Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 10:02 On Apr 11, 10:43 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 11 Apr, 19:02, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 10, 11:55 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm interested in science because I'm interested in the natural world, > > > > > Which "natural world" is only demarcated by your arbitrary and > > > > capricious labels. > > > > Which is the same arbitrary and capricious labels that everyone else > > > uses. > > > I disagree that "everyone else" uses these, and I find it astonishing > > that you would presume to speak for, let alone think like, "everyone > > else". > > What I am saying is that everyone uses "arbitrary and capricious > labels", as you put it. > > > > > > As I've said, the only difference is that a minority continue to > > > insist that somehow science has no ideological content at all. > > > > For me, there is no useful argument to be had on, for example, whether > > > unicorns or angels are "natural" or not - the real question is what > > > sort of ideological framework do they fall into, and invariably you > > > find that a belief in unicorns and angels is simply ancilliary to an > > > ideology involving the supernatural, or ancilliary to a belief that > > > the world does not operate in an understandable, predictable, and > > > mechanistic way (which really sums up my axioms, my "ideology" in this > > > respect). > > > > In fact, the existence of unicorns would not be incompatible with my > > > general outlook at all. Even angels would not be, as long as they > > > existed within naturalistic principles of cause and effect, and some > > > plausible mechanism was posited for firstly how their influence > > > manifests and secondly for why they have any interaction at all with > > > humanity (or any concern for humanity). > > > > But once you scratch the surface, you often find that the explanations > > > to these questions are sorely lacking, and that there is in fact not a > > > great deal of concern with how it may be explained on the part of > > > those who posit the existence of unicorns and angels. Indeed, when you > > > ask where the idea even came from in the first place, the answer is > > > rarely (if ever!) "from personal hypothesis", "from inference", or > > > "from observation", but "from religious authority". Such proponents > > > also tend to have a general worldview that is informed entirely by > > > their imaginations or naive beliefs, > > > ...such as temporally ordered cause and effect between strictly > > material agents... > > Despite your snipe Paul, there is actually some evidence for this, and > as you've conceded before, no experimental evidence against it.' Oh, but there IS evidence against it in some cases. What you insist, however, is that the evidence is an illusion of some underlying process that is somehow temporally ordered causality that GIVES THE APPEARANCE of the violation. This is a little like saying that there is evidence that the Earth is only 6600 years old, a creation of God in its present state more or less (that evidence being the Bible, an implicitly trustworthy source), and there is no evidence that the earth is older than 6600 years old. When confronted with geological dating data, one could easily argue that God arranged it so that it APPEARS that the earth is older than 6600 years old. > Even > when I questioned you on the issue of premonition and cause, you found > it very difficult to explain how it could be experimentally > distinguished from cause and effect. As I recall, I gave you a definition of cause and effect, which you found too abstract, and that essentially you could not conceive of the concepts of cause and effect that did not imply temporal ordering. > > Incidentally, I recall that our definition of "material" is different > - remember, my defintion includes what you call the "immaterial". Yes, indeed, and I've used the term (and defined it for you) in the manner that word is used in physics. Furthermore, you may yourself find it amusing that your definition of material includes its antithesis, which I find as useful as defining "mammal" to include those that are "not mammals". > > > > and show a total unfamiliarity > > > with history, science, politics, psychology, economics, or any > > > systematic body of human knowledge that might offer any counter to the > > > mere spoken word of their priest or other religious figures, or which > > > may put a different slant on their beliefs. > > > In other words, they are ignorant, uneducated, and cowing to > > authority. > > Generally they are ignorant and uneducated, but more to the point they > accept something as true *simply* because authority says it is true, > and same is true for the authority in turn. > > > > Indeed, for me, I also take the view that it will often be futile to > > > attack ideology using mere logic. Most people hold an ideology because > > > in some way or another because it has a concrete function for them, > > > ...such as temporally ordered causality between strictly material > > agents... > > Yes. I said at the outset of my previous post that there is an > ideological (although in this context, for clarity, I prefer to say an > "axiomatic"-) component to my beliefs - which defines the sort of > explanations I'm willing to accept, what sort of evidence I'm willing > to accept, etc. > > And before you claim that science, or scientists, don't have ideology, > I refer you back to what I said many months ago, that an ignorance of > ideology, or a lack of concern with it, is not the same as an absence > of ideology. There's a vast difference between a set of axioms about how nature MUST work, and a set of axioms about an adopted procedure to investigate how nature does in fact work. The latter affords you a lot more flexibility for proper discovery. PD
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 10:05 On Apr 12, 3:15 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 Apr, 05:12, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> > Indeed, for me, I also take the view that it will often be futile to > > >> > attack ideology using mere logic. Most people hold an ideology because > > >> > in some way or another because it has a concrete function for them, > > > >> ...such as temporally ordered causality between strictly material > > >> agents... > > > > Yes. I said at the outset of my previous post that there is an > > > ideological (although in this context, for clarity, I prefer to say an > > > "axiomatic"-) component to my beliefs - which defines the sort of > > > explanations I'm willing to accept, what sort of evidence I'm willing > > > to accept, etc. > > > Then that is your problem. It doesn't mean the physics is wrong .. just you > > are unwilling to accept that it is right. > > I didn't say physics was wrong. I was alluding more to Paul's notions > about premonition and cause, or about the universe not being governed > by cause and effect, which I think is nonsense (and so would many > physicists). I didn't say the universe is not governed by cause and effect at all. What I've said is that *temporally ordered* cause and effect is not necessarily the rule -- and this is a concept that seems to elude you, since you believe that the *meaning* of cause and effect implies temporal ordering, which is simply not the case scientifically. What I've also said is that strict determinism, in the sense that completely identical prepared states will always evolve identically, is not a fast rule of nature though there are plenty of approximate examples of that.
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 10:10 On 12 Apr, 13:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4164eef8-bc24-4e52-9071-ae455ad3f77f(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 12 Apr, 12:07, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:0faebd8d-d6fd-4475-8996-f96717fbb594(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 12 Apr, 11:45, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> > Now, to what degree is the distant clock appearing retarded (or > >> >> > advanced), and how (i.e. to what degree) is that retardation or > >> >> > advance related to: > >> >> > a) distance; and > >> >> > b) velocity? > > >> >> See the lorentz transforms > > >> > I was hoping you'd spell it out Inertial. > > >> But you refuse to read mathematic > > > I don't refuse to, but bear in mind my current level of competence. > > Also, bear in mind that this particular, narrow question *is* one that > > lends itself to a mathematical quantification, since I am asking the > > question "what", not "why". > > >> > You'd think with the > >> > hundreds of thousands of words we've already put down on this issue, > >> > you wouldn't be averse to a little clarity at this stage of the game.. > > >> I will do so, if you actually want to see the math. In which case, the > >> Lorentz transforms give the answers. I can explain them in words, if you > >> can't work it out > > > Ok. > > >> >> >> > And they both argue that it is the *other* who is lagging? > > >> >> >> It is the *other* clock in your example is ahead .. not lagging > > >> >> > At what point? > > >> >> When they start moving toward each other > > >> > OK. Does the distant clock always advance, even if they are moving > >> > *away* from each other? > > >> It always ticks in a forward direction .. time doesn't go backward. So > >> it > >> is always advancing. > > > Yes, but obviously I mean the relative simultaneity of the "ticks" of > > the clock. In other words, does the local clock read, say, 00:20 > > before or after the distant clock (in other words, is the distant > > clock ahead or advanced, or is it behind or retarded). > > >> What depends on velocity and position (from my frame of reference) is how > >> far ahead or behind the reading on a moving clocks is compared to a > >> (synchrnoised with my at-rest clock) stationary clock at the same > >> position > >> as the moving one. > > > Yes, but we don't need to talk about the "same position as the moving > > one", because we're disregarding propagation delays altogether - so > > the separation distance shouldn't have any influence on the result. > > Just making it clear. And that is HOW we can get rid of propagation delays. That reasoning does not *necessarily* stand up. The propagation delay may be different for a moving object than for a stationary object. Although obviously I'll bear in mind your comments. > We don't need to use just what information comes via EM to a single observer > location. We consider things happening simultaneously anywhere throughout > the frame (ie as though the information was sent instantaneously). That is > WHY you supposedly different definition of simultaneity is just the same as > what SR uses anyway .. and ends up being frame dependent. Indeed. Well, I'll run with it for now.
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 10:30 On Apr 12, 9:10 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 Apr, 13:25, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:4164eef8-bc24-4e52-9071-ae455ad3f77f(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.... > > > > On 12 Apr, 12:07, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:0faebd8d-d6fd-4475-8996-f96717fbb594(a)11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> > On 12 Apr, 11:45, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> > Now, to what degree is the distant clock appearing retarded (or > > >> >> > advanced), and how (i.e. to what degree) is that retardation or > > >> >> > advance related to: > > >> >> > a) distance; and > > >> >> > b) velocity? > > > >> >> See the lorentz transforms > > > >> > I was hoping you'd spell it out Inertial. > > > >> But you refuse to read mathematic > > > > I don't refuse to, but bear in mind my current level of competence. > > > Also, bear in mind that this particular, narrow question *is* one that > > > lends itself to a mathematical quantification, since I am asking the > > > question "what", not "why". > > > >> > You'd think with the > > >> > hundreds of thousands of words we've already put down on this issue, > > >> > you wouldn't be averse to a little clarity at this stage of the game. > > > >> I will do so, if you actually want to see the math. In which case, the > > >> Lorentz transforms give the answers. I can explain them in words, if you > > >> can't work it out > > > > Ok. > > > >> >> >> > And they both argue that it is the *other* who is lagging? > > > >> >> >> It is the *other* clock in your example is ahead .. not lagging > > > >> >> > At what point? > > > >> >> When they start moving toward each other > > > >> > OK. Does the distant clock always advance, even if they are moving > > >> > *away* from each other? > > > >> It always ticks in a forward direction .. time doesn't go backward. So > > >> it > > >> is always advancing. > > > > Yes, but obviously I mean the relative simultaneity of the "ticks" of > > > the clock. In other words, does the local clock read, say, 00:20 > > > before or after the distant clock (in other words, is the distant > > > clock ahead or advanced, or is it behind or retarded). > > > >> What depends on velocity and position (from my frame of reference) is how > > >> far ahead or behind the reading on a moving clocks is compared to a > > >> (synchrnoised with my at-rest clock) stationary clock at the same > > >> position > > >> as the moving one. > > > > Yes, but we don't need to talk about the "same position as the moving > > > one", because we're disregarding propagation delays altogether - so > > > the separation distance shouldn't have any influence on the result. > > > Just making it clear. And that is HOW we can get rid of propagation delays. > > That reasoning does not *necessarily* stand up. The propagation delay > may be different for a moving object than for a stationary object. You'll have to explain why you think so. A propagation delay is given very simply by t=d/v. The distance d is something that is the same whether the source is stationary or moving at the moment of emission, and the speed of propagation of signal v is something that is determined in separate measurements. In the case of light, we know from direct measurement that v is independent of source speed and is always c (in a vacuum) and c/n (in dielectric environments), and so the propagation delay is known to be independent of the speed of the source. > Although obviously I'll bear in mind your comments. > > > We don't need to use just what information comes via EM to a single observer > > location. We consider things happening simultaneously anywhere throughout > > the frame (ie as though the information was sent instantaneously). That is > > WHY you supposedly different definition of simultaneity is just the same as > > what SR uses anyway .. and ends up being frame dependent. > > Indeed. Well, I'll run with it for now.
From: Ste on 12 Apr 2010 10:50
On 12 Apr, 15:02, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 11, 10:43 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Such proponents > > > > also tend to have a general worldview that is informed entirely by > > > > their imaginations or naive beliefs, > > > > ...such as temporally ordered cause and effect between strictly > > > material agents... > > > Despite your snipe Paul, there is actually some evidence for this, and > > as you've conceded before, no experimental evidence against it.' > > Oh, but there IS evidence against it in some cases. What you insist, > however, is that the evidence is an illusion of some underlying > process that is somehow temporally ordered causality that GIVES THE > APPEARANCE of the violation. The evidence that supposedly supports you is very tenuous indeed. As I've said, I just don't see how you can distinguish premonition and cause from cause and effect. > This is a little like saying that there is evidence that the Earth is > only 6600 years old, a creation of God in its present state more or > less (that evidence being the Bible, an implicitly trustworthy > source), and there is no evidence that the earth is older than 6600 > years old. When confronted with geological dating data, one could > easily argue that God arranged it so that it APPEARS that the earth is > older than 6600 years old. Indeed, so what? > > Even > > when I questioned you on the issue of premonition and cause, you found > > it very difficult to explain how it could be experimentally > > distinguished from cause and effect. > > As I recall, I gave you a definition of cause and effect, which you > found too abstract, and that essentially you could not conceive of the > concepts of cause and effect that did not imply temporal ordering. As I recall, I questioned you on how this premonition and cause could be experimentally distinguished from cause and effect. > > Incidentally, I recall that our definition of "material" is different > > - remember, my defintion includes what you call the "immaterial". > > Yes, indeed, and I've used the term (and defined it for you) in the > manner that word is used in physics. Furthermore, you may yourself > find it amusing that your definition of material includes its > antithesis, which I find as useful as defining "mammal" to include > those that are "not mammals". It's not that I find it amusing. I was just clarifying my position, that when I agree with the notion of "cause and effect between material agents", that isn't to rule out what you call the "immaterial". > > > > and show a total unfamiliarity > > > > with history, science, politics, psychology, economics, or any > > > > systematic body of human knowledge that might offer any counter to the > > > > mere spoken word of their priest or other religious figures, or which > > > > may put a different slant on their beliefs. > > > > In other words, they are ignorant, uneducated, and cowing to > > > authority. > > > Generally they are ignorant and uneducated, but more to the point they > > accept something as true *simply* because authority says it is true, > > and same is true for the authority in turn. > > > > > Indeed, for me, I also take the view that it will often be futile to > > > > attack ideology using mere logic. Most people hold an ideology because > > > > in some way or another because it has a concrete function for them, > > > > ...such as temporally ordered causality between strictly material > > > agents... > > > Yes. I said at the outset of my previous post that there is an > > ideological (although in this context, for clarity, I prefer to say an > > "axiomatic"-) component to my beliefs - which defines the sort of > > explanations I'm willing to accept, what sort of evidence I'm willing > > to accept, etc. > > > And before you claim that science, or scientists, don't have ideology, > > I refer you back to what I said many months ago, that an ignorance of > > ideology, or a lack of concern with it, is not the same as an absence > > of ideology. > > There's a vast difference between a set of axioms about how nature > MUST work, and a set of axioms about an adopted procedure to > investigate how nature does in fact work. The latter affords you a lot > more flexibility for proper discovery. I don't see how the two can be distinguished. The investigation procedure is inextricably linked with a hypothesis about how nature works. A hypothesis that included God's will, for example, would not include a requirement of reproducibility - because of course there is no reason a priori why God would respond in the same way each time. And by the same token, the requirement of reproducibility naturally stems from a hypothesis that the natural world is controlled in a mechanical fashion, where the same input will necessarily be expected to produce the same output. As I say Paul, I think you'd do better to concentrate on actually honing your ability to explain the theory itself, rather than trying to tenderise people into a state of unquestioning acceptance of what is about to come (either on the question of physics, or on the philosophy of science). You overestimate the degree to which I won't respond to evidence and coherent explanations, but you far underestimate my resistence to the word of authority and the degree to which I'm turned off by a pompous prelude about how much the universe differs from my preconceptions or how amazing or mysterious the universe is. It evokes the image in my mind of a magician's act, where there is a sense that the person you're talking to is more interested in ceremony and inducing confusion, and pulling off a deception convincingly, as opposed to just explaining in an impartial straightforward manner. And I probably can't deny that some of this is due to fundamental personality and political differences between us. And what I will say is that it's quite possible that you've found, in your experience as a teacher, no doubt teaching young students who know nothing and have very little between the ears, that the magician's act is actually useful for provoking interest in the subject amongst those who otherwise have very little inherent interest. But for me, I really dislike that approach - I have a fundamental interest in knowledge generally already, and always have, and I would have no reason to be here other than sheer personal interest. |