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: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 00:27
If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not
because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted
correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In
any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM
amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any
truth more fundamental than that.

________________________________
The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the
eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more
truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy.

Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you don't
understand physics.


From: eric gisse on 20 Feb 2010 04:33
Peter Webb wrote:

>
> "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message

[...]

I like how people talk to him like he has something worth responding to
instead of ignoring.
From: Ste on 20 Feb 2010 10:36
On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not
> because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted
> correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In
> any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM
> amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any
> truth more fundamental than that.
>
> ________________________________
> The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the
> eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more
> truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy.
>
> Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you don't
> understand physics.

On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed
with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the
mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative
physical concepts - what I've referred to as an explanation at the
the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to
distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to
be systematically deprecated and devalued.

And on top of this, there is an ideological arrogance on the part of
many in physics that is distasteful in light of their claims to
"objectivity" and "adherence to scientific principles".

Indeed, your argument that "physics does not make claim to any truths
more fundamental than the eqns" is, itself, a philosophical position
and a statement of ideology - even though you refer disparagingly to
"the rest" as "just philosophy".

This ideological position becomes even more detectable in the context
of grandiose claims that "physics gives us the eqns by which the
universe functions".

Not only is that a total falsehood when interpreted literally and in
the context of history, but moreover I know from the context that you
do not mean "regrettably, physics has only given us the eqns..." or
even "physics has given us the eqns, and I'm unable to say if there is
a more complete description", what you really mean is "these eqns
provide a complete and final description of the physical world, and I
hold that nothing else is relevant to physics and nor am I concerned
with it".

And what I object to is not the content of these staments, but the
constant concealment of your ideological beliefs beneath allusions to
objectivity and ideological and philosophical independence.
From: paparios on 20 Feb 2010 11:11
On 20 feb, 12:36, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not
> > because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted
> > correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In
> > any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM
> > amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any
> > truth more fundamental than that.
>
> > ________________________________
> > The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the
> > eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more
> > truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy.
>
> > Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you don't
> > understand physics.
>
> On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed
> with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the
> mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative
> physical concepts  - what I've referred to as an explanation at the
> the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to
> distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to
> be systematically deprecated and devalued.
>
> And on top of this, there is an ideological arrogance on the part of
> many in physics that is distasteful in light of their claims to
> "objectivity" and "adherence to scientific principles".
>
> Indeed, your argument that "physics does not make claim to any truths
> more fundamental than the eqns" is, itself, a philosophical position
> and a statement of ideology - even though you refer disparagingly to
> "the rest" as "just philosophy".
>
> This ideological position becomes even more detectable in the context
> of grandiose claims that "physics gives us the eqns by which the
> universe functions".
>
> Not only is that a total falsehood when interpreted literally and in
> the context of history, but moreover I know from the context that you
> do not mean "regrettably, physics has only given us the eqns..." or
> even "physics has given us the eqns, and I'm unable to say if there is
> a more complete description", what you really mean is "these eqns
> provide a complete and final description of the physical world, and I
> hold that nothing else is relevant to physics and nor am I concerned
> with it".
>
> And what I object to is not the content of these staments, but the
> constant concealment of your ideological beliefs beneath allusions to
> objectivity and ideological and philosophical independence.

What a useless bunch of words!!!
We as a limited species, with poor sensorial abilities and almost
forever attached to this small planet, which is located on a very
standard star, itself located on a very standard type of Galaxy, have
tried to build physical models of Nature, which have helped us to grow
and evolve into a relatively technologically sophisticated society.
Most of the models have turned into useful tools to develop things we
have become accustomed to use, on a daily basis (like TV, cellular
phones, Internet, electrical vehicles, etc.).
These physical models do need and use equations and geometry, since we
need to get numerical values as results of the models and which can be
tested by experiments to check their validity. Doing research on these
subjects require time and some abilities which are not normally a
characteristic of most of the average population (the same like the
ability of playing a piano like Chopin or painting like Manet is not a
normal characteristic of the average people).
Even our best tested and successful models (like Quantum Mechanics,
Quantum Electrodynamics, General Relativity) are just models. They
represent our best representation of how we think Nature works. But
every science researcher is quite aware of our limitations as humans
to get closer to really understand how Nature work. It is probably an
impossible task due to our natural inabilities.
Of course, it has been evident that people like you are clearly lost
in their quest, since you clearly do not understand the way scientific
research is carried out. First mistake is thinking that this group
will teach you anything.
My advise is get a life and a different hobby.

Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 20 Feb 2010 16:23
On Feb 20, 12:11 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0c0c70e7-f3f0-4698-a3d7-4799b8db5ce7(a)o5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 6:52 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > c,
> > > > > > according to you?
>
> > > > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes.
>
> > > > > ____________________________________
> > > > > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all
> > > > > inertial
> > > > > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post..
> > > > > You
> > > > > should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
>
> > > > But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why.
>
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent
> > > > with
> > > > the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I
> > > > assume
> > > > you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not,
> > > > are
> > > > there any you disagree with?
>
> > > My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the
> > > light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in
> > > nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the
> > > aether.
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c
> > > with
> > > respect to the observer.
>
> > > Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether,
> > > unless
> > > all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according
> > > to
> > > what you claimed in your previous post.
>
> > > How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is
> > > travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at
> > > rest
> > > compared to the ether?
>
> > I said the Observers in each inertial frame of reference will
> > determine the light to travel at 'c'. I did not say the light is
> > actually traveling at 'c' in nature.
>
> > ___________________________
> > That's fine. I have no idea what "in nature" is supposed to meand, but
> > what
> > SR predicts is that each person measuring the speed of light in a vacuum
> > will get the same answer of c, irrespective of their local reference
> > frame.
> > You seem to agree.
>
> > Three Observers get together at M' on the train and synchronize their
> > clocks. The Observers will determine the light to travel at 'c'
> > because the clock being moved to B' on the train 'ticks' slower while
> > being moved because it is being moved against the 'flow' of aether.
> > The clock being moved to A' 'ticks' faster than both the clocks at M'
> > and B' while being moved because it 'ticks' faster because it is being
> > moved with the 'flow' of the aether and is more at rest with respect
> > to the aether while being moved than both the clocks at M' and B'.
> > When the clocks stop being moved they are no longer synchronized but
> > the Observers are unable to know this. When the clocks are stopped
> > being moved they all exist under the same amount of aether pressure
> > and all 'tick' at the same rate.
>
> > The non-synchronized clocks on the train allow the Observers on the
> > train to conclude the light travels at 'c' with respect to the train.
>
> > _________________________________________
> > Sorry, not interested in the whole train thing.
>
> Then you will not understand how light propagates in nature. You will
> not understand what occurs physically in nature in terms of the
> propagation of light.
>
> _______________________________
> Actually, as I understand Maxwell's eqns quite well, I know exactly how
> light propogates. Thanks anyway.
>
>
>
> > Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether.
>
> > _______________________________________
> > But you agree with the SR in that all observers measure the speed of light
> > as c, completely irrespective of any motion they may have relative to the
> > ether? Because that is exactly what SR predicts, and I believe to be true.
>
> > > And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other
> > > prediction
> > > of
> > > SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR
> > > correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you
> > > disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)?
>
> > It is not so much a prediction but an understanding of nature. SR
> > assumes time changes the faster something is moving. That is
> > incorrect. Clocks 'tick' slower the faster they are moving with
> > respect to the aether
>
> ________________________________________________
> No, the eqns of SR says that it depends upon the speed relative to the
> observer, not to the ether.
>
> In fact, the ether doesn't appear at all in SR.
>
> So you are making a claim that the time dilation formula in SR is wrong, and
> you *don't* agree with SR.
>
> Which is the opposite of what you claim above.
>
> > because the faster the clock is moving with
> > respect to the aether the more aether pressure exerted on the clock
> > causing it to 'tick' slower.
>
> > __________________________________
> > Putting aside your mumbo-jumbo explanation, I just want to confirm that
> > you
> > agree that what SR predicts is exactly what happens. If not, and you have
> > any experiment, test, measurement or observation where you think that the
> > results would not be different from what SR predicts, what are these
> > experiments, tests, measurements or observations?
>
> My explanation explains what occurs physically in nature which allows
> the Observers on the train to be moving with respect to the aether at
> the same time conclude light propagates at 'c' with respect to the
> train.
>
> ___________________________________
> You keep changing your story.
>
> First you said that light always travels at c with respect to the observer.

I never said the light travels at 'c' with respect to an observer
moving with respect to the aether. Find where I said that.


> Then you said that light always travels at c with respect to the ether.
>
> First you said that you agreed with the equations of SR.
> Then you said the equation for time dilation in SR is wrong.
>
> Again:
>
> Q1. You believe light always travels at c with respect to:
> a) The observer, or
> b) The ether
> c) neither of the above
>
> Q2. You believe the equations of SR are:
> a) Correct
> b) Correct except for the time dilation one
> c) Neither of the above.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
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