"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Jenny on 9 Mar 2010 08:20 On Mar 7, 10:01 pm, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> > : 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". > But regardless of that, these examples all point to one thing and one > thing only: all these people knew the pre-existing science backwards > and forwards, and had *observations* to explain, not philosopical > pinings-for-the-fjords. > OK, two things, an two things only. How about this for a Doctor of Medicine? ___________________ His first attempt at stating the conservation of energy was a paper he sent to the Annalen der Physik, in which he postulated a conservation of force (Erhaltungssatz der Kraft). However, owing to hislack of advanced training in physics, it contained some fundamental mistakes and was not published. He continued to pursue the idea steadfastly and argued with the Tübingen physics professor Nörremberg, who rejected his hypothesis. Nörremberg did, however, give him a number of valuable suggestions on how the idea could be examined experimentally; for example, if kinetic energy transforms into heat energy, water should be warmed by vibration. He not only performed this demonstration, but determined also the quantitative factor of the transformation, calculating the mechanical equivalent of heat. The result of his investigations was published 1842 in the May edition of Justus von Liebig's Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie.[4] Since he was not taken seriously at the time, his achievements were overlooked and credit was given to James Joule. He almost committed suicide after he discovered this fact. __________________________ Love, Jenny
From: PD on 9 Mar 2010 09:56 On Mar 8, 11:50 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Mar., 05:11, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > > > > > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > > : One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared > > : themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. > > > And you seem to be saying that you prefer not to know what they have > > concluded, to keep yourself from preconceptions. That this is an actual > > advantage. This is remarkably wrong-headed and short-sighted of you, > > and so I remark upon it. > > > : If you think this idea MUST be wrong, > > > I'm not commenting on your idea(s), because so far, here, you've presented > > mere word salad, so there's not much to comment on. I'm commenting > > on your methodology, how you evaluate what "seems logical", and your > > accounts/hopes/whatnot of how your ideas will be an improvement on > > current theory. All of which are not promising. Not promising at all. > > You know, that attitude actually convinces me that you are precisely > the kind of person who *has* become blind to the big picture by > overindulging in constraining technical details that may be pointing > in wrong directions. Of course I realize that this amounts to your > feeling the exact same (only inverse) way about my attitude, so we are > at an impasse. Incapable of communicating, incapable of constructive > discussion, incapable and deeply mistrustful of mutual education. A > shame. I might be wrong. But - from my perspective, anyway - so may > you. > > This has been a disappointingly unproductive discourse. If your > purpose in being here is to serve as educator and facilitator and > promoter of knowledge, then your have failed. I want to increase my > understanding. You just want to strike me down for daring to have two > thoughts of my own to rub together. My feeling in coming here has been > like a piece of carrion beset by vultures. I hope you have eaten your > fill. > > - Tue Part of what you're going to have to wrestle with is terminology, because if you don't know the meaning of words AS USED BY PHYSICISTS, then you're not going to appropriately understand things you read where those terms are used. A good example is "matter". Matter in physics is pretty well defined: it is a substance that occupies volume and bears mass. However, when you get down to it, you discover that all such examples are COMPOSITE materials -- stuff that is made of atoms, for example -- and the volume of that substance is determined by the interactions between the constituents of the composite. (This rule works for benzene, for gold, for carbon atoms, and for protons, all of which are composites.) Note however, that electrons by themselves do not satisfy the definition of matter, because we have no evidence that an electron occupies volume. To declare by fiat that an electron is matter and therefore conclude that an electron MUST occupy volume is begging the question. If you perhaps meant that matter is anything that has mass, then you could point to two-photon systems, where neither photon has any mass, but the pair does. Wherein does the mass lie then, and how would you describe this (or its constituents) as matter? Nor does it do any good to say that matter is whatever is made of particles, because electromagnetic radiation satisfies that rule as well as protons do. I'm sure you're getting a feel for how important misconstrual of terminology can be. PD
From: Mike Ash on 9 Mar 2010 10:48 In article <f1f314c1-333f-42c4-9e17-58e10d513b76(a)d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Mar., 05:11, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > > : One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared > > : themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. > > > > And you seem to be saying that you prefer not to know what they have > > concluded, to keep yourself from preconceptions. �That this is an actual > > advantage. �This is remarkably wrong-headed and short-sighted of you, > > and so I remark upon it. > > > > : If you think this idea MUST be wrong, > > > > I'm not commenting on your idea(s), because so far, here, you've presented > > mere word salad, so there's not much to comment on. �I'm commenting > > on your methodology, how you evaluate what "seems logical", and your > > accounts/hopes/whatnot of how your ideas will be an improvement on > > current theory. �All of which are not promising. �Not promising at all. > > You know, that attitude actually convinces me that you are precisely > the kind of person who *has* become blind to the big picture by > overindulging in constraining technical details that may be pointing > in wrong directions. Of course I realize that this amounts to your > feeling the exact same (only inverse) way about my attitude, so we are > at an impasse. Incapable of communicating, incapable of constructive > discussion, incapable and deeply mistrustful of mutual education. A > shame. I might be wrong. But - from my perspective, anyway - so may > you. What attitude are you talking about? His message contains two major ideas. First is a comment that your opinion on the knowledge of physicists is ill-founded because you are ignorant of what they know, something you've openly admitted. Second is a statement that what you have presented does not make sense, something you have also openly admitted. He then concludes from these ideas that the situation is not promising, a perfectly rational conclusion based on the two ideas. So what attitude are you talking about, precisely? > This has been a disappointingly unproductive discourse. If your > purpose in being here is to serve as educator and facilitator and > promoter of knowledge, then your have failed. From my perspective, they have succeeded nicely. I've learned some things in following the discussion, and it's been interesting. The failing is entirely on your end. > I want to increase my > understanding. Assertion without evidence. I haven't seen any indication that you want to increase your understanding. Quite the contrary, in fact: you continually talk about how it's somehow an asset that you're ignorant, and complain at people when they contradict you with facts. > You just want to strike me down for daring to have two > thoughts of my own to rub together. Absolute nonsense. All criticism has been due to your attitude of willful ignorance, and insistence that the nonsense you've thus far spouted is somehow profound. > My feeling in coming here has been > like a piece of carrion beset by vultures. I hope you have eaten your > fill. If you'd actually display some willingness to learn, and not insist that you've explained some profound new idea when you've just tossed out some random word mashup, your time here would go a lot better. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
From: Wayne Throop on 9 Mar 2010 12:25 : Jenny <yuancur(a)gmail.com> : How about this for a Doctor of Medicine? : ___________________ : : His first attempt at stating the conservation of energy was a paper he : sent to the Annalen der Physik, in which he postulated a conservation : of force (Erhaltungssatz der Kraft). However, owing to hislack of : advanced training in physics, it contained some fundamental mistakes : and was not published. He continued to pursue the idea steadfastly : and argued with the T=FCbingen physics professor N=F6rremberg, who : rejected his hypothesis. N=F6rremberg did, however, give him a number : of valuable suggestions on how the idea could be examined : experimentally; for example, if kinetic energy transforms into heat : energy, water should be warmed by vibration. : : He not only performed this demonstration, but determined also the : quantitative factor of the transformation, calculating the mechanical : equivalent of heat. The result of his investigations was published : 1842 in the May edition of Justus von Liebig's Annalen der Chemie und : Pharmacie.[4] : : Since he was not taken seriously at the time, his achievements were : overlooked and credit was given to James Joule. He almost committed : suicide after he discovered this fact. Two problems with this example in the upthread context. First, it's not a paradigm-changing revolution. It augmented rather than replaced. Second, though he didn't know the theory backwards and forwards, he consulted experts who did, and actually paid attention to them. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Jenny on 9 Mar 2010 12:50
On Mar 9, 11:25 am, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Jenny <yuan...(a)gmail.com> > : How about this for a Doctor of Medicine? .... ... > : Since he was not taken seriously at the time, his achievements were > : overlooked and credit was given to James Joule. He almost committed > : suicide after he discovered this fact. > Two problems with this example in the upthread context. First, it's > not a paradigm-changing revolution. It augmented rather than replaced. > Second, though he didn't know the theory backwards and forwards, he > consulted experts who did, and actually paid attention to them. In some geometries there are no true parallels. He wrote to the experts, most ignored him and some even ridiculed him, after all he wasn't even properly trained. The one who responded told him that he was wrong and to go away and do the experiment - but that guy obviously didn't take the idea seriously enough to do it for himself. Physicians 1 Physicists 0 And when he came up with the requested evidence, his results were all but ignored. Physicians 2 Physicists 0 Joule also was considered an amateur without proper training. "He discovered Joule's laws in 1840 and hoped to impress the Royal Society but found, not for the last time, that he was perceived as a mere provincial dilettante". Dilettantes 1 Physicists 0 And Newton was hammered so hard that even he was almost too scared to publish. Love, Jenny |