Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bilge on 23 Mar 2005 17:01 harry: > >Bilge wrote: >> Harry: >> >"Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> And the aforementioned experiment shows that there is no >> >> ``correct choice.'' Events which are simultaneous in one frame >> >> are simultaneous in _every_ frame. >> > >> >You mean, they are *out of sync* according to the calibration of >*every >> >other* frame - or your experiment is different from this one of PD. >> >> Exactly. What you fail to understand is that any to events >connected >> by a signal which propagates with less than infinite velocity are not >> simultaneous in that case. > >I wonder why you think that I fail to understand that out of sync is >called asynchronous... Because you don't appear to understand that. [...] >> >> The existence of an effect is not sufficient to infer a cause. > >I meant a cause in general. If you mean with "a cause", a specific >proposed cause, I agree. Or do you pretend that things may just happen >without any cause? Radioactive decay, Spontaneous emission, etc. [...] >> in principle, be manipilated by physical means through an experiment >> and quantified. If you can't affect some physical quantity, it can't >> affect you, since those are one and the same. > >I agree except for the last phrase: there you again confuse cause and >effect. I can't affect the sun, therefore it can't affect me"??! You can affect the sun merely by launching a rocket that ends up in the sun. The effect might be small, but in principle the effect exists and can be quantified. In this case, the effect is easy to quantify. The additional mass increases the mass of the sun and therefore adds additional matter for fusion. You deliberately confuse ``in principle'' with ``in practice'' in order to avoid the difficulty of quantifying what you claim is possible in principle so you can disregard it as being impossible to quantify. [...] >> Only if you believe it's turtles all the way down, in which case, >> you might as throw your hands up in despair, declare science to have >> no point and go to work for a pr firm. > >I think that there is a limit. But that makes no difference for this! It makes a great deal of difference, since you want to quit where modern physics suggests that limit exists rather than address what your own views suggest for that limit. You can't have it both ways. [...] >> >> You are suggesting exactly that. You are trying to avoid >> quantifying the elements that make up the ontology of a theory >> by removing the cause to the cause of a cause which is >> unquantifiable. That simply adds a literal ``nothing'' to the theory. > >That sounds like garble to me. If you mean that physics can't describe >all, I agree. That isn't what I mean, but you are determined to equivocate whatever I say to whatever you want it to mean, so there's no point in trying to elaborate further.
From: Harry on 24 Mar 2005 04:58 "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrnd4400l.eu2.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... > harry: SNIP Bilge wrote: > >> The existence of an effect is not sufficient to infer a cause. > > > >I meant a cause in general. If you mean with "a cause", a specific > >proposed cause, I agree. Or do you pretend that things may just happen > >without any cause? > > Radioactive decay, Spontaneous emission, etc. I see. Philosophy issues of QM and of SR are clearly intertwined. > >> in principle, be manipilated by physical means through an experiment > >> and quantified. If you can't affect some physical quantity, it can't > >> affect you, since those are one and the same. > > > >I agree except for the last phrase: there you again confuse cause and > >effect. I can't affect the sun, therefore it can't affect me"??! > > You can affect the sun merely by launching a rocket that > ends up in the sun. The effect might be small, but in principle > the effect exists and can be quantified. In this case, the effect > is easy to quantify. The additional mass increases the mass of > the sun and therefore adds additional matter for fusion. You deliberately > confuse ``in principle'' with ``in practice'' in order to avoid the > difficulty of quantifying what you claim is possible in principle > so you can disregard it as being impossible to quantify. That was not a confusion but an example. Examples must be practicle in order to be clear. I hoped you'd understand that we were discussing final causes of measurable effects, which are not measurable by principle -- but your practical counter example shows that either you didn't understand that, or you just want to argue. > [...] > >> Only if you believe it's turtles all the way down, in which case, > >> you might as throw your hands up in despair, declare science to have > >> no point and go to work for a pr firm. > > > >I think that there is a limit. But that makes no difference for this! > > It makes a great deal of difference, since you want to quit where > modern physics suggests that limit exists rather than address what > your own views suggest for that limit. You can't have it both ways. Neither way provides a way out for your argument, as they both impose the admission that we can't measure everything that there is. I'm surprised that I had to spell that out to you. > [...] > >> You are suggesting exactly that. You are trying to avoid > >> quantifying the elements that make up the ontology of a theory > >> by removing the cause to the cause of a cause which is > >> unquantifiable. That simply adds a literal ``nothing'' to the theory. > > > >That sounds like garble to me. If you mean that physics can't describe > >all, I agree. > > That isn't what I mean, but you are determined to equivocate whatever > I say to whatever you want it to mean, so there's no point in trying > to elaborate further. Hmm, I agree that it's pointless. Harald
From: Bilge on 24 Mar 2005 13:52 Harry: > >"Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message >news:slrnd4400l.eu2.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net... >> harry: >SNIP > >Bilge wrote: >> >> The existence of an effect is not sufficient to infer a cause. >> > >> >I meant a cause in general. If you mean with "a cause", a specific >> >proposed cause, I agree. Or do you pretend that things may just happen >> >without any cause? >> >> Radioactive decay, Spontaneous emission, etc. > >I see. Philosophy issues of QM and of SR are clearly intertwined. Non-responsive. > >> >> in principle, be manipilated by physical means through an experiment >> >> and quantified. If you can't affect some physical quantity, it can't >> >> affect you, since those are one and the same. >> > >> >I agree except for the last phrase: there you again confuse cause and >> >effect. I can't affect the sun, therefore it can't affect me"??! >> >> You can affect the sun merely by launching a rocket that >> ends up in the sun. The effect might be small, but in principle >> the effect exists and can be quantified. In this case, the effect >> is easy to quantify. The additional mass increases the mass of >> the sun and therefore adds additional matter for fusion. You deliberately >> confuse ``in principle'' with ``in practice'' in order to avoid the >> difficulty of quantifying what you claim is possible in principle >> so you can disregard it as being impossible to quantify. > >That was not a confusion but an example. Examples must be practicle in order >to be clear. Non-responsive. >I hoped you'd understand that we were discussing final causes of measurable >effects, which are not measurable by principle -- but your practical >counter example shows that either you didn't understand that, or you just >want to argue. Non-responsive > >> [...] >> >> Only if you believe it's turtles all the way down, in which case, >> >> you might as throw your hands up in despair, declare science to have >> >> no point and go to work for a pr firm. >> > >> >I think that there is a limit. But that makes no difference for this! >> >> It makes a great deal of difference, since you want to quit where >> modern physics suggests that limit exists rather than address what >> your own views suggest for that limit. You can't have it both ways. > >Neither way provides a way out for your argument, as they both impose the >admission that we can't measure everything that there is. >I'm surprised that I had to spell that out to you. Non-responsive > >> [...] >> >> You are suggesting exactly that. You are trying to avoid >> >> quantifying the elements that make up the ontology of a theory >> >> by removing the cause to the cause of a cause which is >> >> unquantifiable. That simply adds a literal ``nothing'' to the theory. >> > >> >That sounds like garble to me. If you mean that physics can't describe >> >all, I agree. >> >> That isn't what I mean, but you are determined to equivocate whatever >> I say to whatever you want it to mean, so there's no point in trying >> to elaborate further. > >Hmm, I agree that it's pointless. > >Harald > >
From: John Kennaugh on 8 Apr 2005 06:00 Bilge writes > harry: > >> The existence of an effect is not sufficient to infer a cause. > > > >I meant a cause in general. If you mean with "a cause", a specific > >proposed cause, I agree. Or do you pretend that things may just happen > >without any cause? > > Radioactive decay, Spontaneous emission, etc. What makes you think there is no cause simply because we do not understand what it is? We know that radioactive decay occurs at a quite precise rate for a massive number of atoms. This surely implies that some condition in the individual atom has a precise chance of occurring. A one armed bandit pays out due to a cause - the wheels have lined up. The fact that we are unable to predict when that happens does not suggest that coins pour out without cause. -- John Kennaugh to email convert the number from hex to decimal
From: Bilge on 10 Apr 2005 04:04
John Kennaugh: >Bilge writes >> harry: > >> >> The existence of an effect is not sufficient to infer a cause. >> > >> >I meant a cause in general. If you mean with "a cause", a specific >> >proposed cause, I agree. Or do you pretend that things may just happen >> >without any cause? >> >> Radioactive decay, Spontaneous emission, etc. > >What makes you think there is no cause simply because we do not >understand what it is? (1) Because the statistics are evidence _for_ a probabilistic process not merely a lack of knowing what the process is, (2) A probabilistic process makes a lot more physical sense than a determistic one. >We know that radioactive decay occurs at a quite Don't say ``we.'' What you know about any physics amounts to the material needed for one episode of sesame street. >precise rate for a massive number of atoms. This surely implies that >some condition in the individual atom has a precise chance of occurring. The fundamental ``chance of occuring'' to which you refer may be specified by 3 factors: (1)The coupling constant of the force responsible for the transition, (2) number of possible final states to which the initial state might make a transition, (3) the matrix elements between the initial and final states, otherwise known as conservation laws. The coupling constant determines the fundamental probability for an interaction. That means what you regard as a force is a probability of an interaction. >A one armed bandit pays out due to a cause - the wheels have lined up. >The fact that we are unable to predict when that happens does not >suggest that coins pour out without cause. Gee, why didn't I think of that... Oh. Wait a second. I _did_ think of that. Long ago. It's just been a while since I've encountered that shallow argument. See www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf for details before posting the same strawman. |