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: mpalenik on 22 Feb 2010 13:39
On Feb 22, 1:35 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 01:04, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 7:53 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 21 Feb, 22:37, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > and the authority of this group is
> > > > > implicitly invoked on yet another occasion.
>
> > > > This group has no "authority" on anything whatsoever.
>
> > > The "group" to which I was referring, and you snipped the qualifying
> > > clause, was "physicists as a group of people", not "this newsgroup".
>
> > Physicists have the authority to interpret their own equations because
> > 1) they came up with them, so they know the principles that the
> > equations are derived from (whereas you have repeatedly said that
> > relativity is a form of correction for propagation delays which was,
> > first of all, not how it was derived, and second of all gives very
> > different predictions from what you get when you actually account for
> > propagation delays.  The two give different predictions, therefore
> > they cannot be the same thing).
>
> I should clarify I was talking about *special* relativity when I
> talked about propagation delays, and I've yet to understand what else
> SR is about.

SR *is* special relativity. That's what SR stands for. Nobody has
tried to talk to you about anything else. There's no possible way
that we could even hope to describe general relativity to you. All
discussion so far has been about special relativity.

>
> > 2) Have demonstrated that their models predict actual, measured
> > phenomena
>
> No one disputes the data.
>
> > 3) Have spend more than a month thinking about the issues that you are
> > asking about
>
> But as I've said before, theologians spend their whole lives thinking
> about scripture. It doesn't give them authority on factual accuracy.
>

They don't do testable, repeatable, verifiable experiments to validate
their theological theories. They also don't have a well defined
mathematical formalism to test the logical consistancy of their
theological theories.
>
> Frankly no. But as I say, I would avoid drawing too many conclusions
> from what happens in the classroom - it is simply a fallacious appeal
> to both majority and authority. After all, you'd surely object if I
> replaced the classroom with the church, and pointed out the unanimity
> of opinion on the existence of God amongst the congregation.- Hide quoted text -

Again, in the classroom, students have to be able to make falsifiable,
testable, predictions, whose value is borne out by the fact that in
the lab, the calculations match experiment. That's why science
classes also have labs.
From: Ste on 22 Feb 2010 14:45
On 22 Feb, 01:12, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 8:01 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Newton, then, discovered that this is a special case of the
> > > conservation of angular momentum, which is a much more general
> > > principle--however, conservation of angular momentum MUST be able to
> > > reproduce the elliptical orbits of planets, or else it is wrong.
> > > Kepler's rules constrained Newton's theories.
>
> > > Special relativity then changed Newton's laws, a bit.  The basic
> > > principles, like F = dp/dt remained, but Special relativity says that
> > > space and time must transform differently than they do in Newtonian
> > > mechanics.  However, Newtonian mechanics is still a special case of
> > > special relativity--as the speed of an object approaches zero, the
> > > laws begin to reproduce Newton's laws.
>
> > In other words "Newtonian mechanics are valid, as long as nothing is
> > moving". Which somewhat defeats the purpose of mechanics, which is to
> > describe movement, no? I think you're rewriting history Mark.
>
> No, you are completely misunderstanding this.  It almost seems
> deliberate.
>
> SR must have Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case.  That is, as
> speed->0 SR must approach Newtonian mechanics.  If SR approaches
> something OTHER than newtonian mechanics when speed goes to zero, then
> it is wrong.
>
> But the equations of SR *DO* approach the equations of Newton when
> speed goes to zero. This is not a tough concept.

Ah perhaps I can agree this time, where you say any theory must
*approach* the predictions of previous laws under some circumstances.
But that's just what I said, which is that all previous laws have been
approximations (and therefore mathematically incorrect).
From: mpalenik on 22 Feb 2010 14:49
On Feb 22, 2:45 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 01:12, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 8:01 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Newton, then, discovered that this is a special case of the
> > > > conservation of angular momentum, which is a much more general
> > > > principle--however, conservation of angular momentum MUST be able to
> > > > reproduce the elliptical orbits of planets, or else it is wrong.
> > > > Kepler's rules constrained Newton's theories.
>
> > > > Special relativity then changed Newton's laws, a bit.  The basic
> > > > principles, like F = dp/dt remained, but Special relativity says that
> > > > space and time must transform differently than they do in Newtonian
> > > > mechanics.  However, Newtonian mechanics is still a special case of
> > > > special relativity--as the speed of an object approaches zero, the
> > > > laws begin to reproduce Newton's laws.
>
> > > In other words "Newtonian mechanics are valid, as long as nothing is
> > > moving". Which somewhat defeats the purpose of mechanics, which is to
> > > describe movement, no? I think you're rewriting history Mark.
>
> > No, you are completely misunderstanding this.  It almost seems
> > deliberate.
>
> > SR must have Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case.  That is, as
> > speed->0 SR must approach Newtonian mechanics.  If SR approaches
> > something OTHER than newtonian mechanics when speed goes to zero, then
> > it is wrong.
>
> > But the equations of SR *DO* approach the equations of Newton when
> > speed goes to zero. This is not a tough concept.
>
> Ah perhaps I can agree this time, where you say any theory must
> *approach* the predictions of previous laws under some circumstances.
> But that's just what I said, which is that all previous laws have been
> approximations (and therefore mathematically incorrect).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you take any equation from SR and set v = 0 or c = infinity (or if
you want to be fancy, take a limit), you reproduce the same equations
of motion that Newton had. If SR could not do this, the theory would
be wrong. In this sense, Newton's laws constrain the behavior of any
new laws that we want to develop to supplant them. This is the point
I've been making. It's not a case of "the old laws were wrong, throw
them out," it's "the old laws give us an idea of how any new laws must
behave in a certain limit."
From: Peter Webb on 22 Feb 2010 17:22

Frankly no. But as I say, I would avoid drawing too many conclusions
from what happens in the classroom - it is simply a fallacious appeal
to both majority and authority. After all, you'd surely object if I
replaced the classroom with the church, and pointed out the unanimity
of opinion on the existence of God amongst the congregation.

_____________________________
No, but if you were able to shove a priest inside a particle accelerator,
accelerate him to 0.999c, slam him into some gold foil, and time his ascent
to heaven to three significant figures of accuracy - then I might believe in
God.

From: PD on 22 Feb 2010 17:31
On Feb 22, 12:35 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Frankly no. But as I say, I would avoid drawing too many conclusions
> from what happens in the classroom - it is simply a fallacious appeal
> to both majority and authority.

I gather you think of physics classes as being all passive absorption.
You do know this is a laboratory class, where students are expected to
apply principles to see if they actually work?

> After all, you'd surely object if I
> replaced the classroom with the church, and pointed out the unanimity
> of opinion on the existence of God amongst the congregation.

Nah. But if even one clergy member could show me how to calculate the
measurable outcome of a set of circumstances I could set up in real
life, based on God's presence and influence, and that outcome did in
fact turn up when those circumstances prevailed, and this prediction
was different than the prediction of other applicable theories, then
this would indeed be scientific evidence for God. So far, this has yet
to happen.

PD

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
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