Prev: Proof that consciousness is NOT in the brain
Next: When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Re: Salt on Venus)
From: Me, ...again! on 6 Jun 2010 22:37


On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:

>
> "Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006062115440.95038(a)osmium.mv.net...
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
>
>> On Jun 4, 6:38 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
>>>> On Jun 3, 6:57 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I kinda followed a lot of what you wrote. Yes, I see some problems
>>>>> according to what you say. What it boils down to for me is that a lot of
>>>>> these "theories" or "explanations" are very non-intuitive. I like
>>>>> intuitive understandings, etc., but it bothers me that to "understand"
>>>>> some of this weird stuff, you have to accept non-intuitive intellectual
>>>>> "constructs" which seem to me to be full of intuitive sub-constructs.
>>>>> The
>>>>> book I cited did not go into the semantic/intepretational level, but did
>>>>> accept that there were problems. I might type up a few quotes from the
>>>>> chapter on the wave-particle duality where the author was hedging what
>>>>> he
>>>>> wrote. Hope you are following what I'm saying.
>>>
>>>> I think you've nailed your own apprehensions on the head, and this is
>>>> not uncommon. Many people believe that a physical theory ought to make
>>>> intuitive sense FIRST and THEN if it also fits data well, it can be
>>>> considered successful. Or conversely, if you have a theory that fits
>>>> the data well but doesn't make intuitive sense, then there is
>>>> nonetheless something wrong with it.
>>>
>>> Yes, but there are other issues such as: can the data be explained by
>>> alternate models. Also, I was never all that satisfied with the "ether"
>>> model because it seemed like a "fudge".
>>
>> I've answered this already in this string.
>
> Fine.
>
>>>
>>> Then, the whole idea of an expanding universe was something uncanny. How
>>> do you have a finite universe, expanding at the speed of light, and this
>>> infinite megazillion light-years size ball of galaxies all has to be
>>> "inside" an even bigger infinite box of, what, nothingness?
>>
>> No. That's just it. Something that is finite does not need to have an
>> edge.
>
> That is beyond me. But you left out a lot, too.
>
> _______________________________________
> Of course he left a lot out. He isn't trying to explain the whole theory of
> manifolds to you in a newsgroup post. And I doubt it is beyond you, there are
> zillions of simple examples - for example the surface of a sphere is finite
> but has no edge.

Now that ending phrase is very nice, but it can't have an edge. Maybe you
can say the sphere is "bounded" (by the surface) which separates the
interior (finite) volume from the exterior space (which you can't say
ANYthing about unless you go far enough outward till you reach something
and if it is really infinite, then you'll never reach ANYthing, unless you
bump into gazillions of stars, dark matter, etc.

>
>
>> The *surface* (and keep in mind I'm talking about the *surface*, not
>> the volume) is finite but has no edge.
>
> Still beyond me.
>
> _______________________________________
> Buy a book. Or google "Moebius strip", "klein bottle", "projective plane" for
> basic concepts.

Yeah, I know all about those, already.

> The edge to a surface is a
>> curve.
>
> Two dimensional, three dimentional, one dimentional?/?????
>
> ______________________________________
> One dimensional.

How do you get an edge on a (one dimensional) line?

>
>> Where is the curve that represents the edge to that 2D surface?
>> When you get your head wrapped around that notion, then you can see
>> the same idea applies just as readily (though more hard for us as
>> humans to *visualize*) to 3D and 4D spaces.
>
> Lost me back in the beginning.
>
> ____________________________________
> Well, maybe you should buy a book, or do some web searches on the topics I
> suggested.

Someday..... someday......

>>>
>>> So, my short, frank answer is going to be: OK, I am incapable of
>>> understanding, accepting this non-intuititive knowledge. Almost a paradox.
>>
>> You're not incapable. You just need to walk through it a little more
>> slowly and reshape a few ideas.
>
> Yeah, sounds like a fudge. Yeah, I read George Gamow's "1-2-3 infinity"
> and he talked about some of this, and, frankly, he did a better job, too.
>
> ____________________________________________
> Of course he would have done a better job. He was writing for large audience
> who were willing to buy his book, not trying to explain some concepts on a
> newsgroup for free.

I actually liked his book. I think I understood most of it, too.

>
>>>
>>> However, when I read the works of philosophers who went into interesting
>>> detail on Newton's laws (eg. that book I said I read: "Beyond the edge
>>> of certainty" by Colodney), I realized that one's thinking has to be
>>> much more careful. And, for the record, I _did_ follow what those guys
>>> wrote (and they were all professors at universities, too).
>>>
>>>> However, this approach is not the best one in science. Intuition is a
>>>> liar and a cheat.
>>>
>>> It also gives you that "gut feeling" that something ain't right.
>>
>> Which is not necessarily something you should trust. In all cases, the
>> recourse to experimental comparison is a good way to be sure. In fact,
>> it's the ONLY way.
>
> Experimental findings can be misinterpretations and experiment design can
> have flaws.
>
> ________________________________________
> Yes, so? Are you claiming that the thousands of experiments that confirm SR
> all have flaws? How do you explain how particle accelerators that are built
> using SR work if SR is false?

No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.


>>>
>>> _MAYBE_ intuition can _sometimes_ be a liar and a cheat, and I can think
>>> of examples where deeper study reveals a better picture.
>>>
>>>> PD
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
From: Sue... on 7 Jun 2010 02:34
On Jun 6, 10:37 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:

[...]
>
> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.

Why not look at a third school of thought?
Molecular dynamics has more than 32 screws
you can turn and the folks that know how to turn
them make a lot more money than USNO staffers.

Emergent gravity
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25.html#x34-720006.3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity

Sue...

>
>
>
> >>> _MAYBE_ intuition can _sometimes_ be a liar and a cheat, and I can think
> >>> of examples where deeper study reveals a better picture.
>
> >>>> PD
>
>

From: mpc755 on 7 Jun 2010 02:51
On Jun 7, 2:34 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:37 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>
> Why not look at a third school of thought?
> Molecular dynamics has more than 32 screws
> you can turn and the folks that know how to turn
> them make a lot more money than USNO staffers.
>
> Emergent gravityhttp://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> Sue...
>
>
>
> > >>> _MAYBE_ intuition can _sometimes_ be a liar and a cheat, and I can think
> > >>> of examples where deeper study reveals a better picture.
>
> > >>>> PD
>
>

'Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations in Curved Space and the Theory of
Gravitation
Academician A. D. Sakharov'
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~akempf/sakharov.pdf

"In Einstein’s theory of gravitation one postulates that the action of
spacetime
depends on the curvature (R is the invariant of the Ricci tensor):
The presence of the action leads to a “metrical elasticity” of space,
i.e., to generalized forces which oppose the curving of space.
Here we consider the hypothesis which identifies the action (1) with
the change in the action of quantum fluctuations of the vacuum if
space
is curved. Thus, we consider the metrical elasticity of space as a
sort of
level displacement effect."

What Sakharov is referring to is Aether Displacement.
From: mpc755 on 7 Jun 2010 02:57
On Jun 7, 2:34 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:37 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>
> Why not look at a third school of thought?
> Molecular dynamics has more than 32 screws
> you can turn and the folks that know how to turn
> them make a lot more money than USNO staffers.
>
> Emergent gravityhttp://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/articlesu25....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
>
> Sue...
>

'Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations in Curved Space
and the Theory of Gravitation
Academician A. D. Sakharov'
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~akempf/sakharov.pdf

"In Einstein’s theory of gravitation one postulates that the action of
spacetime depends on the curvature (R is the invariant of the Ricci
tensor):

S(R) = − 1/16πG (dx)√−gR.

The presence of the action leads to a “metrical elasticity” of space,
i.e., to generalized forces which oppose the curving of space. Here we
consider the hypothesis which identifies the action with the change in
the action of quantum fluctuations of the vacuum if space is curved.
Thus, we consider the metrical elasticity of space as a sort of level
displacement effect."

What Sakharov is referring to is Aether Displacement.
From: Sue... on 7 Jun 2010 04:04
On Jun 7, 3:43 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> __________________________________
>
> >> Yes, so? Are you claiming that the thousands of experiments that confirm
> >> SR all have flaws? How do you explain how particle accelerators that are
> >> built using SR work if SR is false?
>
> > No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>

==============

> I am aware of only one "school of thought".
>
> I have heard zero - lets repeat that, zero - alternative theories to SR.

Indeed. I keep my pet-rock around for exactly
that reason. I have considered a dog might
be a good alternative, but they tend to pee
on the floor at the worst possible time and
place.


<< one of Einstein's two main reasons for
abandoning special relativity as a suitable
framework for physics was the fact that, no
less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity
is based on the unjustified and epistemologically
problematical assumption of a preferred class
of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory"
exists only, aside from its historical
importance, as a convenient set of widely
applicable formulas for important limiting
cases of the general theory, but the epistemological
foundation of those formulas must be sought
in the context of the general theory.>>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

Sue...

[Hell's fire and damnation unsnipped]

> What exist by the crank-case full are theories which claim to be different
> to SR, but are in fact mathematically identical in their predictions and so
> are the same theory dressed up in different verbiage.
>
> For you to demonstrate a second "school of thought", you have to produce an
> alternative theory which has more than one or two nutcases proposing it - a
> "school" as it were, and it has to be different to SR in that it makes
> testably different predictions, and it has to explain the huge body of
> experimental evidence.
>
> This does not exist.
>
> There is no "second school of thought" with respect to the predictions of
> Special Relativity, and there is no point on hedging yourself against SR
> being wrong.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Proof that consciousness is NOT in the brain
Next: When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Re: Salt on Venus)