Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
MOVING OBSERVER TOPPLES SPECIAL RELATIVITY
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jun 17, 2012, 2:18:50 PM6/17/12
to
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened."
That is, the frequency measured at the receiver, f', is higher than f, the frequency measured at the source. The wavelength measured at the receiver, L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source. Therefore, the speed of light measured at the receiver, c', is higher than c, the speed of light measured at the source:
c' = L'f' > Lf = c
See also:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Albert Einstein Institute: "In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened."
That is, the frequency measured at the receiver, f', is higher than f, the frequency measured at the source. The wavelength measured at the receiver, L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source. Therefore, the speed of light measured at the receiver, c', is higher than c, the speed of light measured at the source:
c' = L'f' > Lf = c
See also:
http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."
http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (...) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
Jun 17, 2012, 2:31:43 PM6/17/12
to
On 6/17/12 6/17/12 1:18 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The wavelength measured at the receiver,
> L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source.
This is just plain wrong. You keep repeating this falsehood. The observations of
> The wavelength measured at the receiver,
> L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source.
annual Doppler effect prove CONCLUSIVELY that this is wrong. As do many other
observations, all of which are consistent with the predictions of SR.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Jun 17, 2012, 2:40:52 PM6/17/12
to
Don't cry, Honest Roberts. You will be awarded the title "Doctor Honoris Causa Perduta".
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 17, 2012, 3:31:20 PM6/17/12
to
Staying behind light means light and matter
are moving in the same space-time.
Mitchell Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
Jun 18, 2012, 1:31:59 PM6/18/12
to
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Doppler.html
Boston University: "The Doppler effect describes the shift in the frequency of a wave sound when the wave source and/or the receiver is moving. We'll discuss it as it pertains to sound waves, but the Doppler effect applies to any kind of wave. (...) If the observer is stationary, the frequency received by the observer is the frequency emitted by the source: observed frequency (everything stationary): f=v/(lambda) (v = speed of sound). If the observer moves toward the source at a speed vo, more waves are intercepted per second and the frequency received by the observer goes up. Effectively, the observer's motion shifts the speed at which the waves are received; it's basically a relative velocity problem. The observed frequency is given by: observed frequency, moving observer: f'=(v+vo)/(lambda)."
If vo is low enough, the above result is equally valid for light waves (as explained in textbooks, relativistic corrections are negligible): f'=(c+vo)/(lambda). Moreover, the author clearly suggests that the analysis "applies to any kind of wave". Yet the statement "the observer's motion shifts the speed at which the waves are received" is obviously fatal for Einstein's special relativity.
Let us assume that I am somewhat exaggerating and the author does not suggest that the analysis applies to light vaves. Still a huge problem remains: the correct formula f'=(c+vo)/(lambda), combined with the correct formula f'=c'/(lambda)', leads to the following reasonable conclusion:
c' = c + vo ; (lamda)' = (lamda)
If Einsteinians wish to save special relativity, they will have to extract an alternative, much more reasonable, conclusion from the correct formulas f'=(c+vo)/(lambda) and f'=c'/(lambda)'.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Boston University: "The Doppler effect describes the shift in the frequency of a wave sound when the wave source and/or the receiver is moving. We'll discuss it as it pertains to sound waves, but the Doppler effect applies to any kind of wave. (...) If the observer is stationary, the frequency received by the observer is the frequency emitted by the source: observed frequency (everything stationary): f=v/(lambda) (v = speed of sound). If the observer moves toward the source at a speed vo, more waves are intercepted per second and the frequency received by the observer goes up. Effectively, the observer's motion shifts the speed at which the waves are received; it's basically a relative velocity problem. The observed frequency is given by: observed frequency, moving observer: f'=(v+vo)/(lambda)."
If vo is low enough, the above result is equally valid for light waves (as explained in textbooks, relativistic corrections are negligible): f'=(c+vo)/(lambda). Moreover, the author clearly suggests that the analysis "applies to any kind of wave". Yet the statement "the observer's motion shifts the speed at which the waves are received" is obviously fatal for Einstein's special relativity.
Let us assume that I am somewhat exaggerating and the author does not suggest that the analysis applies to light vaves. Still a huge problem remains: the correct formula f'=(c+vo)/(lambda), combined with the correct formula f'=c'/(lambda)', leads to the following reasonable conclusion:
c' = c + vo ; (lamda)' = (lamda)
If Einsteinians wish to save special relativity, they will have to extract an alternative, much more reasonable, conclusion from the correct formulas f'=(c+vo)/(lambda) and f'=c'/(lambda)'.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 18, 2012, 2:31:56 PM6/18/12
to
by an opposite weight from a change in speed.
Mitchell Raemsch
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 18, 2012, 2:33:35 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 11:31 am, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
There is forward and backward weightedness.
wrote:
xxein
Jun 18, 2012, 7:29:14 PM6/18/12
to
dictate what I think or how I behave.
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 18, 2012, 8:21:14 PM6/18/12
to
It is called Intelligent Design.
You must be intelligent enough to see the truth...
Mitchell Raemsch
xxein
Jun 18, 2012, 10:54:44 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 8:21 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
xxein: Go find it and quit making it up. And learn the difference
between math and the physic.
wrote:
between math and the physic.
micro...@hotmail.com
Jun 18, 2012, 10:57:34 PM6/18/12
to
It is a very slow predetermined biological order.
The concept applies also to the creation of the
universe.
Mitchell Raemsch
Pentcho Valev
Jun 19, 2012, 6:01:22 PM6/19/12
to
Both the speed of light and the frequency (as measured by the observer) vary with the speed of the observer. The following video clearly shows this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
Carl Mungan is unequivocal: "...the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed (...) the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased":
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."
Clever Einsteinians know that nothing can save special relativity from the moving observer. So head in the sand is the only reasonable reaction:
http://skipper810.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/062310_1437_couldsharia1.png?w=640
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
Carl Mungan is unequivocal: "...the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed (...) the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased":
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."
Clever Einsteinians know that nothing can save special relativity from the moving observer. So head in the sand is the only reasonable reaction:
http://skipper810.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/062310_1437_couldsharia1.png?w=640
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Jun 20, 2012, 12:44:47 AM6/20/12
to
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2311eins.html
"Einstein was convinced that if a beam of light passes both the juggler at rest and the juggler in motion, each would measure the same speed for light. But how could that work? What happens to allow both jugglers to agree on the speed of light? That's when the breakthrough came. Speed is simply a measure of distance traveled in a unit of time, and Einstein realized that if the speed of light never changes, then something else must vary. What if, Einstein asked himself, the speed of light is constant, but the flow of time is not? It was an instantly radical thought. To everyone but Einstein, time was absolute, unchanging, the steady beat of the universe. The idea that the tick of time could waver was exceedingly difficult to accept, even for Einstein."
Procrusteanizing time does not solve the problem. The speed of light is, generally, "a measure of distance traveled in a unit of time", but relative to the moving observer it is the number of wavecrests passing him in a unit of time multiplied by the wavelength, that is, the frequency as measured by the observer multiplied by the wavelength:
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
Clearly the speed of light as measured by the observer is c'=c+v. If Einsteinians wish to obtain c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity, they will have to procrusteanize the wavelength, lambda, by making it a function of the speed of the observer. They would never do this explicitly - it would be too silly.
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
"Einstein was convinced that if a beam of light passes both the juggler at rest and the juggler in motion, each would measure the same speed for light. But how could that work? What happens to allow both jugglers to agree on the speed of light? That's when the breakthrough came. Speed is simply a measure of distance traveled in a unit of time, and Einstein realized that if the speed of light never changes, then something else must vary. What if, Einstein asked himself, the speed of light is constant, but the flow of time is not? It was an instantly radical thought. To everyone but Einstein, time was absolute, unchanging, the steady beat of the universe. The idea that the tick of time could waver was exceedingly difficult to accept, even for Einstein."
Procrusteanizing time does not solve the problem. The speed of light is, generally, "a measure of distance traveled in a unit of time", but relative to the moving observer it is the number of wavecrests passing him in a unit of time multiplied by the wavelength, that is, the frequency as measured by the observer multiplied by the wavelength:
http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN: No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bo-o-ohr!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
Jun 20, 2012, 1:21:42 PM6/20/12
to
On 6/19/12 6/19/12 - 5:01 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Both the speed of light and the frequency (as measured by the observer) vary
> with the speed of the observer. The following video clearly shows this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w "Fermilab
> physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
Valev has repeatedly shown that he cannot read. He now shows that he cannot
> Both the speed of light and the frequency (as measured by the observer) vary
> with the speed of the observer. The following video clearly shows this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w "Fermilab
> physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
listen, either. Dr. Eusebi never mentions or discusses "speed of the observer",
nor does he discuss the speed of the light. This video does not "show" what
Valev thinks at all.
Moreover, this video DISAGREES with Valev's central tenet that the wavelength of
light is unchanged -- for a binary system the video shows the variation in
light's WAVELENGTH as the emitting star approaches or recedes from the line of
sight. This is while discussing its frequency changing, but the figure on the
screen is CLEARLY wavelength, from a common optical spectrograph.
Dr. Eusebi understands, as does anyone who understands relativity,
that BOTH the frequency and wavelength of the light change in this
physical situation, so it does not really matter which one is
discussed.
> Carl Mungan is unequivocal: "...the wave speed is simply increased by the
> observer speed (...) the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor
> as the wave speed increased":
> http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
is clear, from his repeated mention of a MEDIUM, that he is NOT discussing
light. So this is irrelevant.
There's no point is attempting to discuss anything with Valev; this is for
people who might be taken in by his repeated nonsense.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
Jun 20, 2012, 4:28:32 PM6/20/12
to
On Jun 20, 10:21 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/19/12 6/19/12 - 5:01 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Both the speed of light and the frequency (as measured by the observer) vary
> > with the speed of the observer. The following video clearly shows this:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w "Fermilab
> > physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
>
> Valev has repeatedly shown that he cannot read. He now shows that he cannot
> listen, either. Dr. Eusebi never mentions or discusses "speed of the observer",
> nor does he discuss the speed of the light. This video does not "show" what
> Valev thinks at all.
>
> Moreover, this video DISAGREES with Valev's central tenet that the wavelength of
> light is unchanged -- for a binary system the video shows the variation in
> light's WAVELENGTH as the emitting star approaches or recedes from the line of
> sight. This is while discussing its frequency changing, but the figure on the
> screen is CLEARLY wavelength, from a common optical spectrograph.
>
> Dr. Eusebi understands, as does anyone who understands relativity...
> On 6/19/12 6/19/12 - 5:01 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> > Both the speed of light and the frequency (as measured by the observer) vary
> > with the speed of the observer. The following video clearly shows this:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w "Fermilab
> > physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
>
> Valev has repeatedly shown that he cannot read. He now shows that he cannot
> listen, either. Dr. Eusebi never mentions or discusses "speed of the observer",
> nor does he discuss the speed of the light. This video does not "show" what
> Valev thinks at all.
>
> Moreover, this video DISAGREES with Valev's central tenet that the wavelength of
> light is unchanged -- for a binary system the video shows the variation in
> light's WAVELENGTH as the emitting star approaches or recedes from the line of
> sight. This is while discussing its frequency changing, but the figure on the
> screen is CLEARLY wavelength, from a common optical spectrograph.
>
Did you see the part about the principle of equivalence? So, gravity
bends light because of the accelerated box plus the principle of
equivalence. Well, the same goes for non-accelerated, constant moving
box. This is a blatant misapplication to the principle of
equivalence. <shrug>
What a bunch of alchemists educating the next generations of bozos!
<shrug>
** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION
<shrug>
Dirk Van de moortel
Jun 20, 2012, 5:05:37 PM6/20/12
to
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Et-dnUmmLJY...@giganews.com
I don't think that Valev even cares about physics anymore.
The only thing he seems to care about, is Annoying The Shit Out Of You.
Same goes for most other regular trolls here.
Boring.
Dirk Vdm
Et-dnUmmLJY...@giganews.com
The only thing he seems to care about, is Annoying The Shit Out Of You.
Same goes for most other regular trolls here.
Boring.
Dirk Vdm
Alfonso
Jun 21, 2012, 9:29:50 AM6/21/12
to
philosophical.
According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by a
cause and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be
considered acceptable science.
An observer changes his speed and detects an immediate change in
frequency of light or a change in the interval between a series of light
pulses. Under classical philosophy there has to be a process and a cause
to bring about that change and as the spacing (either wavelength or
space between pulses) was determined some time in the past when the
light left the source there is no plausible causal sequence whereby it
can change. Under classical philosophy cause must precede effect so you
cannot change something which has already happened. Thus under classical
philosophy the change in frequency can only be due to a change in speed
of the light w.r.t the observer. One is forced by the discipline of
classical philosophy to seek a plausible causal explanation. Such a
conclusion is consistent with both emission theory and LET. LET is a
theory which conforms to classical philosophy. It accepts that something
which has already happened cannot be changed so the change must be
because of a change in relative speed w.r.t the light. It is consistent
with relativity in that it explains why that change is not observed
because of the transform of the measuring apparatus.
Although TR doesn't really understand, or fully accept the philosophical
basis of the physics he is defending he wishes to establish his
credentials as a true defender of the faith. The new philosophy,
introduced in around 1920, without debate, denies the classical
philosophical law of causality. According to the new philosophy the
wavelength can change without any cause and without any physical process.
"Causality is NOT abandoned by physics. Strict, time-ordered
deterministic causality through a unique set of physical states is
abandoned." PD
The wavelength will change because the mathematical formulation requires
it to change. The cause (in the PD sense) is that you have changed your
speed. This effects what *happened* (in the past) at the source when the
light *was* emitted.
"Time-ordered causality is abandoned" - i.e. the effect can precede the
cause.
"Strict, deterministic causality through a unique set of physical states
is abandoned." PD
Means that theory does not require that there is a plausible physical
process whereby your change in speed can have an effect some distance
away and in the past. According to the new philosophy reality is deemed
to be beyond the human mind and you are forbidden to look for "what is
actually happening". You should look only towards the maths. It is not a
requirement that the maths describe something which makes sense only
that it gives accurate predictions.
I don't know where TR got this quote from:
"...the most that human beings can aspire to is to make models of the
world -- we can never actually "know" what Nature herself is really
doing. We can only make models and test them, which is known as
science." Tom Roberts
But he clearly doesn't understand or accept the full implications of
what is an extreme philosophy. It says that any understanding you think
you have about nature must be dismissed - the cat must be both alive and
dead up until the time the box is opened. Our understanding of reality
cannot be allowed to inhibit the maths. The maths must be assumed to
have but one interpretation so that physicist can say "The maths shows
that....."
I cannot accept a philosophy which won't even accept the possibility
that the human mind is capable of some understanding of reality. That
cannot accept that the maths may have more than one interpretation and
that science is more than maths. I reject the philosophy because a
wealth of human understanding indicates that a cat is either dead or
alive. That the maths has an alternative valid interpretation that it
represents our knowledge about the state of the cat not the state of the
cat itself. If this is true of the cat then it is true throughout
physics. Any mathematical formulation may have more than one
interpretation and the only way of deciding which is by trying to
understand reality - an anathema to the mathematicians who dominate
physics.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Big Dog
Jun 21, 2012, 9:47:06 AM6/21/12
to
On Jun 21, 8:29 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>
> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
> philosophical.
>
> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by a
> cause and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be
> considered acceptable science.
>
Which puts philosophy above science so far that a particular
>
> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
> philosophical.
>
> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by a
> cause and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be
> considered acceptable science.
>
philosophy DEFINES the activity of science. Which, in my humble
opinion, is complete and total bullshit. It says that BY DEFINITION
science cannot entertain a different philosophical assumption, because
if it doesn't adhere to this philosophical assumption, it ain't
science. It's saying that a cart can't be a cart unless it is pulled
by a horse, and that a cart pulled by an ox can't be called a cart.
Sorry, but I just don't buy it as anything other than a pretty, foil-
wrapped manipulation to try to FORCE science to classical postulates.
Scientists ain't going to respond well to that kind of manipulation.
Pentcho Valev
Jun 21, 2012, 9:24:34 AM6/21/12
to
http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2008/managed/physics11/documents/Lecture5-11.pdf
"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! Gravitational Redshift of Light. In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."
The frequency as measured by the receiver is f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2) but what are the measured speed of the light, c', and the measured wavelength, L' (c and L are speed and wavelength as measured by both the transmitter and the freely falling observer)? Newton's emission theory of light says:
c' = c - v = c(1-gh/c^2) ; L' = L
Einsteinians fiercely reject the emission theory's predictions but never give the Einsteinian predictions for c' and L'. Why don't you give them, Einsteinians? c' = ? L' = ?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! Gravitational Redshift of Light. In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."
The frequency as measured by the receiver is f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2) but what are the measured speed of the light, c', and the measured wavelength, L' (c and L are speed and wavelength as measured by both the transmitter and the freely falling observer)? Newton's emission theory of light says:
c' = c - v = c(1-gh/c^2) ; L' = L
Einsteinians fiercely reject the emission theory's predictions but never give the Einsteinian predictions for c' and L'. Why don't you give them, Einsteinians? c' = ? L' = ?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
Jun 22, 2012, 12:59:55 AM6/22/12
to
On 6/21/12 6/21/12 8:29 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 17/06/12 19:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/17/12 6/17/12 1:18 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> The wavelength measured at the receiver,
>>> L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source.
>>
>> This is just plain wrong. You keep repeating this falsehood. The
>> observations of annual Doppler effect prove CONCLUSIVELY that this is
>> wrong. As do many other observations, all of which are consistent with
>> the predictions of SR.
>
> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
> philosophical.
You are also wrong. Valev keeps repeating mistakes of FACT. And, as I say, keeps
> On 17/06/12 19:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/17/12 6/17/12 1:18 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> The wavelength measured at the receiver,
>>> L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source.
>>
>> This is just plain wrong. You keep repeating this falsehood. The
>> observations of annual Doppler effect prove CONCLUSIVELY that this is
>> wrong. As do many other observations, all of which are consistent with
>> the predictions of SR.
>
> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
> philosophical.
showing that he can neither read nor listen, which compounds his confusion.
> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by a cause
> and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be considered acceptable
> science.
particular, we now recognize that since simultaneity is not absolute, neither
are "the past" and "the future" of any given event. So your "preceded by a
cause" MUST be modified. There is no way around that, within science. Relativity
has a self-consistent notion of causal ordering that is DIFFERENT from what you
implicitly assume.
> An observer changes his speed and detects an immediate change in frequency of
> light or a change in the interval between a series of light pulses. Under
> classical philosophy there has to be a process and a cause to bring about that
> change and as the spacing (either wavelength or space between pulses) was
> determined some time in the past when the light left the source there is no
> plausible causal sequence whereby it can change.
between pulses are "things". But is is QUITE CLEAR that they ARE NOT THINGS,
they are relationships (between successive wavecrests or pulses).
In SR and GR there is a clear and direct relationship involved, which with only
modest violence to the language could be called "a cause" -- the orientation in
spacetime of the observer's clock changed when the observer changed speed, and
this change in orientation directly implies a change in the measured time
interval between wavecrests or pulses.
That is, the frequency of light and the interval between pulses is NOT
"determined some time in the past when the light left the source" -- those are
RELATIONSHIPS between the light and the clock doing the measuring. The LIGHT is
indeed determined when it left the source, but those INTERVALS are not.
> Under classical philosophy
> cause must precede effect so you cannot change something which has already
> happened. Thus under classical philosophy the change in frequency can only be
> due to a change in speed of the light w.r.t the observer.
and the light being measured could also do so. Your attempt to argue from
exhaustive enumeration fails, because you did not consider all possibilities.
> [... further repetitions of the same basic errors]
You included this quintessentially stupid remark:
> The wavelength will change because the mathematical formulation requires it to change.
You REALLY need to learn what science actually is. You are hopelessly lost. And
you are NOT using "classical philosophy", you are "using" notions of your own
making that are seriously self-inconsistent. This is not an issue of
"philosophy", it is within the domain of physics, but you do not understand
that. To do so, you must study modern physics, nothing less will do.
Tom Roberts
donsto...@hotmail.com
Jun 23, 2012, 1:03:09 AM6/23/12
to
10 2 + 2 = 5 GO TO 10
Have a nice eternity.
Alfonso
Jun 24, 2012, 4:57:57 PM6/24/12
to
On 22/06/12 05:59, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 6/21/12 6/21/12 8:29 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> On 17/06/12 19:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 6/17/12 6/17/12 1:18 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>> The wavelength measured at the receiver,
>>>> L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source.
>>>
>>> This is just plain wrong. You keep repeating this falsehood. The
>>> observations of annual Doppler effect prove CONCLUSIVELY that this is
>>> wrong. As do many other observations, all of which are consistent with
>>> the predictions of SR.
>>
>> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
>> philosophical.
>
> You are also wrong. Valev keeps repeating mistakes of FACT. And, as I
> say, keeps showing that he can neither read nor listen, which compounds
> his confusion.
>
>
>> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by
>> a cause
>> and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be considered
>> acceptable
>> science.
>
> We have since learned limits to this,
This is where you have it completely wrong. It might be the spin version
> On 6/21/12 6/21/12 8:29 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> On 17/06/12 19:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 6/17/12 6/17/12 1:18 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>>> The wavelength measured at the receiver,
>>>> L', is equal to L, the wavelength measured at the source.
>>>
>>> This is just plain wrong. You keep repeating this falsehood. The
>>> observations of annual Doppler effect prove CONCLUSIVELY that this is
>>> wrong. As do many other observations, all of which are consistent with
>>> the predictions of SR.
>>
>> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
>> philosophical.
>
> You are also wrong. Valev keeps repeating mistakes of FACT. And, as I
> say, keeps showing that he can neither read nor listen, which compounds
> his confusion.
>
>
>> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by
>> a cause
>> and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be considered
>> acceptable
>> science.
>
> We have since learned limits to this,
in text books but nothing was "learned" it was a simple decision to
abandon the constraints of classical philosophy in favour of the new
philosophy.
and additional ramifications. In
> particular, we now recognize that since simultaneity is not absolute,
be acceptable under classical philosophy because it lacks the causality
of Lorentz's theory. Einstein objected to the "theoretical structure" of
Lorentz's theory i.e. the causal process, and totally failed to find a
viable replacement for it while vaguely talking about an aether without
the immobility of Lorentz's (1920). It is the new philosophy which came
to his rescue as it not only does not require such explanations but does
not allow them. The mathematics must not be allowed to be restrained by
our concepts of "reality". It only requires mathematical formulation -
So Lorentz's maths becomes Einstein's Theory - "Theory" having been
redefines as a mathematical formulation. "understanding" replaced by
"correct prediction".
Maxwell's theory used to be a wave in aether theory it is now Maxwell's
wave equations. What physically the "waves" consist of is no longer an
acceptable question.
>
>> An observer changes his speed and detects an immediate change in
>> frequency of
>> light or a change in the interval between a series of light pulses. Under
>> classical philosophy there has to be a process and a cause to bring
>> about that
>> change and as the spacing (either wavelength or space between pulses) was
>> determined some time in the past when the light left the source there
>> is no
>> plausible causal sequence whereby it can change.
> You are implicitly ASSUMING that that the frequency of light and the
> interval between pulses are "things". But is is QUITE CLEAR that they
> ARE NOT THINGS, they are relationships (between successive wavecrests or
> pulses).
light pulses set out the distance between them is fixed unless they
change their speed so under classical philosophy one would have to
propose a physical mechanism which caused them to change their speed
once launched in order for an explanation involving a change in spacing
to be acceptable. The new philosophy has no problem with such things as
the history of the light since it left the source is determined by the
act of detecting them. They have had the new wavelength since they left
the source. Such does not violate the laws of mathematics.
>
> In SR and GR there is a clear and direct relationship involved, which
> with only modest violence to the language could be called "a cause" --
> the orientation in spacetime of the observer's clock changed when the
> observer changed speed, and this change in orientation directly implies
> a change in the measured time interval between wavecrests or pulses.
order to represent their work to the public and lesser physicists those
concerned have to present it in words. What has grown up is a wealth of
pseudo-physical descriptions which are simply labels attached to the
maths process such as "curved space". No one at the higher levels of
physics really believes there is "something" "out there" which is
"curved" which "causes" things to change direction but it gives physics
a comforting façade as most people see the idea of causality as a
natural law based on our perception of reality rather than a
philosophical assumption.
>
> That is, the frequency of light and the interval between pulses is NOT
> "determined some time in the past when the light left the source" --
> those are RELATIONSHIPS between the light and the clock doing the
> measuring. The LIGHT is indeed determined when it left the source, but
> those INTERVALS are not.
"The LIGHT is indeed determined when it left the source" actually
*mean*. It is at best bad English.
The interval is the time between one wavecrest and the next or between
one pulse and the next. Speed = distance/time so the time interval
between one pulse and the next is the distance between them (wave crests
or pulses) divided by the speed. If the relationship between the clock
and the light changes, i.e. if the speed changes the time interval will
change. Frequency = 1/time so the frequency will change.
How can you changing you speed change the relationship between one light
pulse and the next?
Under Classical philosophy it can't - there is a lack of causality, of
plausible physical process. Under the new philosophy you can assume what
you like. "you have moved from one FoR where the spacing was x and
always was to a FoR where it is y and always was" where the history of
the light you are seeing is re-written. That is simply a description of
the maths. What the maths is describing in terms of the real physical
universe is not now any business of physicists. Reality is beyond the
human mind - forget it and stick to the maths.
>
>
>> Under classical philosophy
>> cause must precede effect so you cannot change something which has
>> already
>> happened. Thus under classical philosophy the change in frequency can
>> only be
>> due to a change in speed of the light w.r.t the observer.
>
> This is just not true.
I'm sorry but it is under classical philosophy my statement is correct.
>
>> Under classical philosophy
>> cause must precede effect so you cannot change something which has
>> already
>> happened. Thus under classical philosophy the change in frequency can
>> only be
>> due to a change in speed of the light w.r.t the observer.
>
> This is just not true.
A change in the relationship between the
> measuring clock and the light being measured could also do so.
other change in relationship have you in mind? What the maths describes
is a change in the history of the light. Or a change in the relationship
of one light pulse to another not a change in the relationship between
the clock and the light. You tied yourself in knots once before on this
simply because part of you thinks classically while what you are
defending only makes sense under the new philosophy.
Your
> attempt to argue from exhaustive enumeration fails, because you did not
> consider all possibilities.
have been brought up with you are not allowed to provide an explanation
of the reality the maths is describing - "reality is beyond the human
mind" so you can speculate that there is some other way in which the
relationship between the clock and the light could change which we do
not and cannot understand. Classical philosophy does not accept that. It
demands an explanation in terms of cause, effect and plausible physical
process - or an acceptance that we do not yet have an acceptable theory.
>
>
> > [... further repetitions of the same basic errors]
>
> You included this quintessentially stupid remark:
>> The wavelength will change because the mathematical formulation
>> requires it to change.
do *not* have a proper understanding of the nature of modern physics.
Mathematics which gives accurate prediction not explanations, not
understanding. Such things were required in classical philosophy but not
in Kant's philosophy.
I challenged you to find me a modern - mainstream physics author of note
who did not accept that Schrodinger's cat has to be both dead and alive
up until the moment the box is opened. Your failure to understand the
fundamental nature of modern physics is shown by your belief that the
cat cannot be both alive and dead and that it is silly to assume so. You
question the mathematical interpretation because you have personal
knowledge about what a cat is and what life and death consists of. But
that is your "understanding of reality" and the philosophy says reality
is beyond the human mind so one must ignore it and only trust the maths.
The maths allows the cat to be both alive and dead - so one must accept
that it is so. Otherwise you can legitimately question other maths. e.g.
An electron is not a fuzzy object as described by the maths but a very
precise object - the maths describes our uncertainty as to where it is.
A photon does not - as physics today claims - set out in all possible
directions and arrive at only one (or be created there by being
detected) it sets out in one direction and the maths reflects our
uncertainty as to which.
Alfonso
Jun 25, 2012, 5:06:16 AM6/25/12
to
On 21/06/12 14:47, Big Dog wrote:
> On Jun 21, 8:29 am, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>>
>> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
>> philosophical.
>>
>> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by a
>> cause and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be
>> considered acceptable science.
>>
>
> Which puts philosophy above science so far that a particular
> philosophy DEFINES the activity of science. Which, in my humble
> opinion, is complete and total bullshit.
I'm sorry friend but you are completely wrong. Science operates under
> On Jun 21, 8:29 am, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>>
>> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
>> philosophical.
>>
>> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by a
>> cause and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be
>> considered acceptable science.
>>
>
> Which puts philosophy above science so far that a particular
> philosophy DEFINES the activity of science. Which, in my humble
> opinion, is complete and total bullshit.
what are philosophical assumptions which define how you interpret
experiment even why you are doing experiments. The classical philosophy
underpinning most of science now appears to be an inherent part of
science but it is not. It defines what science is. What it is trying to
discover and rules about what is and what isn't acceptable.
If you are really interested
http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/
It says that BY DEFINITION
> science cannot entertain a different philosophical assumption, because
> if it doesn't adhere to this philosophical assumption, it ain't
> science. It's saying that a cart can't be a cart unless it is pulled
> by a horse, and that a cart pulled by an ox can't be called a cart.
>
> Sorry, but I just don't buy it as anything other than a pretty, foil-
> wrapped manipulation to try to FORCE science to classical postulates.
> Scientists ain't going to respond well to that kind of manipulation.
yourself - were unaware of the key role that philosophy has in science
and thought the philosophical assumptions were an inherent part of
science. When the change in the philosophical basis of physics occurred
they were unaware of the nature of the change. In 1920 a group of
influential physicists started using a different philosophy. Although
many objected to what was being said they never understood its true
nature so never really debated the real issues.
jem
Jun 25, 2012, 9:12:54 AM6/25/12
to
modern Science originated with Kant?
Where modern Science (not just Physics) has wound up (after millennia
of thoughtful consideration by thousands of Natural Philosophers right
into the 20th century) is with the recognition that all that can be
learned of the world, from an objective study of it, is WHAT the world
does (i.e., what the effects are of the world's phenomena on human
senses). The matter of HOW the world does what it does is
inaccessible, not because the human mind is /limited/ (as per
Roberts), but because there's always an /unlimited/ number of
models/interpretations/back-stories that can be invented to account
for the how the world produces its phenomena.
No aspect of the how-the-world-does-it models that you favor,
Kennaugh, nor of the models that anybody else favors, can be
objectively tested independently of the measurement predictions
themselves, and this plain-and-simple fact makes it abundantly clear
that the /objective/ knowledge provided by any scientific model simply
cannot extend beyond the predictions.
> I challenged you to find me a modern - mainstream physics author of note
> who did not accept that Schrodinger's cat has to be both dead and alive
> up until the moment the box is opened.
Mechanics (i.e., the Copenhagen interpretation). If a particular
interpretation doesn't accommodate your sensibilities, Kennaugh, then
find one that does, or invent your own, or (perish the thought) expand
your sensibilities.
jem
Jun 25, 2012, 9:48:21 AM6/25/12
to
Alfonso wrote:
> On 21/06/12 14:47, Big Dog wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 8:29 am, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
>>> philosophical.
>>>
>>> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by a
>>> cause and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be
>>> considered acceptable science.
>>>
>>
>> Which puts philosophy above science so far that a particular
>> philosophy DEFINES the activity of science. Which, in my humble
>> opinion, is complete and total bullshit.
>
> I'm sorry friend but you are completely wrong. Science operates under
> what are philosophical assumptions which define how you interpret
> experiment even why you are doing experiments.
I'm sorry friend, but you don't know what you're talking about. The
> On 21/06/12 14:47, Big Dog wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 8:29 am, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I keep trying to explain to you to that the difference between you is
>>> philosophical.
>>>
>>> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by a
>>> cause and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be
>>> considered acceptable science.
>>>
>>
>> Which puts philosophy above science so far that a particular
>> philosophy DEFINES the activity of science. Which, in my humble
>> opinion, is complete and total bullshit.
>
> I'm sorry friend but you are completely wrong. Science operates under
> what are philosophical assumptions which define how you interpret
> experiment even why you are doing experiments.
appropriate activity of Science is ANY activity that furthers the sole
goal of Science, which is to produce and test predictive theories, and
those tests involve mere comparisons of one or more numbers (the
predictions) with another set of numbers (the experimental result).
What philosophical assumptions do you think are needed, Kennaugh, to
compare 2 numbers?
Big Dog
Jun 25, 2012, 12:05:48 PM6/25/12
to
On Jun 25, 8:48 am, jem <x...@xxx.invalid> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry friend, but you don't know what you're talking about. The
> appropriate activity of Science is ANY activity that furthers the sole
> goal of Science, which is to produce and test predictive theories, and
> those tests involve mere comparisons of one or more numbers (the
> predictions) with another set of numbers (the experimental result).
> What philosophical assumptions do you think are needed, Kennaugh, to
> compare 2 numbers?
>
Hallelujah and amen.
>
> I'm sorry friend, but you don't know what you're talking about. The
> appropriate activity of Science is ANY activity that furthers the sole
> goal of Science, which is to produce and test predictive theories, and
> those tests involve mere comparisons of one or more numbers (the
> predictions) with another set of numbers (the experimental result).
> What philosophical assumptions do you think are needed, Kennaugh, to
> compare 2 numbers?
>
Science is about building models that accurately describe measurable
phenomena and allow you to make quantitative predictions in
applications not yet measured. Period, end of story.
Any bullshit about the models needing to presume time-sequential
causality are just that -- bullshit.
If a model involves causality that wanders all over the fucking place
in time, and it allows you to accurately describe measurable phenomena
and allows you to make quantitative predictions in applications not
yet measured, then that's good science, bucko.
Notwithstanding any semi-hysterical bitch-whining about "Hey, you
don't have a model that involves time-sequential causality, so you are
abandoning understanding it in terms of something physical at all!"
Tom Roberts
Jun 26, 2012, 10:48:26 AM6/26/12
to
On 6/24/12 6/24/12 - 3:57 PM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 22/06/12 05:59, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 6/21/12 8:29 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>>> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by
>>> a cause
>>> and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be considered
>>> acceptable
>>> science.
>>
>> We have since learned limits to this,
>
> This is where you have it completely wrong. It might be the spin version in text
> books but nothing was "learned" it was a simple decision to abandon the
> constraints of classical philosophy in favour of the new philosophy.
Clearly your personal prejudices prevent you from recognizing your own
> On 22/06/12 05:59, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 6/21/12 6/21/12 8:29 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>>> According to Classical philosophy (PV), an effect must be preceded by
>>> a cause
>>> and the two linked by a plausible physical process to be considered
>>> acceptable
>>> science.
>>
>> We have since learned limits to this,
>
> This is where you have it completely wrong. It might be the spin version in text
> books but nothing was "learned" it was a simple decision to abandon the
> constraints of classical philosophy in favour of the new philosophy.
ignorance. There is no point in attempting a discussion with someone who refuses
to read or think or learn. Goodbye.
Tom Roberts
0 new messages