Prev: Creating motion that is relative
Next: 9-11 was an inside job, Anthropogenic Global Warming - Facts
From: Peter Webb on 6 Jun 2010 22:04

"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.



> 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.


The edge to a surface is a
> curve.

Two dimensional, three dimentional, one dimentional?/?????

______________________________________
One dimensional.


> 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.

>>
>> 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.


>>
>> 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?


>>
>> _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: Peter Webb on 7 Jun 2010 03:43
__________________________________
>> 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.
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.


From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Jun 2010 07:07
On 08/06/2010 09:18, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 07/06/2010 13:52, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/06/2010 12:36, Me, ...again! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb 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".
>>>>
>>>> Well, "Sue"....whomever she is.... brought out just a while ago this
>>>> wikipedia entry about "emergent gravity". I can't tell if its a giant
>>>> April Fools joke, a science fiction story, or what...but I've heard of
>>>> some of those names before.
>>>
>>> You don't seem able to distinguish between *special* relativity which
>>> deals only with moving frames of reference at any speed v<c and the
>>> later theory of *general* relativity which includes the additional
>>> space time effects of mass and gravity.
>>
>> This is all far beyond my original purpose of posting the book list.
>> And, I have explained what _I_ was trying to do. And, I was pleased that
>> I got my answer: there was, as I expected, a wide spectrum of responses.
>
> Not that wide. I doubt if you have enough responses to get even single
> digit statistical significance. If you do classify the responses it
> would be amusing to see how many objectors were purely anti-Semitic,
> partly anti-Semitic, anti-SR, anti-GR, anti-everything, and clueless.

Cognitive dissonance sets in with the anti-semitic pro-Einstein crowd.
Or Jewish Einstein-deniers.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Peter Webb on 8 Jun 2010 10:59

"Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006070731290.16060(a)osmium.mv.net...
>
>
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb 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".
>
> Well, "Sue"....whomever she is.... brought out just a while ago this
> wikipedia entry about "emergent gravity". I can't tell if its a giant
> April Fools joke, a science fiction story, or what...but I've heard of
> some of those names before.
>
>> I have heard zero - lets repeat that, zero - alternative theories to SR.
>> 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.
>
> They sure sound different to me, but then I'm not claiming to be an
> expert.
>

Did they produce the same mathematical results as SR? Did they propose
testable experiments which would differentiate their theory from SR?

These are the basic tests that you use to see if they really are a different
theory. Did you apply them?


>> 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
>
> Well, the two dozen books I listed means at least two dozen nutcases.
>

No, this is not two dozen nutcases who belong to some "school of thought".
These are two dozen different theories, with the only thing in common is
they believe they are right and everybody else is wrong.

So yes, there are two dozen nutcases and others (if you say so) published on
Amazon, compared to ummm how many for 9/11 are there?




> - 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.
>
> Once upon a time, everyone thought the Earth was the center of the
> universe and nutcases that disagreed were burned at the stake.
>

Well, I am unaware of that happening, but I will take your word for it.

What I can't understand is how this relates to what we are discussing. If
you have a point to make, just say it, and don't resort to some abstrous and
unclear metaphor.



>>
>>

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Creating motion that is relative
Next: 9-11 was an inside job, Anthropogenic Global Warming - Facts