SILENT PHILOSOPHERS OF SCIENCE
Pentcho Valev
4,853 subscribers, the following quotation:
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0911&L=philos-l&T=0&O=D&P=50126
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78.
"The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology
not only in the profession of physics but also in the philosophy of
science."
Philosophers of science remained silent. For the sake of argument, let
us assume that they possess dignity which prevents them from
discussing Peter Hayes quoted by Pentcho Valev. The assumption is
wrong. In 2001 Jos Uffink, an influential philosopher of science,
published a text equivalent to "The triumph of thermodynamics
represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of
physics but also in the philosophy of science":
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."
For eight years no philosopher of science has discussed or even
referred to this text. Uffink himself seems to have forgotten it
completely. Another influential philosopher of science, John Norton,
published texts which, combined with a few other texts, suggest that
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate has in fact killed theoretical
physics. Other philosophers of science remained silent:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an
emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to
be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state
in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT,
ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of
objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memoriam/Einstein/Einstein_pdf/Einstein_eloge.pdf
Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait
expulsée de la théorie de la Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une
"théorie du champ" où le rayonnement était représenté par une
répartition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment
au cours du temps sans qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les
domaines spatiaux au sein desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très
petites régions singulières où le champ serait très fortement
concentré et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce
caractère à la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait
prendre une forme très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ
lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ
électromagnétique."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
Recently John Norton suggested that the conclusion that the separation
between past, present and future is an illusion, a conclusion directly
following from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, should be
abandoned. Other philosophers of science remained silent:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232009/einstein_lessons_dj_6-22-09.php
"For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert
Einstein
http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141509987
Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
times a day from ordinary comings and goings."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of
physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely
an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward
fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to
capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know
what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no
sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein,
Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful
conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and
later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we
cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the
presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all
centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems
like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our
best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important
properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less
worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented
believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that
we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time
gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....Now
consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the
known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know
of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in
our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our
physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of
time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage
as an illusion."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Dirk Van de moortel
9a9fef30-2514-4172...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
> A couple of weeks ago I posted on PHILOS-L, a philosophy list with
> 4,853 subscribers, the following quotation:
>
> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0911&L=philos-l&T=0&O=D&P=50126
> Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
> Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
> 57-78.
> "The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology
> not only in the profession of physics but also in the philosophy of
> science."
>
> Philosophers of science remained silent.
So it looks like Pentcho Valev is a failed philosopher of science.
Also note that most philosophers of science are failed scientists.
Dirk Vdm
John Jones
Jesse F. Hughes
> Also note that most philosophers of science are failed scientists.
Bullshit.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I can prove that there exists an n which requires more than 10^80 bits
to name it. This n does not exist." --W. Mueckenheim
Androcles
"Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
news:87aaxlv...@phiwumbda.org...
Dork Van de merde is a failed troll.
Dirk Van de moortel
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Also note that most philosophers of science are failed scientists.
>
> Bullshit.
You're probably one of the rare exceptions.
I know of three others.
Dirk Vdm
Jesse F. Hughes
> Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
> 87aaxlv...@phiwumbda.org
>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Also note that most philosophers of science are failed scientists.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> You're probably one of the rare exceptions.
Thanks, but I'm not a philosopher of science. I wasn't speaking about
myself.
> I know of three others.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Every country has its stupid people. It just so happens that
America's stupid people are louder." -- Ling Cheung, Sociologist
Dirk Van de moortel
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Jesse F. Hughes <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message
>> 87aaxlv...@phiwumbda.org
>>> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Also note that most philosophers of science are failed scientists.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> You're probably one of the rare exceptions.
>
> Thanks, but I'm not a philosopher of science. I wasn't speaking about
> myself.
But *I* was speaking about yourself :-)
Dirk Vdm
spudnik
with such a silly notion as Minkowski's phase-space
of "time & space forevermore on an equal footing, sic/um,
because you can draw a graph with time as one axis?"
thus:
what, standard construction?... if you do
as with the trigon, cutting the edges
parallel to the facets, you get tetrahedra & octahedra
... as is wellknown to every student of Bucky Fuller
(which could just be me .-)
>http://emis.impa.br/EMIS/journals/BAG/vol.41/no.2/b41h2her.pdf
thus:
was you champion of a name-dropping proof, or have you looked
at his avowedly nonstandard approach?
I can't even vouch for Smullyan's popular books,
althoughI did develop an alternative
to his method in the Sherlock Holmes one,
re chess.
--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
spudnik
odometer, use quaternions a la Lancsoz;
thereinat, time is the "real, scalar,"
per Hamilton's coinage of vector mechanics ...
precisely the apposite of Einsiten's usage
in 4-vectors!
thus:
as I understood it, fuzzy logic is not a lot more
than the application of probability to logic;
when I stated that it "thus" could be
used as a formalism for quantum mechanics,
to a grad-student of Bart Kosko, the popularizer
of FL, it seemed to be only a matter of a half
of a year, before Kosko got a new book out to do that.
(of course, Zadeh may have created FL,
playing with Schroedinger's undead cat .-)
as for inductive versus deductive reasoning,
I only state, again & again, that *mathematically*
they are "one-to-one" or isomorphic,
as proven in a short, easy proof in *Mathematics Magazine*,
many years ago.
> Multi-valued truth is nonproductive in any particular case.
thus:
it'd be very difficult to prove that
Universe is not infinite, because
any telescope is limited in resolution etc.;
likewise, much "missing matter" is a)
the result of Einsteinmania (only using gravity), and b)
not properly sensed (infrared sensing is required
to reveal most optical data past "Z=1" -- which is,
now, beginning to be done -- and so on).
thus:
dood, see my sig -- new translations
into English of l'OEuvre.
> Dude, ever hear of Fermat's principle?
thus:
spudnik
blue points show the consolidated results from the Miller gas-mode
Michelson interferometer [8] for four months in 1925/1926, from [22].
The sequence of red points show the running daily average RA and Dec
trend line, as determined from the optical fiber interferometer data
in [17], for every 5 days, beginning September 22, 2007. The light-
blue scattered points show the RA and Dec for individual days from the
same experiment, and show significant turbulence/wave effects. The
curved plots show iso-speed ∆V∞ ‘anomalies’: for example for v = 420km/
s the RA and Dec of v for the Galileo-I flyby must lie somewhere along
the “Galileo-I 420” curve. The available spacecraft data in Table 1,
from [1], does not permit a determination of a unique v during that
flyby. In the case of‘ “Galileo-I” the curves are also shown for 420 ±
30km/s, showing the sensitivity to the range of speeds discovered in
laboratory experiments. We see that the “Galileo-I” December flyby has
possible directions that overlap with the December data from the
optical fiber interferometer, although that does not exclude other
directions, as the wave effects are known to be large. In the case of
NEAR we must have v ≥ 440km/s otherwise no fit to the NEAR ∆V∞ is
possible. This demonstrates a fluctuation in v of at least +20km/s on
that flyby day. This plot shows the remarkable concordance in speed
and direction from the laboratory techniques with the flyby technique
in measuring v, and its fluctuation charac- teristics. The upper-left
coloured disk (radius=8◦) shows concordance for September/August
interferometer data and Cassini flyby data ( MESSENGER data is outside
this region - but has very small ∆V∞ and large uncertainty), and the
same, lower disk, for December /Jan- uary/February/March data
(radius=6◦). The moving concordance effect is undertsood to be caused
by the earth’s orbit about the Sun, while the yearly average of
420±30km/s is a galaxy related velocity. Directions for each flyby v
were selected and used in Table 1.
thus:
really; must be an artifact of SF, that SR is said to have a twin
"paradox;"
the twin on the space station or Moon lives at a _____ rate -- i
forgot!
see, below, for Arindam's Cable ... which is not Sir Arthur's God-
am geosynchronous elevator!
thus quoth:
The numerous light speed anisotropy experiments have also revealed
turbulence in the velocity of the 3-space relative to the earth. This
turbulence amounts to the detection of sub-mHz gravitational waves -
which are present in the Michelson and Morley 1887 data, as discussed
in [21], and also present in the Miller data [8, 22] also using a gas-
mode Michelson interferometer, and by Torr and Kolen [12], DeWitte
[13] and Cahill [14] measuring RF speeds in coaxial cables, and by
Cahill [15] and Cahill and Stokes [17] using an optical-fiber
interferometer. The existing doppler shift data also offers a resource
to characterise this new form of gravitational waves.
thus quoth:
In the process, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke will pass into
quieted retirement, while the salvageable remains of the ruined
Federal Reserve System, are transferred to national-banking functions
which are based on the precedents of the first and second National
Bank of the United States.
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3650natl_banking.html
--l'OEuvre -- FCUK Copenhagen!
www.wlym.com
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
zzbu...@netscape.net
> A couple of weeks ago I posted on PHILOS-L, a philosophy list with
> 4,853 subscribers, the following quotation:
>
> Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait
> expulsée de la théorie de la Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une
> "théorie du champ" où le rayonnement était représenté par une
> répartition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment
> au cours du temps sans qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les
> domaines spatiaux au sein desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très
> petites régions singulières où le champ serait très fortement
> concentré et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce
> caractère à la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait
> prendre une forme très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ
> lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ
> électromagnétique."
>
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
> postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
> that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
> Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
> farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
>
> Recently John Norton suggested that the conclusion that the separation
> between past, present and future is an illusion, a conclusion directly
> following from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, should be
> abandoned. Other philosophers of science remained silent:
>
> "For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
> present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert
> Einstein
But it's so tenuous, it's also why Einstein discovered Maxwell's
Equations,
and Euclid's little book.
And real engineers discovered the Dark Side of The Moon, Laser
Disks,
GPS, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Self-Assembling Robots,
and The History Channel.
>
> http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141...
> Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
> and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
> an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
> into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
> that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
> happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
> still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
> wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
> wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
> in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
> it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
> juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
> times a day from ordinary comings and goings."
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-uni...
> of ...
>
> read more »
spudnik
that Al Gore believes in?
> But it's so tenuous, it's also why Einstein discovered Maxwell's
> Equations,
> and Euclid's little book [similarity proof of 2d pythagorean theorem].
> And real engineers discovered the Dark Side of The Moon, Laser
> Disks,
> GPS, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Self-Assembling Robots,
> and The History Channel.
> > John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of
> > physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely
> > an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward
> > fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to
> > capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know
> > what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no
> > sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein,
> > Minkowski and many more, physics...
>
> read more »
zzbu...@netscape.net
> you mean, the Pink Floyd side of Moon,
> that Al Gore believes in?
Real Engineers discoverd Day-Glo Pink, and Atomic Clock
Wristwatches,
rather than the British side of anything.
>
>
>
>
>
> > But it's so tenuous, it's also why Einstein discovered Maxwell's
> > Equations,
> > and Euclid's little book [similarity proof of 2d pythagorean theorem].
> > And real engineers discovered the Dark Side of The Moon, Laser
> > Disks,
> > GPS, Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Self-Assembling Robots,
> > and The History Channel.
> > > John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of
> > > physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely
> > > an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward
> > > fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to
> > > capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know
> > > what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no
> > > sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein,
> > > Minkowski and many more, physics...
>
> > read more »
>
> thus quoth:
> In the process, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke will pass into
> quieted retirement, while the salvageable remains of the ruined
> Federal Reserve System, are transferred to national-banking functions
> which are based on the precedents of the first and second National
> Bank of the United States.http://larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3650natl_banking.html
>
> --l'OEuvre -- FCUK Copenhagen!www.wlym.comhttp://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Jones
> expuls�e de la th�orie de la Lumi�re : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une
> "th�orie du champ" o� le rayonnement �tait repr�sent� par une
> r�partition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs �voluant contin�ment
> au cours du temps sans qu'il f�t possible de distinguer, dans les
> domaines spatiaux au sein desquels �voluait le champ lumineux, de tr�s
> petites r�gions singuli�res o� le champ serait tr�s fortement
> concentr� et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce
> caract�re � la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumi�re se trouvait
> prendre une forme tr�s pr�cise dans la th�orie de Maxwell o� le champ
> lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ