under
> > > > a contractual arrangement. It is the obligation of the expert to USE
> > > > that knowledge to get work done. It is the obligation of a surgeon to
> > > > USE his knowledge to make people well, but it is not his obligation to
> > > > share his knowledge with others.
>
> > > As I say, there may be a moral difference here in some respects, but
> > > I'm not really arguing whether or not there is a burden on an expert
> > > to share knowledge. And indeed, if it is the intention of experts to
> > > obfuscate a subject, strengthen their professional bargaining
> > > positions, and exclude the majority, then it probably makes sense to
> > > speak a different language.
>
> > But that isn't the only reason to use jargon, nor is it the reason
> > that is used by scientists, AFAIK.
>
> I generally don't place too much emphasis on the explicit
> justifications for certain behaviours.
>
> There is no doubt an argument that a specialised vocabulary increases
> the efficiency of communication between professionals - but of course
> the corollary to this is that a habitual reliance on such a vocabulary
> dramatically increases the *inefficiency* of communicating with non-
> professionals.

That's OK. Because the priority is given to professionals getting
their work done, which places a higher premium on them communication
with *each other* than it does on communication with nonprofessionals.
You'll note the same thing in a hospital, where doctors and nurses are
communicating in a highly specialized language that is very efficient
for the purpose of making people healthier.

>
> However, even this justification often does not stand up to close
> scrutiny. Many people (and this is not confined to any particular
> profession) use specialised words where general ones will do, unusual
> words where common ones will do, big words where smaller ones will do,
> foreign words where native ones will do, complex constructs where
> simple ones will do, to the extent that communication even with
> educated professionals in the same field is made difficult.

I disagree that the communication between educated professionals is
compromised as a result. At least in physics. You have evidence to
support that contention?

>
> In these cases, whatever the real motivation for the vocabulary used,
> it is not efficiency of communication (whether between professionals
> or not).
>
>
>
> > > The point I'm making is that where "experts" are *purporting* to
> > > desire productive communication with others who they know are not
> > > experts, then they should recognise that this requires communication
> > > skills, amongst which is the ability to converse in a common language..
>
> > Yes, but there's a tradeoff, and this is the tradeoff that is seen in
> > popularizations.
> > Popularization authors DO tend to try to use conventional language.
> > But the drawback is that conventional language is looser and vaguer
> > than the precise meanings used in physics. As a result, what is
> > conveyed is also looser, vaguer, and more prone to misinterpretation,
> > although it is more accessible. This limits the function of a
> > popularization to TEACH the material. The saving strategy is then to
> > use the popularization as an incentivizer to encourage the reader to
> > embark on reading more carefully prepared materials, where more
> > attention is paid to defining and using jargon.
>
> Perhaps. Personally I'm not thinking of popularisations, and I'm not
> even thinking of physics in particular.
>
> But even to take two words that we've clashed over: "theory" and
> "material". The fact is that you attribute a specialised meaning to
> these words, and yet they are used as loosely within the profession as
> outside it.

Document that, please. The definition I gave of both those terms is
the one that is generally accepted in the physics profession. Do you
have evidence otherwise?

> There can be no argument that the use of these words
> increases the efficiency of communication with professionals, and the
> ensuing dispute over their use here increased the inefficiency of
> communication dramatically.

I've already explained to you, using the example of "mammal", why it
is preferred to insist on the proper meaning of that word, even if a
layperson may confuse it to mean tetrapod land animals.

From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 14:44
On Feb 17, 12:34 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 11:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 16:00, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 7:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four
> > > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to
> > > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that
> > > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third
> > > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable.
>
> > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > > > credible.
>
> > > > What I've seen here, and even in some books, is a vague improper use
> > > > of the term dimension.  From what I can tell, the term is strictly as
> > > > used, a mathematical concept.  See:
>
> > > >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
>
> > > > It is often confused with the concept of physical properties such as
> > > > mass, length, time, charge.  Since two of these (length and time) are
> > > > modeled using geometrical dimensionality this leads to the confusion.
> > > > Adding further to this is the unitary systems we assign to the
> > > > physical properties (kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, ... etc.).  A
> > > > dimension has no physical existence and a physical property has no
> > > > inherent unitary values, we must combine these concepts to make,
> > > > quantify, and describe physical systems and processes.
>
> > > > As time goes on we get more creative on assigning the term.  In
> > > > relativity where we have,
>
> > > >                         dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - ds^2 = 0
>
> > > > The s (ct) term isn't itself a simply point, it's a computed
> > > > projection of a destination (point) dependent upon a physical
> > > > property, the speed c.  To have strict orthogonal axes c must remain
> > > > constant over infinite space.  In turn, if this were true, there would
> > > > be no need for the hydrodynamical equation of General relativity.  In
> > > > fact, all observational evidence to date supports the fact that, by
> > > > strict definition of the term dimension only three primal or actual
> > > > dimensions exist and time is 'mapped' into pseudo forth using the
> > > > physical property of c to do so.
>
> > > Indeed. Some people look at you funny when you talk of something like
> > > a "five-dimensional database".
>
> > > I'm convinced that the essential need for the 4th dimension in
> > > relativity, and the significance of 'c', is simply because
> > > electromagnetic propagation delays have become practically
> > > significant.
>
> > Then you are erroneously convinced.
> > You may recall that we were discussing how to determine simultaneity
> > when those propagation delays are fully accounted for.
>
> Define 'fully accounted for'.  Did you include the physical length
> contraction in that?

Yes! This is news to you?

>  WSo does fully accounted for account for that?

WSo?

>
> > > Before the end of the 19th century and the development of
> > > electromagnetic communications over long distances, electromagnetic
> > > effects for all practical purposes moved instantaneously.
>
> > And that's just flat wrong. Well before the 19th century, the
> > aberration of the orbit of Jupiter was *known* to be due to the
> > propagation delay of light.
>
> Yes, but that was an abstraction, not associated with the fundamental
> properties of 'ponderous matter' systems.

So? Does one have to presume a medium or an absence of a medium to
both acknowledge and account for a finite propagation delay of light?

> He's not wrong, physicists
> did not account for propagation delays UNTIL! the MMX slapped them in
> the face.

That is simply historically false.

From: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 15:12
On Feb 17, 2:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 18:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 11:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 16:00, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 7:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four
> > > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to
> > > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that
> > > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third
> > > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable.
>
> > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > > > credible.
>
> > > > What I've seen here, and even in some books, is a vague improper use
> > > > of the term dimension.  From what I can tell, the term is strictly as
> > > > used, a mathematical concept.  See:
>
> > > >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
>
> > > > It is often confused with the concept of physical properties such as
> > > > mass, length, time, charge.  Since two of these (length and time) are
> > > > modeled using geometrical dimensionality this leads to the confusion.
> > > > Adding further to this is the unitary systems we assign to the
> > > > physical properties (kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, ... etc.).  A
> > > > dimension has no physical existence and a physical property has no
> > > > inherent unitary values, we must combine these concepts to make,
> > > > quantify, and describe physical systems and processes.
>
> > > > As time goes on we get more creative on assigning the term.  In
> > > > relativity where we have,
>
> > > >                         dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - ds^2 = 0
>
> > > > The s (ct) term isn't itself a simply point, it's a computed
> > > > projection of a destination (point) dependent upon a physical
> > > > property, the speed c.  To have strict orthogonal axes c must remain
> > > > constant over infinite space.  In turn, if this were true, there would
> > > > be no need for the hydrodynamical equation of General relativity.  In
> > > > fact, all observational evidence to date supports the fact that, by
> > > > strict definition of the term dimension only three primal or actual
> > > > dimensions exist and time is 'mapped' into pseudo forth using the
> > > > physical property of c to do so.
>
> > > Indeed. Some people look at you funny when you talk of something like
> > > a "five-dimensional database".
>
> > > I'm convinced that the essential need for the 4th dimension in
> > > relativity, and the significance of 'c', is simply because
> > > electromagnetic propagation delays have become practically
> > > significant.
>
> > Then you are erroneously convinced.
> > You may recall that we were discussing how to determine simultaneity
> > when those propagation delays are fully accounted for.
>
> Well, we'll work though that after I have a clear picture of how light
> moves.
>
> > > Before the end of the 19th century and the development of
> > > electromagnetic communications over long distances, electromagnetic
> > > effects for all practical purposes moved instantaneously.
>
> > And that's just flat wrong. Well before the 19th century, the
> > aberration of the orbit of Jupiter was *known* to be due to the
> > propagation delay of light.
>
> I know. I didn't say "no one knew the speed of light was finite". I'm
> saying that there was no need to formalise it for any practical
> purpose.

There absolutely was. Take the jupiter example that both PD and I
have mentioned. To calculate the speed of light from the aberrations
of the orbit, they had to be able to calculate the propagation delays
and how those affect the apparant position and speed of Jupiter.

Take lenses, even. Light takes the fastest path through a lens, which
is why it can be used as a lens. The refractive index of various
media was known well before the 20th century, as well as how to use
the change in the speed of light through those media to predict the
way it would bend.

Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism described light as a wave moving
with a finite speed c, which could be calculated by measuring various
properties of electric and magnetic fields.

People were doing calculations thousands of times more difficult than
simply calculating propagation delays in the 18th and 19th centuries.
They discovered planets by determining the mass and location necessary
to create aberrations observed in the orbits of other planets. That's
infinitely more complex than accounting for the finite speed of light.

How come the fact that the predictions of relativity are different
(and sometimes, in fact, the opposite, when it comes to length) to
those of merely not adjusting for propagation delay has not convinced
you that the two are different? You must *first* correctly account
for propagation delay. Then you can apply relativity.
From: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 15:13
On Feb 17, 2:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 17 Feb, 16:09, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 8:46 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I only agree with you that this is the burden of the expert in a
> > > > > constructed teacher-student environment, wherein there is a
> > > > > contractual arrangement that the student be taught something by the
> > > > > expert.
>
> > > > > In an informal discussion group, and in particular a free one, there
> > > > > is no such arrangement and hence no such burden, although one might be
> > > > > undertaken on an ad hoc and completely voluntary basis.
>
> > > > > You and I have already discussed this: that it is NOT the obligation
> > > > > of the expert to share knowledge. It is not true in law, medicine,
> > > > > plumbing, architecture, music, or engineering. Good musicians may
> > > > > offer lessons to students who want to learn, but that is usually under
> > > > > a contractual arrangement. It is the obligation of the expert to USE
> > > > > that knowledge to get work done. It is the obligation of a surgeon to
> > > > > USE his knowledge to make people well, but it is not his obligation to
> > > > > share his knowledge with others.
>
> > > > As I say, there may be a moral difference here in some respects, but
> > > > I'm not really arguing whether or not there is a burden on an expert
> > > > to share knowledge. And indeed, if it is the intention of experts to
> > > > obfuscate a subject, strengthen their professional bargaining
> > > > positions, and exclude the majority, then it probably makes sense to
> > > > speak a different language.
>
> > > But that isn't the only reason to use jargon, nor is it the reason
> > > that is used by scientists, AFAIK.
>
> > I generally don't place too much emphasis on the explicit
> > justifications for certain behaviours.
>
> > There is no doubt an argument that a specialised vocabulary increases
> > the efficiency of communication between professionals - but of course
> > the corollary to this is that a habitual reliance on such a vocabulary
> > dramatically increases the *inefficiency* of communicating with non-
> > professionals.
>
> That's OK. Because the priority is given to professionals getting
> their work done, which places a higher premium on them communication
> with *each other* than it does on communication with nonprofessionals.
> You'll note the same thing in a hospital, where doctors and nurses are
> communicating in a highly specialized language that is very efficient
> for the purpose of making people healthier.
>
>
>
> > However, even this justification often does not stand up to close
> > scrutiny. Many people (and this is not confined to any particular
> > profession) use specialised words where general ones will do, unusual
> > words where common ones will do, big words where smaller ones will do,
> > foreign words where native ones will do, complex constructs where
> > simple ones will do, to the extent that communication even with
> > educated professionals in the same field is made difficult.
>
> I disagree that the communication between educated professionals is
> compromised as a result. At least in physics. You have evidence to
> support that contention?
>
>
>
>
>
> > In these cases, whatever the real motivation for the vocabulary used,
> > it is not efficiency of communication (whether between professionals
> > or not).
>
> > > > The point I'm making is that where "experts" are *purporting* to
> > > > desire productive communication with others who they know are not
> > > > experts, then they should recognise that this requires communication
> > > > skills, amongst which is the ability to converse in a common language.
>
> > > Yes, but there's a tradeoff, and this is the tradeoff that is seen in
> > > popularizations.
> > > Popularization authors DO tend to try to use conventional language.
> > > But the drawback is that conventional language is looser and vaguer
> > > than the precise meanings used in physics. As a result, what is
> > > conveyed is also looser, vaguer, and more prone to misinterpretation,
> > > although it is more accessible. This limits the function of a
> > > popularization to TEACH the material. The saving strategy is then to
> > > use the popularization as an incentivizer to encourage the reader to
> > > embark on reading more carefully prepared materials, where more
> > > attention is paid to defining and using jargon.
>
> > Perhaps. Personally I'm not thinking of popularisations, and I'm not
> > even thinking of physics in particular.
>
> > But even to take two words that we've clashed over: "theory" and
> > "material". The fact is that you attribute a specialised meaning to
> > these words, and yet they are used as loosely within the profession as
> > outside it.
>
> Document that, please. The definition I gave of both those terms is
> the one that is generally accepted in the physics profession. Do you
> have evidence otherwise?

Yes, physicists have different beliefs than he does which must simply
be due to the fact that we can't communicate properly with each other,
so we don't all understand how ridiculous we're being.

I'm being sarcastic, but Ste actually believes this.
From: BURT on 17 Feb 2010 15:17
On Feb 17, 12:12 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Feb, 18:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 11:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 17 Feb, 16:00, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 17, 7:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four
> > > > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to
> > > > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that
> > > > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third
> > > > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable.
>
> > > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > > > > credible.
>
> > > > > What I've seen here, and even in some books, is a vague improper use
> > > > > of the term dimension.  From what I can tell, the term is strictly as
> > > > > used, a mathematical concept.  See:
>
> > > > >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
>
> > > > > It is often confused with the concept of physical properties such as
> > > > > mass, length, time, charge.  Since two of these (length and time) are
> > > > > modeled using geometrical dimensionality this leads to the confusion.
> > > > > Adding further to this is the unitary systems we assign to the
> > > > > physical properties (kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, ... etc.).  A
> > > > > dimension has no physical existence and a physical property has no
> > > > > inherent unitary values, we must combine these concepts to make,
> > > > > quantify, and describe physical systems and processes.
>
> > > > > As time goes on we get more creative on assigning the term.  In
> > > > > relativity where we have,
>
> > > > >                         dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - ds^2 = 0
>
> > > > > The s (ct) term isn't itself a simply point, it's a computed
> > > > > projection of a destination (point) dependent upon a physical
> > > > > property, the speed c.  To have strict orthogonal axes c must remain
> > > > > constant over infinite space.  In turn, if this were true, there would
> > > > > be no need for the hydrodynamical equation of General relativity.  In
> > > > > fact, all observational evidence to date supports the fact that, by
> > > > > strict definition of the term dimension only three primal or actual
> > > > > dimensions exist and time is 'mapped' into pseudo forth using the
> > > > > physical property of c to do so.
>
> > > > Indeed. Some people look at you funny when you talk of something like
> > > > a "five-dimensional database".
>
> > > > I'm convinced that the essential need for the 4th dimension in
> > > > relativity, and the significance of 'c', is simply because
> > > > electromagnetic propagation delays have become practically
> > > > significant.
>
> > > Then you are erroneously convinced.
> > > You may recall that we were discussing how to determine simultaneity
> > > when those propagation delays are fully accounted for.
>
> > Well, we'll work though that after I have a clear picture of how light
> > moves.
>
> > > > Before the end of the 19th century and the development of
> > > > electromagnetic communications over long distances, electromagnetic
> > > > effects for all practical purposes moved instantaneously.
>
> > > And that's just flat wrong. Well before the 19th century, the
> > > aberration of the orbit of Jupiter was *known* to be due to the
> > > propagation delay of light.
>
> > I know. I didn't say "no one knew the speed of light was finite". I'm
> > saying that there was no need to formalise it for any practical
> > purpose.
>
> There absolutely was.  Take the jupiter example that both PD and I
> have mentioned.  To calculate the speed of light from the aberrations
> of the orbit, they had to be able to calculate the propagation delays
> and how those affect the apparant position and speed of Jupiter.
>
> Take lenses, even.  Light takes the fastest path through a lens, which
> is why it can be used as a lens.  The refractive index of various
> media was known well before the 20th century, as well as how to use
> the change in the speed of light through those media to predict the
> way it would bend.
>
> Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism described light as a wave moving
> with a finite speed c, which could be calculated by measuring various
> properties of electric and magnetic fields.
>
> People were doing calculations thousands of times more difficult than
> simply calculating propagation delays in the 18th and 19th centuries.
> They discovered planets by determining the mass and location necessary
> to create aberrations observed in the orbits of other planets.  That's
> infinitely more complex than accounting for the finite speed of light.
>
> How come the fact that the predictions of relativity are different
> (and sometimes, in fact, the opposite, when it comes to length) to
> those of merely not adjusting for propagation delay has not convinced
> you that the two are different?  You must *first* correctly account
> for propagation delay.  Then you can apply relativity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A circular orbit has no strength of gravity only a speed through the
curve.

Mitch Raemsch
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights