"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Erik Max Francis on 7 Mar 2010 20:28 Wayne Throop wrote: > :: Name three cases where this has been true, historically. > > : Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> > : Galileo: An object keeps moving at a constant speed in a straight line > : unless acted upon by a force. > : > : Einstein: The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, > : > : De Broglie: Electrons behave like waves. > > The notable thing about your examples is that they are all responses > to *new* *facts*. In none of them was the theory changed just because > of philosophical prejudices alone, as Tue proposes. > > Well, plus of course that that's not Galileo who came up with that. > What Galileo came up with is the principle of relativity, to which > Einstein added constancy of lightspeed to get modern relativity. > > And Galileo didn't come up with (to pick a better example) the notion > that all objects fall at the same rate just because it's simpler. > He came up with it due to *observations*. Einstein was trying to > explain actual observations about lightspeed. And De Broglie > observations about electrons. As you say, these aren't good examples. de Broglie is arguably the best example, but 1. he was basing his work off of Planck and Einstein, so he wasn't starting over from scratch, and 2. actually understood the contemporary paradigm, unlike our friend here. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Did you ever love somebody / Did you ever really care -- Cassandra Wilson
From: Jenny on 7 Mar 2010 20:28 On Mar 7, 7:06 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > :: Name three cases where this has been true, historically. > : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> > : Galileo: An object keeps moving at a constant speed in a straight line > : unless acted upon by a force. > : > : Einstein: The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, > : De Broglie: Electrons behave like waves. > The notable thing about your examples is that they are all responses > to *new* *facts*. In none of them was the theory changed just because > of philosophical prejudices alone, as Tue proposes. Well, what he wrote was: "However, sometimes innovations have to come from radically different approaches, because current paradigmatic thinking has painted itself into a corner". I took that he meant that curent theory can't deal with the facts. And that you were asking for three such examples. > Well, plus of course that that's not Galileo who came up with that. > What Galileo came up with is the principle of relativity, to which > Einstein added constancy of lightspeed to get modern relativity. > And Galileo didn't come up with (to pick a better example) the notion > that all objects fall at the same rate just because it's simpler. > He came up with it due to *observations*. Einstein was trying to > explain actual observations about lightspeed. And De Broglie > observations about electrons. Yes, observations that previous theories had been unable to handle. > None of them came up with new theories *only* because the old theories > were too complicated. They came up with new theories because the old > theories had problems dealing with new observations. I took that to be what he meant by being "painted into a corner". In other words you have to be ready to admit that your most cherished assumptions are wrong. Love, Jenny
From: Tue Sorensen on 7 Mar 2010 20:30 On 8 Mar., 01:46, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Your commentary so far has indicated just the opposite. That's not > intended as an insult, it's just a statement of fact. Of course it's an insult. I come here trying to learn things. And because I'm asking a few questions and making a few statements, but not presenting 500 pages of coherent thought (which you'd never go to the trouble of giving a fair read-through anyway, at least not in this forum), you immediately pronounce me guilty of extreme ignorance and crackpottery. I do have some off-beat ideas, but I'm not telling you enough about them for you to draw any reasonable conclusions about them. > You have a very > poor understanding of the underpinnings of relativity and quantum > mechanics, and have seemed to admit it on numerous occasions. Bah. Don't need it. :-) > But you ignored his (very important) question: Can you name an example > of someone overthrowing the established scientific order without already > understanding it? The answer should be no, because there won't be any. If I *can* overthrow the estabslished order, it will be proof that I understood it *well enough* to do so. Wait and wonder. > >> Until and unless you do that, you're just a crackpot, plain and simple.. > > > I have met few people here who neglect the opportunity to tell me so. > > You might want to consider for a moment that there might be a good > reason for that. When your behavior is indistinguishable to numerous > others as that of a crank, perhaps you should consider that the common > element to all of those conclusions is you. That's certainly the neatest and easiest conclusion for you. Verily, the world of newsgroups is a simple one. - Tue
From: Erik Max Francis on 7 Mar 2010 20:46 Tue Sorensen wrote: > On 8 Mar., 01:46, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Your commentary so far has indicated just the opposite. That's not >> intended as an insult, it's just a statement of fact. > > Of course it's an insult. I come here trying to learn things. And > because I'm asking a few questions and making a few statements, but > not presenting 500 pages of coherent thought (which you'd never go to > the trouble of giving a fair read-through anyway, at least not in this > forum), you immediately pronounce me guilty of extreme ignorance and > crackpottery. It's not an insult. So far you've indicated profound ignorance of current theory (and have _admitted it_ multiple times when called on it). Your ideas are solidly in the category of "not even wrong" -- they are not even coherent enough to judge as meaningful ideas that can be analyzed in terms of science. Case in point is your recent arguments where you're deliberately using terminology in non-standard ways, or just sticking together words to make new ones and pretending that's anything other than mental masturbation. You're free to do that if you want, but we're also free to conclude that you're a crank because of it. Because you're behaving exactly like one. > I do have some off-beat ideas, but I'm not telling you > enough about them for you to draw any reasonable conclusions about > them. Then why the hell are you talking about them? The fault in poor communication is yours, not others'. See below. >> You have a very >> poor understanding of the underpinnings of relativity and quantum >> mechanics, and have seemed to admit it on numerous occasions. > > Bah. Don't need it. :-) That is precisely your problem. >> But you ignored his (very important) question: Can you name an example >> of someone overthrowing the established scientific order without already >> understanding it? The answer should be no, because there won't be any. > > If I *can* overthrow the estabslished order, it will be proof that I > understood it *well enough* to do so. Wait and wonder. We've heard this before. Yawn. But congratulations, these last two comments rank you higher on the crackpot index. >>>> Until and unless you do that, you're just a crackpot, plain and simple. >>> I have met few people here who neglect the opportunity to tell me so. >> You might want to consider for a moment that there might be a good >> reason for that. When your behavior is indistinguishable to numerous >> others as that of a crank, perhaps you should consider that the common >> element to all of those conclusions is you. > > That's certainly the neatest and easiest conclusion for you. Verily, > the world of newsgroups is a simple one. Might want to read that again to understand the point I was trying to make. You're admitting you're not explaining yourself well. You're coming off as a crackpot, repeatedly, on several occasions, on multiple topics, to numerous people who actually know what they're talking about. Whose fault is that, now? -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis Did you ever love somebody / Did you ever really care -- Cassandra Wilson
From: Tue Sorensen on 7 Mar 2010 20:46
On 8 Mar., 02:28, Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 7:06 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > > :: Name three cases where this has been true, historically. > > : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> > > : Galileo: An object keeps moving at a constant speed in a straight line > > : unless acted upon by a force. > > : > > : Einstein: The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, > > : De Broglie: Electrons behave like waves. > > The notable thing about your examples is that they are all responses > > to *new* *facts*. In none of them was the theory changed just because > > of philosophical prejudices alone, as Tue proposes. > > Well, what he wrote was: "However, sometimes innovations have to come > from radically different approaches, because current paradigmatic > thinking has painted itself into a corner". > > I took that he meant that curent theory can't deal with the facts. And > that you were asking for three such examples. > > > Well, plus of course that that's not Galileo who came up with that. > > What Galileo came up with is the principle of relativity, to which > > Einstein added constancy of lightspeed to get modern relativity. > > And Galileo didn't come up with (to pick a better example) the notion > > that all objects fall at the same rate just because it's simpler. > > He came up with it due to *observations*. Einstein was trying to > > explain actual observations about lightspeed. And De Broglie > > observations about electrons. > > Yes, observations that previous theories had been unable to handle. > > > None of them came up with new theories *only* because the old theories > > were too complicated. They came up with new theories because the old > > theories had problems dealing with new observations. Again, my ideas cannot and should not be explained here in full, but ultimately my ideas do offer explanations for observations that are not yet explained, such as the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and possibly the nature of gamma ray bursts, and a new set of laws for "quantum determinism" which will make the world make a lot more sense (and yes, I will also be suggesting testable experiments). The thing is, I am involved in many different things, and I don't have a facility for math. So I can't just study physics academically and then present my ideas that way. I have to work with overarching theories/ideas in various areas, because I believe I can connect a lot of dots that haven't been connected before, in diverse areas of knowledge. So I can only present some non-mathematical and amateurish ideas in the field of physics, and ask real physicists to take a look at them and see if it might be something worth pursuing in greater detail. So that's what I'm working towards, driven purely by my enthusiasm for science. And I also do believe that it is precisely my lack of training that enables me to think outside of the narrow box that trained physicists are typically taught to think inside of, though I understand that this probably seems silly to a lot of people. But in many cases, in order to progress, you have to depart from the conventional wisdom and add something new and original. > I took that to be what he meant by being "painted into a corner". In > other words you have to be ready to admit that your most cherished > assumptions are wrong. Thanks for the support! :-) - Tue |