The Symmetric Twin Paradox
in [Math]
|
Prev: Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies
Next: Ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty
From: kado on 21 Jun 2010 05:43 On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to > >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based > >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical > >>> experimentation! > >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various > >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > > these experiments were conducted. > > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether. > Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under discussion. > snip > > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts. What is important is that while physics is not about history, the historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences. 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the meanings of the words. 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are not the whole truths. 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have. Furthermore, the are: 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and situations, but not so under other conditions and situations. 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue from another. 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'. 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view. So a little language (meaning of the words), history and philosophy lesson seems to be in order. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings. Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true knowledge and understandings of the true nature and workings of the Natural universe. In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause, for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the true nature and workings of the universe. Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate truths. Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and theology The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category of physics in the old days) deal with the natural. Metaphysics address the unnatural. Theology pertains to the super natural. Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles, laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are based. The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is: Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT, occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans), and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's, the human knower's, etc.,) understanding. So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories. However, there is one very important point missed by all the ancient and modern theorists, The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g., Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac Newton) followed places the human above God and/or Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of man cannot be true. Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic. It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR plausible. All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths." There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man. Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia. D. Y. Kadoshima
From: sci.math on 21 Jun 2010 07:04 On Jun 21, 2:43 am, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to > > >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based > > >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical > > >>> experimentation! > > >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various > > >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > > > these experiments were conducted. > > > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of > > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether. > > Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments > that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are > true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether > are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under > discussion. > > > > snip > > > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the > > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled > > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in > > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and > > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts. > > What is important is that while physics is not about history, the > historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in > the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences. > > 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the > meanings of the words. > 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are > not the whole truths. > 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have. > > Furthermore, the are: > > 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and > situations, but not so under other conditions and situations. > 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue > from another. > 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more > probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'. > 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon > which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the > time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view. > > So a little language (meaning of the words), history and > philosophy lesson seems to be in order. > > Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as > distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings. > > Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true > knowledge and understandings of the true nature and > workings of the Natural universe. > > In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause, > for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that > scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the > true nature and workings of the universe. > > Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is > a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY. > > Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate > truths. > Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and > theology > The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category > of physics in the old days) deal with the natural. > Metaphysics address the unnatural. > Theology pertains to the super natural. > > Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles, > laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated > by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are > based. > > The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the > Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during > these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the > Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding > maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual > endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is: > > Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT, > occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans), > and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does > not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or > me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's, > the human knower's, etc.,) understanding. > > So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his > thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories. > > However, there is one very important point missed by all the > ancient and modern theorists, > > The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g., > Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and > Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac > Newton) followed places the human above God and/or > Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of > man cannot be true. > > Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the > of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In > other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of > schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic. > > It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the > universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the > universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a > geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric > universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human > observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is > no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on > with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR > plausible. > > All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript > titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths." > > There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that > all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and > against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man. > Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make > mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly > attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and > accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the > philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia. > > D. Y. Kadoshima Dear D. Y. Kadoshim: If what you say is true then these two websites I have linked to are twins: http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv0i http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv0i Because learning is symmetric, but why do my columns not line up perfectly? Who is keeping the knowledge out of place? Is it Google? http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv0i http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv0 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmmv http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPmm http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MPm http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-MP http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ-M http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ- http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwoQ http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RSwo http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2RS http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2R http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ2 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BDQ http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/BD http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/B http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014/ http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452014 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707457530345201 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170745753034520 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303452 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707457530345 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170745753034 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575303 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707457530 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170745753 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074575 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707457 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170745 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717074 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171707 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017170 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01717 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0171 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/017 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/01 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/0 http://www.google.com/notebook/public/ http://www.google.com/notebook/public http://www.google.com/notebook/publi http://www.google.com/notebook/publ http://www.google.com/notebook/pub http://www.google.com/notebook/pu http://www.google.com/notebook/p http://www.google.com/notebook/ http://www.google.com/notebook http://www.google.com/noteboo http://www.google.com/notebo http://www.google.com/noteb http://www.google.com/note http://www.google.com/not http://www.google.com/no http://www.google.com/n http://www.google.com/ http://www.google.com http://www.google.co http://www.google.c http://www.google. http://www.google http://www.googl http://www.goog http://www.goo http://www.go http://www.g http://www. http://www http://ww http://w http:// http:/ http: http htt ht h
From: Peter Webb on 21 Jun 2010 08:19 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:2a25798c-d697-442b-8759-1c21779569b3(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jun 19, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > news:87999400-7cac-47bc-b8c4-fe5750451eda(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > snip > > > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented > > experimentally, and > > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not > > been > > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a > > straightforward > > extension of the usual one. > > > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to > > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based > > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical > > > experimentation! > > > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm > > various > > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > these experiments were conducted. > > ___________________________________ > (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental verification of a theory > to occur *before* the theory is formulated. > > (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson Morley and the > precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the formulation of the > theories that explained them. Of course, there were also many experiments > conducted after the theories were derived, as is common in science. > > > snip > > > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been implemented > > experimentally, and > > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric twin paradox" has not > > been > > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be considered as a > > straightforward > > extension of the usual one. > > > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to > > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based > > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical > > > experimentation! > > > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm > > various > > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > these experiments were conducted. > > ___________________________________ > (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental verification of a theory > to occur *before* the theory is formulated. > > (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson Morley and the > precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the formulation of the > theories that explained them. Of course, there were also many experiments > conducted after the theories were derived, as is common in science. > So in response to your statement (b): The MMX is not really applicable to SR, because all it did was empirically demonstrate that there are no 'fringe effects of the Earth moving through the ether' on the speed of light. ________________________________ Wrong. The MMX did not demonstrate this at all. It demonstrated that either Newtonian physics or Maxwell's equations were wrong. As it turned out, it was Newtonian physics. Although the 'discovery' of the infamous '43 arc-seconds of the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury' occurred well before SR was formulate, this just pointed out that the mathematics of the Newtonian Mechanics used by Le Verrier did not agree with the so called actuals. __________________________________ Ummmm ... the precession of the perihelion of Mercury was confirmation of GR, not SR. Try and get the most basic statements as to the history and the physics correct. AFAK, no one ever ________________________________ If "AFAK" is suposed to mean "as far as you know", then we can pretty much dismiss anything you say after this point as your own private fantasy. ascertained if the actuals of Le Verrier are the true values demonstrated by Nature, especially so when the 'planet' Pluto had not yet been discovered. Furthermore, just like Halley in predicting the orbit of the comet that bears his name, Le Verrier could not have calculated in all the very small perturbations of even the major planets in a whole year, let alone the orbits of the minor plants that all play into the 'agitations of the center of mass of the Solar System'. The only thing that everyone concentrates on is the '43 arc-seconds, that is the effect, not the cause. Furthermore, this is a GR subject, and not in the context of SR. > Is there a single prediction of SR that you believe to be false, and if so > what is it? YES. The whole of the fundamental relativistic mass increase tenet of SR. _________________________________ There is no "tenet" in this area. And I actually asked for a prediction, not just something you don't understand. Mass is treated differently in SR than in Newton. In SR, mass doesn't really appear on its own, it is manifest through momentum and energy. However, the momentum of a particle of some mass m travelling at 0.9c is a lot more than the 0.9m predicted by Newton. And similarly for energy. And by exactly the amount predicted by SR, to 10 decimal places. These results are extremely well confirmed experimentally. What exactly is your problem with them?
From: cwldoc on 21 Jun 2010 09:16 > > <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > news:2a25798c-d697-442b-8759-1c21779569b3(a)i31g2000yqm. > googlegroups.com... > On Jun 19, 6:51 pm, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:87999400-7cac-47bc-b8c4-fe5750451eda(a)s9g2000yqd.g > ooglegroups.com... > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > snip > > > > > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been > implemented > > > experimentally, and > > > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric > twin paradox" has not > > > been > > > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be > considered as a > > > straightforward > > > extension of the usual one. > > > > > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize > and be able to > > > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and > GR are based > > > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based > on empirical > > > > experimentation! > > > > > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of > experiments that confirm > > > various > > > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian > mechanics. > > > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were > formulated before > > these experiments were conducted. > > > > ___________________________________ > > (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental > verification of a theory > > to occur *before* the theory is formulated. > > > > (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson > Morley and the > > precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the > formulation of the > > theories that explained them. Of course, there were > also many experiments > > conducted after the theories were derived, as is > common in science. > > > > > > > snip > > > > > In this case, the usual "twin paradox" has been > implemented > > > experimentally, and > > > the result is as predicted by SR. The "symmetric > twin paradox" has not > > > been > > > implemented experimentally AFAIK, but can be > considered as a > > > straightforward > > > extension of the usual one. > > > > > > Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize > and be able to > > > > accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and > GR are based > > > > on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based > on empirical > > > > experimentation! > > > > > This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of > experiments that confirm > > > various > > > predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian > mechanics. > > > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were > formulated before > > these experiments were conducted. > > > > ___________________________________ > > (a) Irrelevant. There is no need for experimental > verification of a theory > > to occur *before* the theory is formulated. > > > > (b) Incorrect. At least two experiments - Michelson > Morley and the > > precession of Mercury - were conducted prior to the > formulation of the > > theories that explained them. Of course, there were > also many experiments > > conducted after the theories were derived, as is > common in science. > > > > So in response to your statement (b): > > The MMX is not really applicable to SR, because all > it did was > empirically demonstrate that there are no 'fringe > effects of the > Earth moving through the ether' on the speed of > light. > > ________________________________ > Wrong. The MMX did not demonstrate this at all. It > demonstrated that either > Newtonian physics or Maxwell's equations were wrong. > As it turned out, it > was Newtonian physics. > > > Although the 'discovery' of the infamous '43 > arc-seconds of the > precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury' > occurred > well before SR was formulate, this just pointed out > that the > mathematics of the Newtonian Mechanics used by Le > Verrier > did not agree with the so called actuals. > > __________________________________ > Ummmm ... the precession of the perihelion of Mercury > was confirmation of > GR, not SR. Try and get the most basic statements as > to the history and the > physics correct. > > > AFAK, no one ever > ________________________________ > If "AFAK" is suposed to mean "as far as you know", > then we can pretty much > dismiss anything you say after this point as your own > private fantasy. > > ascertained if the actuals of Le Verrier are the true > values > demonstrated by Nature, especially so when the > 'planet' Pluto > had not yet been discovered. Furthermore, just like > Halley in > predicting the orbit of the comet that bears his > name, Le Verrier > could not have calculated in all the very small > perturbations of > even the major planets in a whole year, let alone the > orbits of > the minor plants that all play into the 'agitations > of the center of > mass of the Solar System'. The only thing that > everyone > concentrates on is the '43 arc-seconds, that is the > effect, not > the cause. Furthermore, this is a GR subject, and not > in the > context of SR. > > > Is there a single prediction of SR that you believe > to be false, and if so > > what is it? > > YES. The whole of the fundamental relativistic mass > increase > tenet of SR. > > _________________________________ > There is no "tenet" in this area. And I actually > asked for a prediction, not > just something you don't understand. > > Mass is treated differently in SR than in Newton. In > SR, mass doesn't really > appear on its own, it is manifest through momentum > and energy. > > However, the momentum of a particle of some mass m > travelling at 0.9c is a > lot more than the 0.9m predicted by Newton. And > similarly for energy. And by > exactly the amount predicted by SR, to 10 decimal > places. > > These results are extremely well confirmed > experimentally. > > What exactly is your problem with them? > > Everything you say makes sense, but why waste your time arguing with someone who has no interest in learning the truth? You might as well be having a discussion with a drunk! Of course, in this case it is not a drunk, but rather somebody who suffers from a paranoid disorder!
From: train on 21 Jun 2010 17:47
On Jun 21, 2:43 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > On Jun 19, 6:22 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > k...(a)nventure.com wrote: > > > On Jun 18, 8:45 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>> Nevertheless, what you do not seem to realize and be able to > > >>> accept is that the whole of Einstein's SR and GR are based > > >>> on gedankens, and not a bit of these are based on empirical > > >>> experimentation! > > >> This is WILDLY untrue. There are HUNDREDS of experiments that confirm various > > >> predictions of SR, and directly refute Newtonian mechanics. > > > > I hope you understand that both SR and GR were formulated before > > > these experiments were conducted. > > > That does not matter. This is PHYSICS, not history. And Einstein did know of > > several experiments that were inconsistent with the then-current notions of aether. > > Whether Einstein did or did not know that there were experiments > that were inconsistant with the then prevailing ideas of ether are > true or not is not important, because then-current notions of ether > are of no relevance (i.e., do not apply) to the paradox under > discussion. > > > > snip > > > Writings in ancient texts are IRRELEVANT. What matters in physics is the > > correspondence between theory and experiment. Ancient texts have been boiled > > down to the essential theory underlying them; this is usually necessary in > > science. Science is the formulation of models of nature, and refining and > > improving them via experiments; it is NOT the study of ancient texts. > > What is important is that while physics is not about history, the > historical progression of what is considered the truth is crucial in > the understanding of the Natural universe and the sciences. > > 1. The first step to knowledge and the truths is understanding the > meanings of the words. > 2. The truths you can put in words and pictures (and numbers) are > not the whole truths. > 3. To find the truths, you must first verify the ones you have. > > Furthermore, the are: > > 1 Conditional truths, that are true under some conditions and > situations, but not so under other conditions and situations. > 2. Relative truths that are true from one point of view, but untrue > from another. > 3. Generalized truths that are statistically (mathematically) more > probable to be true than not, and/or 'educated guess'. > 4. The fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon > which all the other truths are based, and that are true all the > time, underr all conditions, regardless of the point of view. > > So a little language (meaning of the words), history and > philosophy lesson seems to be in order. > > Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the truths, as > distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandings. > > Physics is that branch of science that pursues the true > knowledge and understandings of the true nature and > workings of the Natural universe. > > In other words; you have mistaken the effect with the cause, > for theorems and empirical experiments are the means that > scientists employ to reach the goals of understanding the > true nature and workings of the universe. > > Furthermore. in the sphere of intellectual endeavors, there is > a category that sits above the sciences. PHILOSOPHY. > > Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, reality, and the ultimate > truths. > Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics, and > theology > The sciences (all the sciences were bunched into the category > of physics in the old days) deal with the natural. > Metaphysics address the unnatural. > Theology pertains to the super natural. > > Therefore the validity of all theories, hypotheses, principles, > laws, maxims, etc., and even the notion of a truth is dictated > by the verity of the philosophy upon which these ideas are > based. > > The ancient Greeks formulated many philosophies, e.g., the > Philosophies of Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during > these very early days, long before even Aristotle, that the > Philosophy of Idealism became the dominate and guiding > maxim to follow and obey for almost all human intellectual > endeavors. The fundamental tenet of this philosophy is: > > Since every phenomenon, object, entity, body, thing, EVENT, > occurrence, etc., exists only in the mind of man (i.e., humans), > and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the universe does > not exist except as the perception of human (i.e., my, and/or > me myself and I, the human observer's, the human looker's, > the human knower's, etc.,) understanding. > > So Einstein always incorporated a human observer in all his > thoughts, gedankens, ideas, etc., and theories. > > However, there is one very important point missed by all the > ancient and modern theorists, > > The Philosophy of Idealism that all the notable theorist (e.g., > Aristotle, Leibniz, Descartes, Einstein and even Hawking and > Thorne, with the exception of Galileo Galilei and Issac > Newton) followed places the human above God and/or > Nature! Therefore this philosophy devised by the arrogance of > man cannot be true. > > Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism really distorts the > of concept of reality and what is real and what is not. In > other words; this philosophy is better suited for the worlds of > schizophrenia than the realm of rational thinking and logic. > > It is this false philosophy that Einstein followed. So the > universe of SR and GR turned out to be very similar to the > universe of Ptolemy, except that rather than being a > geocentric universe, Einstein's is a human being centric > universe. However, as there is no privileged individual human > observer, Einstein had to come up with the idea that there is > no preferred point of view or frame of reference, and on and on > with more and more gloobidy goop to make SR and GR > plausible. > > All this is much better covered in my copyrighted manuscript > titled: "The Search for Reality and the Truths." > > There is one thing I would like to add at this time. I wish that > all the contributors of this thread on both camps i.e., for and > against SR would just light up. Einstein was not an evil man. > Nor did try to pull a hoax on society. However he did make > mistakes. His greatest mistake was not the idea commonly > attributed to him, but it was placing greater credence in, and > accepting the Philosophies of Idealism and Leibniz over the > philosophy presented by Isaac Newton in Book 3 of Principia. > > D. Y. Kadoshima That could be true, after all its a tool for understanding the universe, especially a home -made tool...it`s all philosophy after all. |