Derivation Of LET
Bill Hobba
interesting: http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/index.html.
The derivation of the Lorentz transformations looks good. For those that
have been following O'Barrs writings on this matter (I have given up on
him - at least for the time being) the correct assumptions are, as this link
makes clear, L = L0 sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) and T = T0 / sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) not T = T0
sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) as O'Barr had. What O'Barr was assuming as T was the time
read on the moving clock after that length of time had passed on the
stationary clock. However this is inconsistent with the length shortening
equations which is the length a moving rod will be measured as compared to a
stationary rod. Thus the time transformation equations will be the time the
moving clock measures compared to one that is stationary ie the ratio of
their time; exactly as I posted before O'Barr made it plain he was not
considering the usual definition of the transformed time.
As I have previously said O'Barrs derivation looked OK up until the proving
of the measured speed of light being the same - but his unusual use of the
transformed time made it hard for me to follow. This proof however looks a
lot better.
Of course it goes without saying I do not believe in LET or an aether of any
sort - I post this purely so we have a reference point for discussing LET.
Thanks
Bill
FrediFizzx
news:40661...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Thanks, Bill. This does look like a good reference point for discussing
LET. I suppose the main philosophical issue between LET and SR is the case
of absolute time. Is there a Universal clock that would be "keeping" this
absolute time? If so what could it be? In the case of a medium, could the
local motion of the medium be defining a Universal clock? That is the same
everywhere in the Universe. However, the concept of absolute time seems to
be contrary to QM. For me, time is just an artifact of comparing one
objects motion to another's. So I don't really see a need for absolute
time.
FrediFizzx
Martin Hogbin
> interesting: http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/index.html.
The first two sentences of the introduction say it all as far as
I am concerned. It is the standard LET nonsense.
'The equations of the theory of relativity have been verified by
experiment, and are therefore valid beyond question. But this
does not prove that the theory is true'.
Martin Hogbin
Bill Hobba
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c45civ$2fkkg3$1...@ID-185976.news.uni-berlin.de...
Freddi your preaching to the converted.
Thanks
Bill
Gerald L. O'Barr
Bill Hobba <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Those that are interested in the logical basis
> of LET may find the following interesting:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/index.html.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Once we reject SR philosophy, and adopt the LET
approach, we will all be able to see many interesting
things. But most articles are not good science, and
even though I have not looked at this reference, I
would suggest that until professional, reviewed
articles begin to be written, I would treat all
articles, even my own, very carefully. We all can
make mistakes.
Hobba wrote:
>The derivation of the Lorentz transformations looks
>good. For those that have been following O'Barrs
>writings on this matter (I have given up on
>him - at least for the time being) the correct
>assumptions are, as this link makes clear, L = L0
>sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) and T = T0 / sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) not T =
>T0 sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) as O'Barr had. What O'Barr was
>assuming as T was the time read on the moving clock
>after that length of time had passed on the
>stationary clock. However this is inconsistent with
>the length shortening equations which is the length
>a moving rod will be measured as compared to a
>stationary rod. Thus the time transformation
>equations will be the time the moving clock measures
>compared to one that is stationary ie the ratio of
>their time; exactly as I posted before O'Barr made
>it plain he was not considering the usual definition
>of the transformed time.
O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, Hobba. I did not make any mistakes.
Let us go over again what was done. In order to
understand LET, you must first determine what
physically occurs. This, at first, has nothing at
all to do with Lorentz transforms. But you must
first understand what physically occurs before you
can derive the transforms. Don't you understand the
simplest things?
So what does happen? Physically, in the ether,
rulers shorten and clocks run slow as they move in
the ether. The correct way to show these physical
changes is L (the real length of a moving ruler)(as
measured by those at rest in the ether) = q*Lo, and
t (the real time changes or rate of a moving clock)
(as measured by those at rest in the ether) = q*to.
( q = SQRT(1-V^2/C^2) )
Let me say this again: You must first come to
know all of this before you can begin to derive the
transforms. And if you say you cannot agree with
these relationships, then you do not understand LET.
Therefore, those who do have motion in the ether,
will make their measurement grids using short rulers
and clocks with slow rates. At this point, then you
can consider what the transforms might be.
Hobba wrote:
>As I have previously said O'Barrs derivation looked
>OK up until the proving of the measured speed of
>light being the same - but his unusual use of the
>transformed time made it hard for me to follow.
>This proof however looks a lot better.
O'Barr comments:
I does not matter how good it looks. It has to be
correct.
Hobba wrote:
>Of course it goes without saying I do not believe in
>LET or an aether of any sort - I post this purely so
>we have a reference point for discussing LET.
O'Barr comments:
The reference point already existed. I am sorry
that you missed it.
To help, we do need to be able to refer to
variables that are measured in the ether frame (which
variables would be what was really occurring), from
variables measured within a different (moving) frame,
which measurements are only apparent. (Measurements
are always real, but the values obtained, using tools
that have been changed, are not, usually, the actual
or real values.) Also, we need, just as in SR, to
have what they have, in terms of exchanges of
measurement variables between any two arbitrary
frames. So LET has one layer deeper reality than SR,
and no formal way has yet been assigned to represent this
in our literature. Therefore, Hobba, you should be
aware of this, and make an effort to see for sure how
any one person has approached this in their article.
You ought to take what I wrote, and re-do it using
variables having clearer representation. That would
be useful to all of us, would it not? As a start to
this, look below.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
(One possible example:
L(e) = q(e)*Lo .
Here, the '(e)' after the L would mean or
indicate that this L is a real true physical value or
measurement, a measurement that would or could be
made by those at rest in the ether, using tools that
are at rest in the ether, etc. And a q(e) would be a
q using an absolute velocity, not just a relative
velocity, etc. But until more is considered, there
might be better ways than this.)
In a day or so, if you do not beat me to it, I
will redo this post using a more formal variable
format, just to see if it helps.
Robert J. Kolker
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> Once we reject SR philosophy, and adopt the LET
> approach, we will all be able to see many interesting
> things. But most articles are not good science, and
> even though I have not looked at this reference, I
> would suggest that until professional, reviewed
> articles begin to be written, I would treat all
> articles, even my own, very carefully. We all can
> make mistakes.
Challange. Show how to combine LET with quantum theory to produce
quantum electrodynamics. No hand waving now. Do the math.
Bob Kolker
Bilge
Gerald L. O'Barr
Robert J. Kolker <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Challange. Show how to combine LET with
>quantum theory to produce quantum electrodynamics.
>No hand waving now. Do the math.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Sounds worthwhile. But why don't you simply show
us how SR does all this? Then simple substitution of
LET math and principles can be made. LET does have
the same math, and produces the same results as SR,
so what is the problem, as you see it?
To tell you the truth, I really do not think you
really want to know this. If you did, you would do
this yourself. In fact, it really makes you look
kind of dumb to be asking me to do this. There are
many people on this net who are smarter than me.
You, for one example, and greywolf42, for another.
So why be dumb and ask me?
In fact, you really do not want to know this. The
fact that it can or cannot be done by me is really
very unimportant. If I couldn't do it, that only
means there is more for me to know, that is all. I
think what you really would like to have done, would
be a proof that quantum electrodynamics would be
impossible if LET were assumed to be true. Now this
would be of scientific importance, and this is what
you would really like to have. But since LET is at
this very minute a viable scientific theory, it is
impossible to scientifically distinguish LET from SR,
then I know that what you want is not possible.
So why the question? Why do you want to be so
dumb? Why do you ask me to do something that would
be better if you did it?
Thanks for reading.
Jeff Krimmel
> In <vjjbc.166082$po.974307@attbi_s52>
> Robert J. Kolker <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Challange. Show how to combine LET with
>>quantum theory to produce quantum electrodynamics.
>>No hand waving now. Do the math.
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> Sounds worthwhile. But...
you're not able to do it. So, in the game of "put up" or "shut up", it
looks like you're opting for the "shut up". I hope you make good of that.
Jeff
--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' for email.
Bilge
It's not all that difficult to turn the entire standard model into
a condensed matter theory. A lot of the jargon has been imported from
condensed matter physics, so the terminology wouldn't need altered a
great deal. It's a little hard to motivate the concept of invariance
under a weak isospin rotation and other things, but you really don't
think physics should be concerned with that sort of thing anyway.
That's just some of the metaphysics in the theory.
Bilge
>Robert J. Kolker <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Challange. Show how to combine LET with
>>quantum theory to produce quantum electrodynamics.
>>No hand waving now. Do the math.
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> Sounds worthwhile. But why don't you simply show
>us how SR does all this? Then simple substitution of
>LET math and principles can be made.
What is the ether equivalent to the principle of relativity
applied to the phase of the electron wavefunction, i.e.,
what physical property of the ether corresponds to the
statement that physics is unchanged by the replacement,
\phi -> \exp(iS(x^u)), which gives you the electromagnetic
field as conservation law?
>LET does have the same math, and produces the same results
>as SR, so what is the problem, as you see it?
What does that math represent in LET?
>
> To tell you the truth, I really do not think you
>really want to know this. If you did, you would do
>this yourself.
Well, I really want to know how LET you think the existence of the
ether implies the invariance of the dirac lagrangian under a change
of phase and I can do this myself using relativity.
>In fact, it really makes you look kind of dumb to be asking me to
>do this.
Doesn't it make you look dumber to insist that qed has an obvious
derivation via LET and then be unable to show how obvious it is?
>There are many people on this net who are smarter than me. You, for
>one example, and greywolf42, for another. So why be dumb and ask me?
No one else has been able to do it either.
> In fact, you really do not want to know this. The
>fact that it can or cannot be done by me is really
>very unimportant. If I couldn't do it, that only
>means there is more for me to know, that is all. I
>think what you really would like to have done, would
>be a proof that quantum electrodynamics would be
>impossible if LET were assumed to be true.
No, the point is that for all of the babbling that you and others
do about LET being so ``physical'', when it comes right down to it,
there's nothing at all physical about it, since you obviously don't
know where to even begin, here.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
.............. ...There is no ultimate theory, but there is an infinite
sequence of theories that are such that any particular class of observations
can be predicted by taking a theory sufficiently far down the
chain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................... ...
--Stephen Hawking
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc6t9m8....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Harry
You must be joking, for nobody can be so ignorant after such a long
time in this group - can it be?!
OK just in case you overlooked numerous postings by chance, what do
you think of the folowing reasoning:
'The equations of the ether theory of Maxwell have been verified by
experiment, and are therefore valid beyond question. But this does
not prove that the ether theory of Maxwell is true'.
Harald
Androcles
"Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:vjjbc.166082$po.974307@attbi_s52...
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
if the speed of light isn't source dependent.
No handwaving now, I've done the math.
Androcles.
Androcles
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9b03d3c.0404...@posting.google.com...
| In <vjjbc.166082$po.974307@attbi_s52>
| Robert J. Kolker <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| >Challange. Show how to combine LET with
| >quantum theory to produce quantum electrodynamics.
| >No hand waving now. Do the math.
|
| Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
| Sounds worthwhile. But why don't you simply show
| us how SR does all this? Then simple substitution of
| LET math and principles can be made. LET does have
| the same math, and produces the same results as SR,
| so what is the problem, as you see it?
Challenge. Show how to explain this:
Bilge
>interesting: http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/index.html.
>
>The derivation of the Lorentz transformations looks good. For those that
>have been following O'Barrs writings on this matter (I have given up on
>him - at least for the time being) the correct assumptions are, as this link
>makes clear, L = L0 sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) and T = T0 / sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) not T = T0
>sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) as O'Barr had. What O'Barr was assuming as T was the time
>read on the moving clock after that length of time had passed on the
>stationary clock. However this is inconsistent with the length shortening
>equations which is the length a moving rod will be measured as compared to a
>stationary rod. Thus the time transformation equations will be the time the
>moving clock measures compared to one that is stationary ie the ratio of
>their time; exactly as I posted before O'Barr made it plain he was not
>considering the usual definition of the transformed time.
>
>As I have previously said O'Barrs derivation looked OK up until the proving
>of the measured speed of light being the same - but his unusual use of the
>transformed time made it hard for me to follow. This proof however looks a
>lot better.
make assumptions about nature and require the mathematics to reflect
the assumptions, he assumes he can prove what has to really be an
assumption about nature rather than simply make the assumptions.
>Of course it goes without saying I do not believe in LET or an aether of any
>sort - I post this purely so we have a reference point for discussing LET.
His second and third assumptions are never used. Since he assumes there
exist absolute standards for measuring time and distance but provides
no physical marker to use in the derivation, he obviously cannot have
used those assumptions. Ironically, in lieu of using his second and
third assumptions, he uses - yes, that's right - ``Einstein's Synchron-
ization Convention''.
His third assumption is mathematically false as well as falsified by
experiment. The galilean group is a subgroup of the lorentz group,
so that his statement, ``it can be proven that the kinematics of
space-time is Galilean [not Lorentzian]'' is trivially incorrect.
If the universe is galilean, it's also lorentzian. The galilean
group differs from the lorentz group in that it has an additional
symmetry that corresponds to galilean boosts. That symmetry implies
that mass and energy are not interchangeable, which is known from
experiment to be incorrect.
Bilge
>>
>> The first two sentences of the introduction say it all as far as
>> I am concerned. It is the standard LET nonsense.
>>
>> 'The equations of the theory of relativity have been verified by
>> experiment, and are therefore valid beyond question. But this
>> does not prove that the theory is true'.
>>
>> Martin Hogbin
>
>You must be joking, for nobody can be so ignorant after such a long
>time in this group - can it be?!
>
>OK just in case you overlooked numerous postings by chance, what do
>you think of the folowing reasoning:
>
>'The equations of the ether theory of Maxwell have been verified by
>experiment, and are therefore valid beyond question. But this does
>not prove that the ether theory of Maxwell is true'.
I think it's fallacious. The equations of the ether theory of maxwell
have never been verified. You have equivocated the equations which are
known as ``maxwell's equation'', with the equations of maxwell's ether
theory. You are crediting maxwell with gauss' law, faraday's law and
ampere's law. That reasoning is also false for a completely different
reason. Maxwell's ether was based upon the vector potential A and the
scalar potential \Phi. What has been verified in maxwell's theory, are
the fields, E and B. Classically, the potentials are nothing but a
mathematical artifice and there is no experiment that can demonstrate
an effect that depends upon the potentials but not E and/or B within
the realm of maxwell's theory, so that one cannot establish any physical
existence for the fields that pertain to maxwell's ether theory. Maxwell
himself retracted his claims for a physical interpretation the potentials
shortly after he published his ether theory. To say that maxwell's equations
validate his ether theory is to give physical status to a vector identity.
There was no evidence that the potentials had any existence independent
of E and B prior to about the 1950's, but that evidence didn't come
from anything in maxwell's theory. It came from quantum mechanics and
is known as the aharanov-bohm effect.
Gerald L. O'Barr
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
> Bill Hobba wrote: . . .
>> . . As I have previously said O'Barrs derivation
>>speed of light being the same - but his unusual use
>>of the transformed time made it hard for me to
>>follow. This proof however looks a lot better.
> He also does what the kook contingent typically
>does. Rather than make assumptions about nature and
>require the mathematics to reflect the assumptions,
>he assumes he can prove what has to really be an
>assumption about nature rather than simply make the
>assumptions.
LET and made no assumptions about nature? And the
math I presented did not reflect these assumptions?
And I assumed I could prove these assumptions that I
did not make? Rather than, that is, simply make the
assumptions? So did I or did I not make any
assumptions? Did the math reflect those assumptions?
Did anything you say make any sense at all? I think
you were talking without putting your brain into
gear, Bilge. How could such silliness come from any
person? You did not show what you think should have
been done or said to make it correct! My equations
are numbered, show us the way they should be given!
Hobba wrote:
>>Of course it goes without saying I do not believe
>>in LET or an aether of any sort - I post this
>>purely so we have a reference point for discussing
>>LET.
Bilge wrote:
His second and third assumptions are never used.
O'Barr comments:
A second and a third assumption? You mean, I did
make some assumptions! So were you lying then, or
are you lying now? I think you do not know anything
as to what you are saying.
Bilge wrote:
>Since he assumes there exist absolute standards for
>measuring time and distance but provides no physical
>marker to use in the derivation, he obviously cannot
>have used those assumptions.
O'Barr comments:
Is this a for real? I cannot remember using such
words as absolute standards. Come to think about it,
I do not see an accurate quote, a single correction to a
single equation, or any other direct correction to a
specific thought. If this is not a snow job, what
else could it be?
Bilge wrote:
>Ironically, in lieu of using his second and
>third assumptions, he uses - yes, that's right -
>``Einstein's Synchron-ization Convention''.
O'Barr comments:
And are you complaining or bragging? Wasn't that
interesting that all of Einstein's relationships just
fell right out from these simple physical
assumptions! Thank you, Bilge, for noting this!
Bilge wrote:
> His third assumption is mathematically false as
>well as falsified by experiment. The galilean group
>is a subgroup of the lorentz group, so that his
>statement, ``it can be proven that the kinematics of
>space-time is Galilean [not Lorentzian]'' is
>trivially incorrect. If the universe is galilean,
>it's also lorentzian. The galilean group differs
>from the lorentz group in that it has an additional
>symmetry that corresponds to galilean boosts. That
>symmetry implies that mass and energy are not
>interchangeable, which is known from experiment to
>be incorrect.
O'Barr comments:
What a waste of time, you are, Bilge. Why don't
you quote this third assumption you are referring to,
and show how it is proved to be wrong. The quote you
gave: ``it can be proven that the kinematics of
space-time is Galilean [not Lorentzian],'' was
certainly not made by me. Where did you get such a
quote? And did you say that LET fails an
experimental test in flat space? Would you be more
specific? There are several SR experts who would
like for you to explain this. This would mean that
SR and LET are not indistinguishable by test, would
it not? This would be a major break-through!
I get the feeling that we are not on the same
page. Are we talking about the same article, are we
even talking about the same subject? I think you are
you afraid to make yourself understood! Or is
English a second language for you?
Thanks for reading.
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>Bilge wrote:
>> He also does what the kook contingent typically
>>does. Rather than make assumptions about nature and
>>require the mathematics to reflect the assumptions,
>>he assumes he can prove what has to really be an
>>assumption about nature rather than simply make the
>>assumptions.
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
> I made no assumptions about nature?
Lapse back in your coma, o'bargain. Just because I'm stating that
something is wrong, doesn't mean that you wrote it.
[...]
>O'Barr comments:
> What a waste of time, you are, Bilge.
Then, by all means, don't waste it. I'm sure you find some other
newsgroup to haunt.
> Why don't you quote this third assumption you are referring to, and show
>how it is proved to be wrong. The quote you gave: ``it can be proven that
>the kinematics of space-time is Galilean [not Lorentzian],'' was certainly
>not made by me.
Earth to o'jargon.
>Where did you get such a quote?
Practice your reading skills and try to figure that out from the
posts. Why do you assume that I referred to you just because I
said something was erroneous? Habit?
>And did you say that LET fails an experimental test in flat space?
>Would you be more specific? There are several SR experts who would
>like for you to explain this. This would mean that SR and LET are
>not indistinguishable by test, would it not? This would be a major
>break-through!
Next time you think about a major breakthrough, see if it's due
to using single ply tissues.
> I get the feeling that we are not on the same page.
We aren't even in the same library, but that's a different issue.
>Are we talking about the same article, are we even talking about the
>same subject?
Is that a trick question?
>I think you are you afraid to make yourself understood! Or is English a
>second language for you?
No. Would it help if I wrote as though it was?
Gerald L. O'Barr
> Gerald L. O'Barr:
> >In <slrnc6u5o7....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>
> >Bilge wrote:
> >> He also does what the kook contingent typically
> >>does. Rather than make assumptions about nature and
> >>require the mathematics to reflect the assumptions,
> >>he assumes he can prove what has to really be an
> >>assumption about nature rather than simply make the
> >>assumptions.
> >
> >Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
> > I made no assumptions about nature?
>
> Lapse back in your coma, o'bargain. Just because I'm stating that
> something is wrong, doesn't mean that you wrote it.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
I see. The 'he' was not me. Thanks!
>
> [...]
> >O'Barr comments:
> > What a waste of time, you are, Bilge.
>
> Then, by all means, don't waste it. I'm sure you find some other
> newsgroup to haunt.
>
> > Why don't you quote this third assumption you are referring to, and show
> >how it is proved to be wrong. The quote you gave: ``it can be proven that
> >the kinematics of space-time is Galilean [not Lorentzian],'' was certainly
> >not made by me.
>
> Earth to o'jargon.
>
> >Where did you get such a quote?
>
> Practice your reading skills and try to figure that out from the
> posts. Why do you assume that I referred to you just because I
> said something was erroneous? Habit?
O'Barr comments:
So again, you are not talking about me. Thanks!
>
> >And did you say that LET fails an experimental test in flat space?
> >Would you be more specific? There are several SR experts who would
> >like for you to explain this. This would mean that SR and LET are
> >not indistinguishable by test, would it not? This would be a major
> >break-through!
>
> Next time you think about a major breakthrough, see if it's due
> to using single ply tissues.
>
> > I get the feeling that we are not on the same page.
>
> We aren't even in the same library, but that's a different issue.
>
> >Are we talking about the same article, are we even talking about the
> >same subject?
>
> Is that a trick question?
>
> >I think you are you afraid to make yourself understood! Or is English a
> >second language for you?
>
> No. Would it help if I wrote as though it was?
O'Barr comments:
It would have been nice and proper if you, even here, would identify
who it is you are referring to and who you thought you were quoting if
it was not me. I have been around enough to know that not all posts
appear on all news-servers. That is one reason why most posts are
expected to put at least some direct quote in to make sure that the
proper connections are established.
Have a nice day!
Bill Hobba
Yep - and I am not sure Ayn Rand if she was alive would be that impressed
with the association of her ideas with them either.
>
> >Of course it goes without saying I do not believe in LET or an aether of
any
> >sort - I post this purely so we have a reference point for discussing
LET.
>
> His second and third assumptions are never used. Since he assumes there
> exist absolute standards for measuring time and distance but provides
> no physical marker to use in the derivation, he obviously cannot have
> used those assumptions. Ironically, in lieu of using his second and
> third assumptions, he uses - yes, that's right - ``Einstein's Synchron-
> ization Convention''.
>
> His third assumption is mathematically false as well as falsified by
> experiment. The galilean group is a subgroup of the lorentz group,
> so that his statement, ``it can be proven that the kinematics of
> space-time is Galilean [not Lorentzian]'' is trivially incorrect.
Just look at the relatvistic lagrangian of a free particle - Galilean?
> If the universe is galilean, it's also lorentzian. The galilean
> group differs from the lorentz group in that it has an additional
> symmetry that corresponds to galilean boosts. That symmetry implies
> that mass and energy are not interchangeable, which is known from
> experiment to be incorrect.
Another interesting zinger is:
By absolute space and time coordinates I mean coordinates measured with
the absolute standards which are assumed to exist in principle but whose
actual construction in terms of concrete materials is not yet specified.
Not yet specified? - yea right as if they in fact physically exist and it is
simply a matter of specifying them.
As I said it was simply a post to provide a reference point. I have no
doubt Lorentz's later versions of LET would be better if only we could find
a link for those.
Thanks
Bill
Gerald L. O'Barr
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>In <vjjbc.166082$po.974307@attbi_s52>
>>Robert J. Kolker <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Challange. Show how to combine LET with
>>>quantum theory to produce quantum electrodynamics.
>>>No hand waving now. Do the math.
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
>> Sounds worthwhile. But why don't you simply show
>> us how SR does all this? Then simple substitution
>> of LET math and principles can be made.
Bilge wrote:
> What is the ether equivalent to the principle of
>relativity applied to the phase of the electron
>wavefunction, i.e., what physical property of the
>ether corresponds to the statement that physics is
>unchanged by the replacement, \phi -> \exp(iS(x^u)),
>which gives you the electromagnetic field as
>conservation law?
O'Barr comments:
I cannot answer this question. It might be that
you did not ask it correctly, or I am too dumb. It
is not always easy to answer such a question, where
matches are being sought between just a math theory,
with theories that have a physical base. That is one
reason why just a math approach is so weak.
One problem with math is that not all math
assumptions, and not all math approaches, and not all
the steps taken in a math theory, have a one to one
equivalence to real physical things. As an example,
let us talk about virtual photons! What does the
ether tell us about virtual photons? It tells us
nothing? Virtual photons might not even exist.
The real question is, what does the virtual photon
math theory tell us about reality? This is the
question that has power and knowledge. However real
or unreal virtual photons might really be, the
virtual photon theory 'proves' that a particle
approach might be a realistic type system. It has
the possibility of being able to account for what is
seen! Thus, the ether approach, a physical approach,
is compatible with such concepts as virtual photons.
This is what counts! This is what is important. It
is important to know which question ought to be
considered! (The at theory will give us the mechanics
for providing us a mechanical system of 'virtual
photons.')
O'Barr wrote:
>>LET does have the same math, and produces the same
>>results as SR, so what is the problem, as you see
>>it?
Bilge wrote:
> What does that math represent in LET?
O'Barr comments:
See above. Read some of my other posts, about a
3-D reality, and about LET transforms. Do a google
search.
You mentioned the desire of having '...the
electromagnetic field as conservation law ....' It
is perfectly fine to ask questions. But do you
think, Bilge, that LET prevents this from happening?
If you really have a question that is leading up to
such positions, then you should state your feelings,
and show the details of your concern. It really is
not fair to ask these questions the way you are doing
it. It is, in fact, a sign of weakness, and not an
approach of strength. I have mentioned this to you
before.
O'Barr wrote:
>>
>> To tell you the truth, I really do not think you
>>really want to know this. If you did, you would do
>>this yourself.
Bilge wrote:
> Well, I really want to know how LET you think the
>existence of the ether implies the invariance of the
>dirac lagrangian under a change of phase and I can
>do this myself using relativity.
O'Barr wrote:
>>In fact, it really makes you look kind of dumb to
>>be asking me to do this.
Bilge wrote:
> Doesn't it make you look dumber to insist that qed
>has an obvious derivation via LET and then be unable
>to show how obvious it is?
O'Barr comments:
I am the least on this net. It does not matter
what makes me look one way or the other. The only
thing that is important to me is that we get things
as correct as possible.
You say that I said that ged has an obvious
derivation via LET? Excuse me, I am not sure that I
have said such a thing. I have said that LET
explains SR. So if **you** can do something with SR,
then since LET explains SR, then LET must be able to
do the same things as SR. I did not say anything
about what I could do in this specific area. If I
did, I am sorry.
O'Barr wrote:
>>There are many people on this net who are smarter
>>than me. You, for one example, and greywolf42, for
>>another. So why be dumb and ask me?
Bilge wrote:
> No one else has been able to do it either.
O'Barr wrote:
>> In fact, you really do not want to know this.
>>The fact that it can or cannot be done by me is
>>really very unimportant. If I couldn't do it, that
>>only means there is more for me to know, that is
>>all. I think what you really would like to have
>>done, would be a proof that quantum electrodynamics
>>would be impossible if LET were assumed to be true.
Bilge wrote:
> No, the point is that for all of the babbling that
>you and others do about LET being so ``physical'',
>when it comes right down to it, there's nothing at
>all physical about it, since you obviously don't
>know where to even begin, here.
O'Barr comments:
You should worry less about me, and think more
about the physics being presented.
It is clear that someone does not know where to
begin. What you need to understand is that LET does
not change SR math. LET explains the math, it does
not change it, or what it can do. Only its
interpretation is affected. And thus, all your
questions here are somewhat meaningless, until you
address what is real, and what is not real.
Let me say this again: I am not against SR math.
I am not against anything you can do with SR math. I
support SR math more than anyone else on this net!
LET is a deeper theory than SR, it gives us a
physical base to SR, and ends up supporting SR math.
What I am doing is making SR even stronger. I am
making it a better theory. And it will continue to
be able to do what it has been doing, and LET will
allow us to do more, not less. I think you have too
many things backwards. Let us try to better
understand what is going on!
Thanks for reading.
Harry
> Harry:
> >"Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:
> >> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:
> >> > Those that are interested in the logical basis of LET may
> >> > interesting: http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/index.html.
> >>
> >> The first two sentences of the introduction say it all as far as
> >> I am concerned. It is the standard LET nonsense.
> >>
> >> 'The equations of the theory of relativity have been verified by
> >> experiment, and are therefore valid beyond question. But this
> >> does not prove that the theory is true'.
> >>
> >> Martin Hogbin
> >
> >You must be joking, for nobody can be so ignorant after such a long
> >time in this group - can it be?!
> >
> >OK just in case you overlooked numerous postings by chance, what do
> >you think of the folowing reasoning:
> >
> >'The equations of the ether theory of Maxwell have been verified by
> >experiment, and are therefore valid beyond question. But this does
> >not prove that the ether theory of Maxwell is true'.
>
> I think it's fallacious. The equations of the ether theory of maxwell
> have never been verified. You have equivocated the equations which are
> known as ``maxwell's equation'', with the equations of maxwell's ether
> theory.
What is wrong about that? Anyway, for my purpose I could have replaced "SRT"
by "ether theory of Lorentz" instead, or Maxwell-Lorentz.
My only intent was to point out to Martin that his objection looks like an
objection against scientific reasoning, or possibly it just shows ignorance
about the different meanings of the word "theory" - so many these
discussions over the years are about the different interpretations of the
SRT equations.
> You are crediting maxwell with gauss' law, faraday's law and
> ampere's law. That reasoning is also false for a completely different
> reason. Maxwell's ether was based upon the vector potential A and the
> scalar potential \Phi. What has been verified in maxwell's theory, are
> the fields, E and B. Classically, the potentials are nothing but a
> mathematical artifice and there is no experiment that can demonstrate
> an effect that depends upon the potentials but not E and/or B within
> the realm of maxwell's theory, so that one cannot establish any physical
> existence for the fields that pertain to maxwell's ether theory. Maxwell
> himself retracted his claims for a physical interpretation the potentials
> shortly after he published his ether theory. To say that maxwell's
equations
> validate his ether theory is to give physical status to a vector identity.
>
> There was no evidence that the potentials had any existence independent
> of E and B prior to about the 1950's, but that evidence didn't come
> from anything in maxwell's theory. It came from quantum mechanics and
> is known as the aharanov-bohm effect.
No problem with that!
Harald
Harry
> O'Barr comments:
> It would have been nice and proper if you, even here, would identify
> who it is you are referring to and who you thought you were quoting if
> it was not me. I have been around enough to know that not all posts
> appear on all news-servers. That is one reason why most posts are
> expected to put at least some direct quote in to make sure that the
> proper connections are established.
>
> Have a nice day!
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
This thread started - I think - with:
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:40661...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > Those that are interested in the logical basis of LET may find the
following
> > interesting: http://home.earthlink.net/~marklin/index.html.
Best regards,
Harald
Gerald L. O'Barr
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
I know what it started with. But before any answer was given,
my name was used several times. And thus, when a 'he' appeared,
it really could have been in reference to more than one.
Certainly, I had not made any mistakes. So it really could
not have been in reference to me. But seeing the source of these
comments, I thouht it might be wise to check.
Thank you for your clarification!
Gerald
Bill Hobba
Correct Harry. My posting was it no way an endorsement of the sites
content - it was simply a point of reference. I would prefer a copy of
Lorentz or other scholars later papers on LET, but the above it the best I
could do, and even then it was found searching for a totally unrelated
matter. If others know of better sites and derivations please feel free to
post.
Thanks
Bill
Harry
Lorentz himself preferred in the end (1927) Einstein's approach for deriving
SRT (SRT-Lorentz is identical to "LET" as defined in this newsgroup) -
starting with the PoR, and working down from that. If I remember well, the
main difference is in the interpretation.
Harald
Bill Hobba
Problem is Harry to derive the Lorentz transformations one must assume
homogeneity of space and time and isotropy of space. There was recently a
discussion of this and Tom Roberts pointed out we must make this
assumption - I misinterpreted what he was saying and after thinking about
regencies he was correct - it is an assumption. My usual way around it is
to take they symmetry properties as defining an inertial frame (but it is
still an assumption). Now in LET we assume that an aether causes rod
shortening - thus a rod placed in the direction of the aether wind will
shorten - one at 90 degrees will not - hence isotropy is broken. Although I
have not done it, and really have no particular interest in trying, you may
be able to modify the normal derivation of to change the isotropy assumption
to some reasonable assumption about the aether. If I remember correctly it
is only used to examine properties on a reverse of coordinate systems - you
may be able to replace it with the property that the aether affect rods the
same way regardless of if the rod is pointing in the direction of the ether
wind or against it (considering the rod to have an arrow at one end to
indicate its direction). However that is only a guess. Others may like to
do it to find out - I however do not particularly care. While I can't prove
an aether does not exist all the evidence I have seen indicates it is a dead
as a doornail and its only value it to keep the crackpots that post here
busy.
Thanks
Bill
Paul Stowe
Seems to me that one must assume a 'c' and a v wrt to that c. If you have
a vector v moving with respect to an independently fixed c then you get a
c - v in the direction of v and c + v in the opposite direction. Thus,
these become the roots of the quadratic expression,
c^2 + cv - cv - c^2 => c^2 - v^2.
Then, factor c out, we get, c^2(1 - [v/c]^2)\
let v/c = B
and
g^2 = 1/(1-B^2)
... Finally, we want to maintain c as an 'apparent constant value, to do
that we need mathematically to have,
c'^2 = c^2
Where c' is the measured value of c in coordinate system x', y', z', t'
wrt coordinate system x, y, z, t. Thus the mathematical scaling
necessary to achieve this result is,
(c'g)^2 = c^2
thus,
c'g = c
Jeez, it seems to me that the very existence of the Lorentz Transform
literally depends expressly upon the asymmetrical wrt to an independently
fixed value for c. Thus the need for c + v & c - v between coordinate
systems. The very FACT that you need a the LT's between moving coordinate
systems says there can exist no isotropy. If you have true isotropy in all
FORs why do you need a LT at all? The simplest true isotropic system is
the simple ballastic system. There there is no need for either time
dilation or length contraction. The actual speed of light IS truly locally
at all times c.
> There was recently a discussion of this and Tom Roberts pointed out we must
> make this assumption - I misinterpreted what he was saying and after thinking
> about regencies he was correct - it is an assumption. My usual way around
> it is to take they symmetry properties as defining an inertial frame (but it
> is still an assumption). Now in LET we assume that an aether causes rod
> shortening - thus a rod placed in the direction of the aether wind will
> shorten - one at 90 degrees will not - hence isotropy is broken. Although I
> have not done it, and really have no particular interest in trying, you may
> be able to modify the normal derivation of to change the isotropy assumption
> to some reasonable assumption about the aether. If I remember correctly it
> is only used to examine properties on a reverse of coordinate systems - you
> may be able to replace it with the property that the aether affect rods the
> same way regardless of if the rod is pointing in the direction of the ether
> wind or against it (considering the rod to have an arrow at one end to
> indicate its direction). However that is only a guess. Others may like to
> do it to find out - I however do not particularly care. While I can't prove
> an aether does not exist all the evidence I have seen indicates it is a dead
> as a doornail and its only value it to keep the crackpots that post here
> busy.
What DOA is the concept of RT symmetry of ray paths of light in moving
systems.
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>In <vjjbc.166082$po.974307@attbi_s52>
>>>Robert J. Kolker <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Challange. Show how to combine LET with
>>>>quantum theory to produce quantum electrodynamics.
>>>>No hand waving now. Do the math.
>>
>>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
>>> Sounds worthwhile. But why don't you simply show
>>> us how SR does all this? Then simple substitution
>>> of LET math and principles can be made.
>
>Bilge wrote:
>> What is the ether equivalent to the principle of
>>relativity applied to the phase of the electron
>>wavefunction, i.e., what physical property of the
>>ether corresponds to the statement that physics is
>>unchanged by the replacement, \phi -> \exp(iS(x^u)),
>>which gives you the electromagnetic field as
>>conservation law?
>
>O'Barr comments:
> I cannot answer this question.
That's ok. I didn't really expect you to answer it. I would
have been surprised if you knew what I was talking about, which
is really the point here. You post a lot of nonsense about
LET being equivalent to special relativity without having
any idea what special relativity means physically or how special
relativity is applied because of what it means physically.
[...]
> One problem with math is that not all math
>assumptions, and not all math approaches, and not all
>the steps taken in a math theory, have a one to one
>equivalence to real physical things.
Well, this does and experiments demonstrate it.
>As an example, let us talk about virtual photons! What does the
>ether tell us about virtual photons? It tells us nothing? Virtual
>photons might not even exist.
> The real question is, what does the virtual photon
>math theory tell us about reality?
Simple. For one, it tells you that light will scatter in a static
magnetic field while maxwell's equations tell you that it will not.
Experiments show that it does.
Harry
Indeed, that is in essence the Maxwell-Lorentz ether. But I see no problem,
except that it does not account for gravity.
> There was recently a
> discussion of this and Tom Roberts pointed out we must make this
> assumption - I misinterpreted what he was saying and after thinking about
> regencies he was correct - it is an assumption. My usual way around it is
> to take they symmetry properties as defining an inertial frame (but it is
> still an assumption). Now in LET we assume that an aether causes rod
> shortening - thus a rod placed in the direction of the aether wind will
> shorten - one at 90 degrees will not - hence isotropy is broken.
Maybe I see what you are getting at.
The equations are the same but the interpretations are all, in a certain
way, inverse. Mixing the two types of reasoning leads indeed to problems.
SRT according to Lorentz assumes a homogeneous ether (homogeneous fixed
physical "space"), and therefore only a *seeming* isotropy when in movement,
that is, measured mathematical space still appears isotropic, although -
using a certain definiton of "space" - the measurement space is actually
deformed, similar to GRT.
> Although I
> have not done it, and really have no particular interest in trying, you
may
> be able to modify the normal derivation of to change the isotropy
assumption
> to some reasonable assumption about the aether. If I remember correctly
it
> is only used to examine properties on a reverse of coordinate systems -
you
> may be able to replace it with the property that the aether affect rods
the
> same way regardless of if the rod is pointing in the direction of the
ether
> wind or against it (considering the rod to have an arrow at one end to
> indicate its direction).
Indeed, atoms have no direction.
I similarly wonder how space-time is supposed to affect the measured length
of a moving rod.
> However that is only a guess. Others may like to
> do it to find out - I however do not particularly care. While I can't
prove
> an aether does not exist all the evidence I have seen indicates it is a
dead
> as a doornail and its only value it to keep the crackpots that post here
> busy.
I also can't prove that virtual photons don't exist. Depending on the
problem to solve, sometimes one model and sometimes an other model may be
more handy. Personally I understand SRT best using Lorentz' interpretation,
and since then Einstein's interpretation has become unacceptable to me.
Obviously many others understand it best using Einstein's interpretation.
Harald
Bill Hobba
See Ijla's glet http://ilja-schmelzer.de/GET/
>
> > There was recently a
> > discussion of this and Tom Roberts pointed out we must make this
> > assumption - I misinterpreted what he was saying and after thinking
about
> > regencies he was correct - it is an assumption. My usual way around it
is
> > to take they symmetry properties as defining an inertial frame (but it
is
> > still an assumption). Now in LET we assume that an aether causes rod
> > shortening - thus a rod placed in the direction of the aether wind will
> > shorten - one at 90 degrees will not - hence isotropy is broken.
>
> Maybe I see what you are getting at.
> The equations are the same but the interpretations are all, in a certain
> way, inverse. Mixing the two types of reasoning leads indeed to problems.
> SRT according to Lorentz assumes a homogeneous ether (homogeneous fixed
> physical "space"), and therefore only a *seeming* isotropy when in
movement,
> that is, measured mathematical space still appears isotropic, although -
> using a certain definiton of "space" - the measurement space is actually
> deformed, similar to GRT.
I think the easiset way to find out is imply go through the derivation and
see what you must change.
QFT does seem to reuire them.
Depending on the
> problem to solve, sometimes one model and sometimes an other model may be
> more handy. Personally I understand SRT best using Lorentz'
interpretation,
> and since then Einstein's interpretation has become unacceptable to me.
> Obviously many others understand it best using Einstein's interpretation.
And that is fine - I personally understand it using Einstein's interruption
as I have difficulty in believing in something that breaks the POR's
symmetry.
Thanks
Bill
Gerald L. O'Barr
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
> . . .
<deletes>
>>Robert J. Kolker <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> . . . Show how to combine LET with quantum
>>>> theory to produce quantum electrodynamics. . . .
<deletes>
>>Bilge wrote:
>>> What is the ether equivalent to the principle of
>>>relativity applied to the phase of the electron
>>>wavefunction, i.e., what physical property of the
>>>ether corresponds to the statement that physics
>>>is unchanged by the replacement, \phi ->
>>>\exp(iS(x^u)), which gives you the
>>>electromagnetic field as conservation law?
>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> I cannot answer this question. . . .
<deletes by Bilge>
Bilge Wrote:
> That's ok. I didn't really expect you to answer
>it. I would have been surprised if you knew what I
>was talking about, which is really the point here.
>You post a lot of nonsense about LET being
>equivalent to special relativity without having any
>idea what special relativity means physically or how
>special relativity is applied because of what it
>means physically.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
It is more than O.K. And there is no nonsense in
anything. LET is superior. Your very actions show
that it is by how you want to keep changing the
subject.
How much does one have to know in order to
understand that 3-D is simpler than 4-D? In none
of these questions do you explain why they are
important to the discussion. In fact, you quickly
delete them and do not even continue their discussion
to make a point.
What you are trying to do, is to go on the
offensive. You and Kolker are trying to force me to
put time and attention into all the other areas you
can think of, just so you do not have to consider the
subject at hand.
This is all showing to me a weakness in you, and
in Kolker! How dare you not address the points I
have been making? How dare you run away! Every
person on this net knows that 3-D is simpler than 4-
D! Every person on this net now knows that you have
zero evidence to show that there is this mysterious
and physically impossible spacetime continuum. And
since you cannot handle any of this, then in
weakness, you try to get me to answer silly questions
that have nothing to do with your problem.
You are not being scientific. You are being mean
and you are running away. Just keep running. That
is all you can do.
[...]
O'Barr wrote:
>> One problem with math is that not all math
>>assumptions, and not all math approaches, and not
>>all the steps taken in a math theory, have a one to
>>one equivalence to real physical things.
Bilge wrote:
> Well, this does and experiments demonstrate it.
O'Barr comments:
Well fine. Then why did you, above, not keep
presenting the original problem, and why didn't you
fully describe this important experiment, and then
show that LET would predict something different?
Until you do these simple things, you are not making
any point at all.
O'Barr wrote:
>>As an example, let us talk about virtual photons!
>>What does the ether tell us about virtual photons?
>>It tells us nothing? Virtual photons might not
>>even exist. The real question is, what does the
>>virtual photon math theory tell us about reality?
Bilge wrote:
> Simple. For one, it tells you that light will
>scatter in a static magnetic field while maxwell's
>equations tell you that it will not. Experiments
>show that it does.
O'Barr comments:
I am glad that you think it tells us something!
I see you deleted what I said.
If you have any problems with being able to accept
LET as being equal to SR, in terms of its math
predictions, I would suggest that you take it up with
Roberts, or someone to whom you can relate.
Today, anyone can reach down into the QM region,
or into GR, and show deviations in Maxwell's
equations. But this SR and LET debate requires much
more than just saying there is some difference with
E&M, no matter where that difference might be. You
are not showing yourself in any favorable light by
not presenting your thoughts in a formal way.
LET is superior to SR because it provides to us a
physical explanation of SR. This physical
explanation means that LET is a realistic theory. It
has causality. That is, it has physical
explanations, to include physical causes and physical
effects. It is thus logical and understandable.
Thus, there are no paradoxes, real or even imagined.
And all this is done in the simplest of 3-D space,
with the simplest of vector addition of velocities,
with the simplest of independent time. It has no
breaks in its symmetry. It has, in fact, no internal
inconsistencies at all.
And in all this, it provides to us the same exact
perfect math predictions as are found in SR. So we
end up with SR, with none of the problems of SR.
Now then Bilge, what are you going to do about
all this? Are you going to tell me that the metal
lead is heavy, and LET does not tell us this? What
are you going to do?
Please do not tell me that you are going to
accept a weak theory. Do not tell me you will
continue to accept a physically impossible 4-D
spacetime continuum. Please do not tell me you are
going to tell us again that it is the geometry that
causes everything to happen. PLEASE do not accept a
theory that has no physical reason or justification
for why light is a constant. Do not accept a theory
that has breaks in its symmetry, jumps in times, back
in times. Do not accept a theory that cannot give a
reason why the math forms are the same. Please do
not take us along this fantasy that math is physics.
Please let us not be dumb! We have had enough!
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Harry <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>In <1079224...@news.supernews.com>
>"Bill Hobba" <bho...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>...
Hobba wrote:
>> Problem is Harry to derive the Lorentz
>>transformations one must assume homogeneity of
>>space and time and isotropy of space.
Harry wrote:
>Indeed, that is in essence the Maxwell-Lorentz
>ether. But I see no problem, except that it does not
>account for gravity.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
There really are systems within systems here that
should not be ignored, when it comes to these
fundamental questions about time and space. In the
at theory, you begin with space having perfect
homogeneity and isotropy, a perfect Euclidean 3-D
space. The ether is then formed within such a
perfect 'medium.' So LET has a base that is Euclidean,
but within the ether, you certainly have effects that
appear that are directional when you have motion
relative to this ether. But this is all explainable,
and being explainable, then it is not a break in
symmetry on or in any fundamental level or order.
Surely none of this should be hard to understand.
A tree being chopped down by a man with an ax in his
hand is certainly experiencing a broken symmetry, but
there is no break in symmetry on any fundamental
level. It all depends on what you are looking at.
Hobba wrote:
>> . . . Now in LET we assume that an aether causes
>>rod shortening - thus a rod placed in the direction
>>of the aether wind will shorten - one at 90 degrees
>>will not - hence isotropy is broken.
O'Barr comments:
You certainly can say this. But at the same time,
you must also know that down below the ether, space
could be as has been explained.
Harry wrote (talking about what Hobba said):
>Maybe I see what you are getting at.
>The equations are the same but the interpretations
>are all, in a certain way, inverse. Mixing the two
>types of reasoning leads indeed to problems. ...
O'Barr comments:
The ether is an extremely simple concept, for an
engineer, etc. But for these SR mathematicians, they
do have their problems when they try to be physical.
But I have great faith in them, and I do believe that
these SR experts will eventually be able to
understand, almost as well as an engineer. It will
be difficult for them, but I believe they can do it!
Harry continues:
>SRT according to Lorentz assumes a homogeneous ether
>(homogeneous fixed physical "space"), and therefore
>only a *seeming* isotropy when in movement, that is,
>measured mathematical space still appears isotropic,
>although - using a certain definiton of "space" -
>the measurement space is actually deformed, similar
>to GRT.
O'Barr comments:
Now we have it all. As soon as we can separate
out in our minds what we measure, from what is
actually there, we can understand everything!
Harry continues:
>Indeed, atoms have no direction. I similarly wonder
>how space-time is supposed to affect the measured
>length of a moving rod.
O'Barr comments:
Actually, because atoms (and all sub-atomic
particles) can have a spin, we do have, at time, very
interesting things about atoms and their orientations
in space. In some cases, their orientations are
fixed into special zones. A photon (which is a short
term localized atom in a very complicated way), for
example, must always face the direction that it is
moving.
But the important question you asked, is exactly
how does SR explain how our measurements are
affected? Their answer is the impossible answer: it
is the geometry that causes all these things to
occur. But of course, they never have, and they
never will be able to explain what physically is
going on so that the geometry can cause it to happen.
<deletes>
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
P.S. I tried to delete a few things up above, but it
seems as if this is getting harder and harder for me
to do. Please excuse me if some things were said
that should not have been said. Maybe your delete
will work better than my delete!
Bilge
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> There really are systems within systems here that
>should not be ignored, when it comes to these
>fundamental questions about time and space. In the
>at theory, you begin with space having perfect
>homogeneity and isotropy, a perfect Euclidean 3-D
>space.
Why is that? All of the evidence suggests that things get older,
so time must be part of the description. Why would nature choose
to create a three dimensional euclidean universe which doesn't
look anything like the universe we observe rather than just start
with the right geometry in the first place? Performance art? A
sense of humor?
>The ether is then formed within such a perfect 'medium.'
So, does that mean that the ether creates time?
>So LET has a base that is Euclidean, but within the ether, you
>certainly have effects that appear that are directional when
>you have motion relative to this ether.
How can you have these ``effects'' until you have ``time'' as
part of the universe? You've skipped the part about how time
came about in this three dimensional euclidean universe you
are hypothesizing.
Gerald L. O'Barr
dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net(Bilge) wrote: ...
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote: . . .
>> should not be ignored, when it comes to these
>>fundamental questions about time and space. In the
>>at theory, you begin with space having perfect
>>homogeneity and isotropy, a perfect Euclidean 3-D
>>space.
Bilge wrote:
> Why is that?
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
Why not? Do you know of anything simpler? And
still doable, and still viable, and still acceptable?
I don't! So again, why not?
Bilge wrote:
>All of the evidence suggests that things get older,
O'Barr comments:
I am so glad that you noticed! And I agree with
you. And all formal physics agrees with you. So
what should we do with this Evolution Theory that
says new life automatically, on its own, comes into
existence with time? Could anything be more
unscientific than such a concept? It violates
everything we presently know and understand! And yet
there are people who really are serious about
teaching such things. Where were they educated? Or
a better way to ask it, where were they not educated?
Bilge wrote:
>so time must be part of the description.
O'Barr comments:
I am sure it would be desirable. Maybe you would
like to do that for us!
There are many things that we do not really know.
Einstein was not dumb. He also did not answer this
question. He just said that time was what a clock
measured, and thus took the readings of clocks to be
time. This approach is adequate, as long as all you
have is a measurement science. And since this is
really all we have in SR, it is just a measurement
science, then this was an adequate solution.
But in all truth, the mystery is no more than that
we live in a reality that can experience change. And
in some cases, these changes appear to be regular.
But to have change is the key, and if we ever think
we can understand why we can experience change, then
time will be, at that point, easy to explain. A
velocity is a change. Thus, c is a measurement of a
change. And thus, we have time even at this very
point!
Bilge wrote:
>Why would nature choose to create a three
>dimensional euclidean universe which doesn't
>look anything like the universe we observe rather
>than just start with the right geometry in the first
>place? Performance art? A sense of humor?
O'Barr comments:
What is seen is most often in the eye of the
beholder. One might see a delicious plate of pork
chops to be enjoyed, someone else might see something
to be thrown away, not even to be touched.
As one who sees the ether everywhere, everywhere
is simple 3-D. How could any thinking person not see
that things are the simplest possible, unless
evidence existed that made it impossible? I am
afraid that the laugh is on you.
O'Barr wrote:
>>The ether is then formed within such a perfect
>>'medium.'
Bilge wrote:
> So, does that mean that the ether creates time?
O'Barr comments:
The ether certainly allows for change, and so
whether it creates time or not, it sure does not
prevent it. The ether does regulate the rate of
change under many known conditions, and so for all
these cases, yes, it then affects the property that
is called time.
O'Barr wrote:
>>So LET has a base that is Euclidean, but within the
>>ether, you certainly have effects that appear that
>>are directional when you have motion relative to
>>this ether.
Bilge wrote:
> How can you have these ``effects'' until you have
>``time'' as part of the universe? You've skipped
>the part about how time came about in this three
>dimensional euclidean universe you are
>hypothesizing.
O'Barr comments:
I no more skipped it than Einstein did. In fact,
I show the exact same math as Einstein. Did you miss
all this?
And your choice of words did not go unnoticed.
How dare you infer that our 3-D reality is just a
hypothesis? You sound like a child, playing games,
with no sense at all about what is really around us.
But this is how all SR experts have been taught to
think (or not think.) The day will come when such
language will be laughed at just as much as someone
trying to say that the earth is flat.
In fact, your whole post is rather funny, and has
no real points at all. Do you just enjoy wasting
everyone's time? SR is a terrible theory. It is a
weak theory. And anyone who is dumb enough to
support such a weak theory does not have his head on
straight. You really ought to re-read what you
posted, and really think about what you are doing.
What you have done is not good, nor productive, and
totally unscientific. You should be more careful!
Thanks for reading.
Patrick Reany
> In <slrnc7dte0....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>
[snip]
> So
> what should we do with this Evolution Theory that
> says new life automatically, on its own, comes into
> existence with time? Could anything be more
> unscientific than such a concept? It violates
> everything we presently know and understand! And yet
> there are people who really are serious about
> teaching such things. Where were they educated? Or
> a better way to ask it, where were they not educated?
Strictly speaking, Evolution Theory (ET) comes in two parts:
Biogenesis and the change of species over time. Now, there is a lot of
circumstancial evidence that species do change over time. There is a
lot of evidence that the earth is very old, affording such time needed
to allow for these changes. ET is a good theory, even if it's not
true, because it is able to make predictions that match well against
observation, at least in terms of observations made in geological
structures with inference to vitogony (prehistoric biology).
And when it comes to biogenesis we have two logical choices (assuming
that life had a beginning): Naturally caused or supernaturally caused
(special creation). I'm not going to take a stand myself. However, you
seem to claim that biogenesis cannot be natural. Your "proof" uses
what we know of nature right now. Maybe we just need to learn other
things about nature. If spontaneous generation is a violation of
natural law, so too is special creation. Furthermore, it's possible to
have both special creation and the change of species thereafter.
Now, I make clear that I'm NOT arguing for or against either view. I
am simply arguing against your reasoning in this matter. After all, it
was once believed that atoms were infinitely stable and all talk of
unstable atoms was a violation of everything known of physics at that
time (pre-Madame Curie). Therefore, I find your line of reasoning
invalid.
Patrick
Tom Roberts
> And when it comes to biogenesis we have two logical choices (assuming
> that life had a beginning): Naturally caused or supernaturally caused
> (special creation).
"Supernaturally caused" of course has the problem of what generated the
agent of "supernatural cause"....
As far as the generation of life is concerned, it should be clear that
in an azoic (lifeless) environment, as soon as a self-replicating
sequence of molecules happens to come into being, it will self-replicate
as much as it can, depleting its locale of the source molecules from
which it self-replicates (call them "food"). The simplest such sequence
is surely simple enough to arise randomly, and from there random
mutations and natural selection are sufficient to generate all the
biodiversity we observe today....
Self-replicating systems are incredibly powerful. See Wolfram,
_A_New_Kind_of_Science_. But IMHO he does not follow it
through.... Perhaps also Hofstadter, _Goedel,_Escher,_Bach:_
_An_Eternal_Golden_Braid_.
This has nothing to do with relativity, and I will probably not follow
this thread any further.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
alen
> [...]
> And when it comes to biogenesis we have two logical choices (assuming
> that life had a beginning): Naturally caused or supernaturally caused
> (special creation). I'm not going to take a stand myself. However, you
> seem to claim that biogenesis cannot be natural. Your "proof" uses
> what we know of nature right now. Maybe we just need to learn other
> things about nature. If spontaneous generation is a violation of
> natural law, so too is special creation. Furthermore, it's possible to
> have both special creation and the change of species thereafter.
>
> Now, I make clear that I'm NOT arguing for or against either view.
> Patrick
This is not about relativity but, since it is
an important question, I will make a short comment.
To me it is impossible that random mutation, over
however long a time, could ever build rather than
destroy. The number of possible destructive alternatives,
for any structure of any complexity, is always
astronomically larger than the constructive or improving
alternatives, so that a random principle will almost
always create a destructive alternative. If, for example,
you randomly move the positions of individual bricks
in a building, it will degrade rather than improve, and
eventually collapse.
Natural selection cannot answer this because all the
supposedly competing organisms that implement it are all
also randomly mutating themselves, and must therefore all
degrade together.
The only way mutation can build rather than destroy is
if it is not really random, but planned and guided.
Alen
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net(Bilge) wrote: ...
>>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote: . . .
>>> There really are systems within systems here that
>>> should not be ignored, when it comes to these
>>>fundamental questions about time and space. In the
>>>at theory, you begin with space having perfect
>>>homogeneity and isotropy, a perfect Euclidean 3-D
>>>space.
>
>Bilge wrote:
>> Why is that?
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
> Why not?
My question was why. ``Why not'' is not an answer.
>Do you know of anything simpler?
If you have to ask that, you should consider being checked for
alzheimer's, since you argue against it on a regular basis.
>And still doable, and still viable, and still acceptable?
>I don't! So again, why not?
That didn't answer my question, either. You just substituted three
more question for lack of one answer.
>Bilge wrote:
>>All of the evidence suggests that things get older,
>
>O'Barr comments:
> I am so glad that you noticed! And I agree with you.
Then you have no choice but to explain how time exists in a
three dimensional euclidean universe which defines only space.
And all formal physics agrees with you.
Which shouldn't be surprising, since formal physics accepts
relativity.
>So what should we do with this Evolution Theory that says new
>life automatically, on its own, comes into existence with time?
I suppose if I was a biologist, I'd try to figure out the conditions
that likely existed before there was life on earth and try to
reproduce those conditions in the lab in an attempt to create
a self-replicating chemical reaction capable of the self-modification
needed to adapt to a changing enviroment.
>Could anything be more unscientific than such a concept?
Sure. A theory created by people who (1) have so little faith in
the omnipotentence of their deity, that they are certain their deity
had to settle for creating life on the spot and hide his/her lack
of godliness by creating a facade to look like evolution, or (2) are
arrogant enough to presume that they know what their deity knows
so that they know their deity couldn't have created life in any fashion
that intereferes with their worldly plans to speak on god's behalf
in order to acquire power and control over people.
>It violates everything we presently know and understand!
Does that mean you are speaking on god's behalf and know what
he had in mind or that he isn't the omnipotent being your religion
has made him out to be and settled for an elaborate hoax because
evolution was beyond his abilities?
I would think that someone who holds strong religious convictions
would believe that omnipotence means being able to create the universe
god wishes and being able to populate that universe by any method god
wishes with beings that are not so defective as to be unable to discover
and appreciate how it was all done by virtue of the intelligence with
which they were endowed.
>And yet there are people who really are serious about teaching such
>things.
Worse. There are people that who are really serious about humans
being so defective a creation that they need divine help in discovering
and appreciating the universe.
>Where were they educated? Or a better way to ask it, where
>were they not educated?
Speaking only with respect to those physicists whom I've known
personally, I can say that none of them were educated by jerry falwell
and therefore those people I know who are fairly religious have not
confused the words or agendas of falwell and other relgious zealots
with their own religious beliefs. All of them seem to think the
universe is here for us to discover and appreciate, whatever that
turns out to be.
>Bilge wrote:
>>so time must be part of the description.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> I am sure it would be desirable. Maybe you would like to do
>that for us!
Are you really here on planet earth, o'bargain? Exactly what do you
think relativity does by including `t' as part of the same geometry
containing x,y and z? You've been posting now for how many tears without
realizing that?
> There are many things that we do not really know.
But I can see that you've narrowed things down quite a bit by
pinning down the possibilities according to limitations your
religion places on omnipotence.
>Einstein was not dumb. He also did not answer this question.
>He just said that time was what a clock measured, and thus took
>the readings of clocks to be time. This approach is adequate,
>as long as all you have is a measurement science.
Not all of us are as fortunate as to have a holy book that places
severe limits on omnipotence and tells us that the measurements
we make are a scam perpetrated by a diety who makes up for the
lack of ability by perpetrating a fraud on our measurements.
Bilge
>re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message:
>> [...]
>> And when it comes to biogenesis we have two logical choices (assuming
>> that life had a beginning): Naturally caused or supernaturally caused
>> (special creation). I'm not going to take a stand myself. However, you
>> seem to claim that biogenesis cannot be natural. Your "proof" uses
>> what we know of nature right now. Maybe we just need to learn other
>> things about nature. If spontaneous generation is a violation of
>> natural law, so too is special creation. Furthermore, it's possible to
>> have both special creation and the change of species thereafter.
>>
>> Now, I make clear that I'm NOT arguing for or against either view.
>> [...]
>> Patrick
>
>
>This is not about relativity but, since it is
>an important question, I will make a short comment.
>
>To me it is impossible that random mutation, over
>however long a time, could ever build rather than
>destroy. The number of possible destructive alternatives,
>for any structure of any complexity, is always
>astronomically larger than the constructive or improving
>alternatives, so that a random principle will almost
>always create a destructive alternative. If, for example,
>you randomly move the positions of individual bricks
>in a building, it will degrade rather than improve, and
>eventually collapse.
yet ice is more ordered.
>Natural selection cannot answer this because all the
>supposedly competing organisms that implement it are all
>also randomly mutating themselves, and must therefore all
>degrade together.
How then, would you explain the fact that a modem is able to
transmit and receive information despite being based upon a
theory which treats the propagaion of information as a perfectly
random process which in principle can be made as close to
perfect as one wishes?
>The only way mutation can build rather than destroy is
>if it is not really random, but planned and guided.
Then why are atomic clocks so precise? The precision hinges
on the inherent randomness of atomic transitions.
Patrick Reany
> re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message news:<844a1b64.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > [...]
> > And when it comes to biogenesis we have two logical choices (assuming
> > that life had a beginning): Naturally caused or supernaturally caused
> > (special creation). I'm not going to take a stand myself. However, you
> > seem to claim that biogenesis cannot be natural. Your "proof" uses
> > what we know of nature right now. Maybe we just need to learn other
> > things about nature. If spontaneous generation is a violation of
> > natural law, so too is special creation. Furthermore, it's possible to
> > have both special creation and the change of species thereafter.
> >
> > Now, I make clear that I'm NOT arguing for or against either view.
> > [...]
> > Patrick
>
>
> This is not about relativity but, since it is
> an important question, I will make a short comment.
>
True, my post was not directly related to relativity, but indirectly
it is very foundational to why there are so many pointless arguments
about relativity on this NG. Which is because so many people have been
so damaged by what they failed to learn, or what they learned wrongly,
in their science classes in the West that are so damaged in their
critical thinking skills that they couldn't think scientifically if
they had to save their lives. O'Barr's fallacious and illogical
arguments are typical of the kind of arguments that are typically
brought against relativity, quite apart from the question of whether
relativity is "true" or not or "best" or not.
O'Barr's claims about evolutionary theory shows his inablilty to think
scientifically. The place to begin to relate science and evolutionary
theory is their respective definitions. O'Barr failed to form "crucial
distinctions." He failed to look for and find obvious counterexamples
to his doctrines/hypotheses. He made the fallacious claim that what we
know of nature NOW is all there is to know forever.
If Newton had argued to himself that since he didn't "know" then how
gravity worked that he would not invent a theory of gravity, where
would we be today? If he had argued that the force of gravity at the
point mass particle is unphysical, implying that his theory of gravity
is nonsense, and thus decided not to publish his theory of gravity,
where would we be today?
Scientific education in the West has failed.
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> Scientific education in the West has failed.
But science has not failed. Why do you care if the unwashed don't "get
it"? O.K. so the majority of Americans believe in angels and disbelieve
evolution. How are you hurt by this? Use your advanced intellect to
steal a march on the morons.
Bob Kolker
Gerald L. O'Barr
re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>In <e9b03d3c.04041...@posting.google.com>
>glo...@yahoo.com (Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote:
>>
[snip by Reany]
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> So what should we do with this Evolution Theory
>>that says new life automatically, on its own, comes
>> into existence with time? Could anything be more
>> unscientific than such a concept? It violates
>> everything we presently know and understand! And
>> yet there are people who really are serious about
>> teaching such things. Where were they educated?
>> Or a better way to ask it, where were they not
>> educated? . . .
Reany wrote:
>Strictly speaking, Evolution Theory (ET) comes in
>two parts: Biogenesis and the change of species
>over time. Now, there is a lot of circumstancial
>evidence that species do change over time. There is
>a lot of evidence that the earth is very old,
>affording such time needed to allow for these
>changes. ET is a good theory, even if it's not true,
>because it is able to make predictions that match
>well against observation, at least in terms of
>observations made in geological structures with
>inference to vitogony (prehistoric biology).
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments?
What are you doing, Reany? This is not the proper
place to do this. Did you forget which net you are
posting on?
What I did was just a single, short paragraph in
response to a person who I am sure believes in
evolution, and yet he was blasting me because I made
a presentation of LET in which I did not show time to
be running down. And he said that he knew that time
ran down, that all things become old, etc., etc.,
etc. And so he indicated that I was wrong! Or so he
inferred.
Now he had no right to criticize what I did. So I
was making fun of him, and his inconsistent beliefs!
I was not stating my own beliefs. I was showing his
own problems! And evidently you missed all that.
And you did not even show any of these purposes
for my comments. I was not starting a new subject.
I was just showing him how improper his own complaint
was, his own inconsistencies. And you want to make a
federal case out of it? This is silly! You are not
only responding to this one paragraph comment, you
are even starting a new thread. Why are you doing
all this? Maybe your own beliefs are also wrong, and
you feel required to defend something?
Well maybe you ought to also repent. You said
that there are 'circumstancial evidence that species
do change over time....' Well, if all we had was
this, this might be fine. But what you did not say,
and which must be said if you were going to be fair,
going to be scientific, is that we also have
evidence, direct evidence (which means evidence that
is stronger than just circumstantial evidence), that
species do not change over time! Why didn't you say
this? Tons and tons of evidence exist to show that
most, if not all species do not change over time!
Have you heard of the punctuated equilibrium theory?
This theory exists because of the lack of evidence of
these changes that you say must exist.
We know that man, using intelligence, has lots of
successes in bringing about some small changes in
breeding certain animals. But for example, with
flies, that have zillions and zillions of generations
of reproductions, men have had little success in
producing anything but more flies. We know that
genes are very stable, with self-correcting features,
and we know that the fossil records are very
horizontal, and there is only weak scientific
evidence for what is being said in evolution. It is
a sick science, almost as sick as SR! It is sick
because it does not treat the subject fairly and
scientifically.
You own remarks show this failure to state what is
actually observed, rather than just your hopes or
wishes! Why is it that this subject is never
presented with what is actually observed? Why are
there never any true balance, and true statements as
to the real odds of any of this actually having
occurred with as little evidence that exists? Why?
There is nothing shameful by showing that there just
is not any real evidence, it is only assumptions.
Why not be honest? Shame on us all!
Reany wrote:
>And when it comes to biogenesis we have two logical
>choices (assuming that life had a beginning):
>Naturally caused or supernaturally caused
>(special creation). I'm not going to take a stand
>myself. However, you seem to claim that biogenesis
>cannot be natural. Your "proof" uses what we know of
>nature right now. Maybe we just need to learn other
>things about nature. If spontaneous generation is a
>violation of natural law, so too is special
>creation. Furthermore, it's possible to have both
>special creation and the change of species
>thereafter.
O'Barr comments:
So you are not going to take a stand? Then why
the post? Why all the comments? My personal vote is
that life has always existed. This removes most of
the problems in this area. But you are wrong to
assume that I took a stand in the previous post. As
I said, I was making fun over the person who wanted
me to show time as making everything running down!
(I do like your last comment, and there certainly
could be several other variations on these things.
There just is not much evidence to support any of
these thoughts, and no way to test them. But your
last statement would allow what we see to exist, with
no breaking of any law of physics.)
Reany wrote:
>Now, I make clear that I'm NOT arguing for or
>against either view. I am simply arguing against
>your reasoning in this matter. After all, it was
>once believed that atoms were infinitely stable and
>all talk of unstable atoms was a violation of
>everything known of physics at that time (pre-Madame
>Curie). Therefore, I find your line of reasoning
>invalid.
O'Barr comments:
This is silly! You are not taking a stand? But
you are saying I am definitely wrong? How is that
not taking a stand? Science is science. If you
propose a theory that has not and cannot be tested,
and thus has no evidence, it is not science. And yet
right in books being used today, statements are made
that evolution is even beyond science, it is now
known to be correct. This is stupid, and
unscientific, and must be corrected! And I do not
expect any response to this post to be made on this
net! There are more important things to discuss!
Bilge
>Scientific education in the West has failed.
All you can really say is that science education in the US at
the primary and secondary level has become mediocre and trend
is making it's way through universities at the undergraduate
level. At the graduate level, universities in the US are still
highly desirable places to study regardless of where a student
obtained the rest of his/her education. The fact that there exist
other universities in the world which are equally desirable,
does not diminish the fact that students can choose to attend
a university here in the US or a university somewhere else as a
matter of preference having nothing to do with academics without
sacrificing the quality of the education they expect.
As I've told you before, the problems that exist in education
here have a lot less to do with education than it does with
society's attitude regarding the purpose of education, despite
the lofty bullshit people will provide for a camera or a survey.
When the goal is to provide people with a certificate that
guarantees a "skill set" for a resume rather than an broader
education that isn't scantronable, what would you expect other
than a profilferation of diploma mills aimed at replacing
on-the-job training for a narrowly defined task? Correct the
social problem and you'll fix the result of that social problem.
Patrick Reany
I am gong to restate your reply to me minus all comment you made about
me personally or to justify your initial claim to see what is left of
your post:
[snip]
> You said
> that there are 'circumstancial evidence that species
> do change over time....' Well, if all we had was
> this, this might be fine. But what you did not say,
> and which must be said if you were going to be fair,
> going to be scientific, is that we also have
> evidence, direct evidence (which means evidence that
> is stronger than just circumstantial evidence), that
> species do not change over time!
You think of science as about truth; I think of it as about theories
that work. I claimed geologic evidence that ET works as a theory,
which you totally ignored. To be a good theory is not necessarily to
be TRUE.
> Why didn't you say
> this? Tons and tons of evidence exist to show that
> most, if not all species do not change over time!
Give us this evidence. And it had better not be over ONLY the last
10,000 years, for that doesn't even begin to undermine ET. Have you
ever noticed how much dogs and birds have been altered by human
breeding from their original natural forms?
> Have you heard of the punctuated equilibrium theory?
Yes.
> This theory exists because of the lack of evidence of
> these changes that you say must exist.
So what? ET does NOT require punctuated equilibrium theory.
> We know that man, using intelligence, has lots of
> successes in bringing about some small changes in
> breeding certain animals. But for example, with
> flies, that have zillions and zillions of generations
> of reproductions, men have had little success in
> producing anything but more flies.
I think you are wrong even on the facts of the case, but I fail to see
the relevance. Your bigger problem is the fossil record that does NOT
have all life forms represented at the same time in ANY given geologic
strata. And advanced life forms are NOT found in any of the oldest
strata. Explain that. Maybe you just don't want to explain that.
> We know that
> genes are very stable, with self-correcting features,
> and we know that the fossil records are very
> horizontal,
Unclear.
> You own remarks show this failure to state what is
> actually observed, rather than just your hopes or
> wishes!
You haven't even mentioned the geologic record on its merit. Why not?
Are you intending to avoid that forever?
> Reany wrote:
> >And when it comes to biogenesis we have two logical
> >choices (assuming that life had a beginning):
> >Naturally caused or supernaturally caused
> >(special creation). I'm not going to take a stand
> >myself. However, you seem to claim that biogenesis
> >cannot be natural. Your "proof" uses what we know of
> >nature right now. Maybe we just need to learn other
> >things about nature. If spontaneous generation is a
> >violation of natural law, so too is special
> >creation. Furthermore, it's possible to have both
> >special creation and the change of species
> >thereafter.
>
>
> Reany wrote:
> >Now, I make clear that I'm NOT arguing for or
> >against either view. I am simply arguing against
> >your reasoning in this matter. After all, it was
> >once believed that atoms were infinitely stable and
> >all talk of unstable atoms was a violation of
> >everything known of physics at that time (pre-Madame
> >Curie). Therefore, I find your line of reasoning
> >invalid.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> But
> you are saying I am definitely wrong?
I said that your reasoning is wrong, not necessarily that what you
believe is wrong.
> Science is science.
Vacuous.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
I'm not bothered one bit by who does and who doesn't believe in
angels, or in evolution, or in the supernatural. Science is NOT about
disproving the supernatural, as some people claim it is. Science is
NOT about proving evolution either. Science is about the invention of
theories that work.
I care that Westerners generally haven't the slightest idea how to
think critically and have no idea how real science is done.
Patrick
Gerald L. O'Barr
<DELETES by O'Barr>
Reany wrote:
> . . . O'Barr's fallacious and illogical
>arguments are typical of the kind of arguments that
>are typically brought against relativity, quite
>apart from the question of whether relativity is
>"true" or not or "best" or not.
O'Barr comments:
My 'fallacious' arguments? You mean that 3-D
physics is not simpler than 4-D physics? To make
such an awful statement about me, you should have at
least stated what was said, and showed that it was
wrong. If you cannot do this, then you should not be
making such statements. I do not remember you ever
showing any of my statements to be wrong.
And do you mean that it does not really matter if
SR is best or not? What kind of person can you be,
to say such a silly thing!
Reany wrote:
>O'Barr's claims about evolutionary theory shows his
>inablilty to think scientifically.
O'Barr comments:
Again, you show no quote of any statement that
fits such a classification. What has happened to
your sense of honor, here, Reany?
Reany wrote:
>The place to begin to relate science and
>evolutionary theory is their respective definitions.
O'Barr comments:
I see. I did not really say anything wrong. I
just did not define the words exact enough so that
you could say I was wrong. Is that your problem?
Reany wrote:
>O'Barr failed to form "crucial distinctions." He
>failed to look for and find obvious counterexamples
>to his doctrines/hypotheses. He made the fallacious
>claim that what we know of nature NOW is all there
>is to know forever.
O'Barr comments:
I see. So with your thinking, all things are
possible, if we just go back far enough. And upon
what evidence do you base this?
And if we take your approach, let me say this:
Tomorrow all the laws might change again. So Reany,
it is impossible for you to ever say that I am wrong,
because tomorrow changes might occur that will make
me right! How about that? Isn't that just as smart
as you are trying to be?
The truth is, you are one sick person who cannot
live with today's facts! Personally, you can assume
anything you want, but to be scientific, you should
always state things in what we know today, and then
you can offer other possibilities as much as you
want. If you want to believe in evolution, based
upon some physics that no longer exists, please do,
but be sure that everyone knows that this is what you
are doing!
Reany wrote:
>If Newton had argued to himself that since he didn't
>"know" then how gravity worked that he would not
>invent a theory of gravity, where would we be today?
>If he had argued that the force of gravity at the
>point mass particle is unphysical, implying that his
>theory of gravity is nonsense, and thus decided not
>to publish his theory of gravity, where would we be
>today?
O'Barr comments:
No one is against math theories. SR is one of the
most successful theories that have ever existed, and
it is just a math theory. Why are you so confused?
The point is not that math theories are not
important; sometimes, they are all we have. The
point is knowing that once you have the physical base
to go with the math, then you have a superior theory.
That is all that we have to know.
Reany wrote:
>Scientific education in the West has failed.
O'Barr comments:
And where were you educated, Reany?
No one could have a better education than I have.
For any individual to have what I got on their own,
it would cost many millions of dollars.
But education is not what makes someone right, or
correct. It takes hard work, and insight, and more
hard work. And I have done my homework. You ought
to be more careful in considering what I have been
saying. 'LET is superior to SR' is not just a
feeling, it is not just something I want to say. The
science as we have it today supports this position.
Gerald L. O'Barr
<delete by O'Barr of the entire post!>
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
Thank you, Bilge, for making this post so easy.
Since you had nothing meaningful to say in your last
post, then there is nothing for me to answer. So let
me go back to the basics:
Some basic questions that SR experts do not seem
to ever want to address:
********************************
You SR experts used to love to say, in SR, that
this symmetry here was broken, and this symmetry
there was broken. For some reason, since I have been
pointing out that symmetry is never ever broken in
LET, you no longer say these important things. Why
is that?
I have constantly explained that simple 3-D is
physically simpler than an impossible 4-D reality.
And yet you have never addressed this issue. Why is
that?
I have constantly mentioned that in LET, the
physics all takes place in simple 3-D, with simple
addition of velocity. Why have you never said, 'Hey!
That is simpler than SR!' So why don't we consider
these important issues?
I have constantly pointed out that LET has a
physical base, with cause and effects. But in SR,
you cannot give a physical explanation as to why or
how c is a constant, why or how it is independent of
its source, and why or how it is always measured to
be c. In SR, you cannot give a physical reason as to
why the form of your math must remain the same in all
reference frames. Why is that? Why do you never
mention these weak points about SR? Why does your
FAQ never mentions all (or even any of) these weak
points about SR? Is there some kind of a ban on
saying anything bad about SR?
In LET, we have a complete understanding of what
is physically occurring, with complete logic and
justification. In SR, you do not even know what
really physically happens to allow you to measure
what is measured, you only know what the math
requires in terms of a final .
Now there is no end to all these questions, and I
do believe that it is getting time to begin to
discuss these important points. Don't you believe
this, Bilge?
Thanks for reading.
Daniel Weston
about inventing theories that work". This sentence is next to worthless
in telling us about science. Please re-read the quoted statement above
giving critical focus to the phrase "is about". What does "is about"
mean. What are we supposed to understand about science from the phrase
"is about"?:
1) Science is _only_ about inventing theories etc
2) Science _includes_ inventing theories etc
3) Science _accords great importance_ to inventing theories
4) etc
In Patrick Reany's context, it appears that he means # 1 above. To
state that science is only about inventing theories, or primarily about
inventing theories, is to do a great disservice to the overwhelming
amount of scientists who spend most of their time observing, gathering
facts, advising clients using long established tables and formulas,
checking engineer's work, checking results, evaluating plans, teaching,
researching, etc, etc.
Patrick uses the above phrase as a chant or incantation, or rant. He
apparently believes that if he repeats it often enough, that people will
accept it uncritically. He wants this uncritical acceptance because he
considers himself an expert on the theory of theories. Ergo, Reany is
at the heart of science and himself as science's spokesman, resident
philosopher, champion, guardian, and saviour of Western Science.. This
self agrandizement is misplaced. His cant of "Science is about
inventing theories that work", is pompous obfuscation. It is also
getting very boring to the point of aggravating. It can also be
misleading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>In <e9b03d3c.04041...@posting.google.com>
>glo...@yahoo.com (Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote:
>> In <844a1b64.04041...@posting.google.com>
>> re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>>>In <e9b03d3c.04041...@posting.google.com>
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> You said that there are 'circumstancial evidence
>> that species do change over time....' Well, if all
>> we had was this, this might be fine. But what you
>> did not say, and which must be said if you were
>> going to be fair, going to be scientific, is that
>> we also have evidence, direct evidence (which means
>> evidence that is stronger than just circumstantial
>> evidence), that species do not change over time!
Reany wrote:
>You think of science as about truth; I think of it
>as about theories that work. I claimed geologic
>evidence that ET works as a theory, which you
>totally ignored. To be a good theory is not
>necessarily to be TRUE.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
You could be correct. I do think that the purpose
of science is to determine the truth. And I am sure
you like theories that work. And I know you have to
agree that if we had a theory that was the truth,
then it would work. So what is your problem?
Let us be clear: In order for you to accept your
evolution theory, you do not have to lie about it and
claim scientific support where there is none. You do
not have to claim more support for it than you really
have. It is not only proper, but expected, that you
state clearly what supports this theory, and what
does not support it.
This is the same with SR. SR experts have no
right to lie about their theory. They, in fact, are
expected to state clearly the weaknesses contained in
their approach. But they do not, they will not, and
therefore they are unscientific! And so are you,
Reany! You do not appear to know how to be
scientific. Evolution is a very weak science!
It is almost as weak as SR.
O'Barr wrote (asking Reany why he hadn't mentioned
all the evidence for no changes):
>> Why didn't you say this?
>> Tons and tons of evidence exist to show that
>> most, if not all species do not change over time!
Reany wrote:
>Give us this evidence. And it had better not be over
>ONLY the last 10,000 years, for that doesn't even
>begin to undermine ET. Have you ever noticed how
>much dogs and birds have been altered by human
>breeding from their original natural forms?
O'Barr comments:
Certainly we all can note changes in birds, and
dogs, and cats, and horses, and all kinds of things.
But Reany, every dog is still a dog, and every cat is
still a cat. And as best that I have been shown,
these variables were present in the genes before any
of this ever started. And you must know this! Even
in the cross breading that has been done, most are
sterile. We find ourselves able to do much with some
species, but only those where the genes allow it.
And no more! Where did you get your education?
(Didn't I asked this before?)
O'Barr wrote:
>> Have you heard of the punctuated equilibrium
>> theory?
Reany wrote:
>Yes.
O'Barr wrote:
>> This theory exists because of the lack of evidence
>> of these changes that you say must exist.
Reany wrote:
>So what? ET does NOT require punctuated equilibrium
>theory.
O'Barr comments:
The punctuated equilibrium theory has large
support from most modern evolutionary scientists.
And what is it based upon? It is based upon the fact
that there are no site records for evolution. If all
the millions of species really did get to where they
are by each of these millions going through their own
millions of changes, then evidence of these millions
of millions (millions times millions?) of acts should
be everywhere! They are not everywhere. The
evidence is almost exclusively horizontal time lines!
Period! This is serious stuff!
What the punctuated equilibrium theory does, is
that it uses this lack of evidence as proof that it
is right. Can you imagine what kind of science that
makes this claim: That lack of evidence is the
proof! This shows that evolution is believed as a
religion so strongly, that they will believe it
because there is no evidence. What a way to act!
O'Barr wrote:
>> We know that man, using intelligence, has lots of
>> successes in bringing about some small changes in
>> breeding certain animals. But for example, with
>> flies, that have zillions and zillions of
>>generations
>> of reproductions, men have had little success in
>> producing anything but more flies.
Reany wrote:
>I think you are wrong even on the facts of the case,
O'Barr comments:
I really could be. It has been a few years since
I have brought myself up-to-date on this subject!
Reany continues:
>but I fail to see the relevance. Your bigger problem
>is the fossil record that does NOT have all life
>forms represented at the same time in ANY given
>geologic strata. And advanced life forms are NOT
>found in any of the oldest strata. Explain that.
>Maybe you just don't want to explain that.
O'Barr comments:
Well, if man were populating a far away planet,
we would not have started everything off with
everything present from the start. In fact, we would
have done it almost exactly as it appears to have
been done on this earth. Do you see anything strange
in any of this? I sure don't!
O'Barr wrote:
>> We know that genes are very stable, with self-
>> correcting features, and we know that the fossil
>> records are very horizontal,
Reany wrote:
Unclear.
O'Barr comments:
What are you unclear about, how a double helix is
able to check itself, or that fossil records show no
changes with a specific specie with time?
O'Barr wrote:
>> You own remarks show this failure to state what is
>> actually observed, rather than just your hopes or
>> wishes!
Reany wrote:
>You haven't even mentioned the geologic record on
>its merit. Why not? Are you intending to avoid that
>forever?
O'Barr comments:
It is the fossil records that are used by the
punctuated equilibrium people. They say that the
fossil records show no evolution. That is, they show
only horizontal time lines. That is, no changes in
specific species in the fossil records, and for many,
this is for millions of years. And so why is there
no evidence? They say because evolution mainly
occurs during times of stress. These times of stress
occur only over short times (speaking geologically),
and these times are too short for the changes to
become embedded.
<deletes by O'Barr>
How come you like this subject, Reany? Are you
thinking of changing your field?
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany:
> >
> >Scientific education in the West has failed.
>
> All you can really say is that science education in the US at
> the primary and secondary level has become mediocre and trend
> is making it's way through universities at the undergraduate
> level.
I'm interested in the high school and undergraduate college levels in
particular. Do people generally come out of those institutions knowing
how to think critically? No. Do they come out knowing what science is
as a means of vetting "scientific knowledge"? No. Do they come out
understanding the concept of the domain of applicability? No. Do come
out with any concept of epistemology? No.
Do they know the difference between a law, hypothesis, theory, and
model? No. Do they understand the need for operational definitions,
especially in physics? No. Do they understand that physical
concepts/models/theories are not uniquely determined from a set of
physical data? No. Do they understand the pros and cons of both
principle and constructive theories? No. Do they understand the role
of heuristics in science? No. Do they understand that a theory can be
a "good" theory quite apart from whether or not it is "true"? No.
Do they understand that at any moment in time science is the product
of a combination of empirical facts and creative-inventive thinking of
its best scientists, and that therefore science is never just the
result of making simple deductions going from mere facts to successful
theories? No. Do they understand the need in science for a formal
point of view to direct a research program over the long term? No.
Therefore, I say that science education has failed in the West. I
think that it would be no problem to teach this stuff to students from
ages 10 to 18. All we have to do is to just do it. One thing's for
sure: It isn't going to "just happen."
Patrick
Patrick Reany
[snip]
>
> Reany wrote:
> >Scientific education in the West has failed.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And where were you educated, Reany?
Scientific education failed me too. And I resent the hell out of that!
I spent over 20 years after graduating college learning just how badly
science education failed me as well.
When I tell you specific failures of science education, you can either
blow it off and make excuses for not taking me seriously, or you can
keep an open mind and check it out for yourself. Which have YOU done
over the years?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany has again for the umpteenth time told us that "Science is
> about inventing theories that work". This sentence is next to worthless
> in telling us about science.
The central concept of science is the scientific theory. The
scientific theory is used to produce and "explain" (nonuniquely)
scientific laws. The aphorism I use that "Science is about inventing
theories that work" is intended as a very short characterization of
science to combat a fundamental misconception people generally have
about the nature and limitations of science, which is that science can
produce TRUTH. It doesn't in any provable way. It takes truth to beget
truth. Science CAN prove whether a theory works or not; it cannot
prove anything more than that. So, work it out from there yourself.
Try to use some critical thinking.
The scientific theory is typically constructed according to the
criteria afforded it by some research program, which is founded on a
formal point of view.
Patrick
alen
>
> >Natural selection cannot answer this because all the
> >supposedly competing organisms that implement it are all
> >also randomly mutating themselves, and must therefore all
> >degrade together.
>
> How then, would you explain the fact that a modem is able to
> transmit and receive information despite being based upon a
> theory which treats the propagaion of information as a perfectly
> random process which in principle can be made as close to
> perfect as one wishes?
>
> >The only way mutation can build rather than destroy is
> >if it is not really random, but planned and guided.
>
> Then why are atomic clocks so precise? The precision hinges
> on the inherent randomness of atomic transitions.
I would say that there are different kinds of systems. In
the extreme we can have results either fully determined, or almost
completely random, but also systems that might be called
partially determined. By this I characterise probability as
a partial determination, which I think can be a useful viewpoint,
as follows:
If we have a system that has few alternatives, each with
significant probability of occurrence, I suggest it can be
regarded as highly but not completely determined, with
a randomness that is severely restricted by significant
probabilities. In the other direction, we could have a system
with an astronomical number of alternatives, each with
an astronomically small probability of occurrence, and such
a system can similarly be regarded as highly but not
completely random, but with very little direction or
determination.
A system like this, that is highly random, cannot be expected
to construct meaningful results. If, in such a system,
with the hightest randomness, highly complex and meaningful
structures nevertheless exist, this can therefore be taken as
immensely powerful evidence of design or planning or guidance,
instead of the astronomically small effect of probability
working alone.
Alen
Patrick Reany
> re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
> >In <e9b03d3c.04041...@posting.google.com>
> >glo...@yahoo.com (Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote:
> >> In <844a1b64.04041...@posting.google.com>
> >> re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
> >>>In <e9b03d3c.04041...@posting.google.com>
>
> [snip]
>
> O'Barr wrote: . . .
> >> You said that there are 'circumstancial evidence
> >> that species do change over time....' Well, if all
> >> we had was this, this might be fine. But what you
> >> did not say, and which must be said if you were
> >> going to be fair, going to be scientific, is that
> >> we also have evidence, direct evidence (which means
> >> evidence that is stronger than just circumstantial
> >> evidence), that species do not change over time!
ET = "evolutionary theory"
>
> Reany wrote:
> >You think of science as about truth; I think of it
> >as about theories that work. I claimed geologic
> >evidence that ET works as a theory, which you
> >totally ignored. To be a good theory is not
> >necessarily to be TRUE.
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> You could be correct. I do think that the purpose
> of science is to determine the truth.
I know you do; I have long known this. So, I'll ask you to comment on
this claim:
It takes truth to beget truth.
Tell me what you think about it. Do you think it is true or false or
what? Does it imply anything for the scientific method? What is the
scientific method a method of?
> And I am sure
> you like theories that work.
I believe that science can prove whether or not a scientific theory
works, but that it can prove no more than that. Science should be
characterized by what it can actually prove, not by what people merely
wish it could prove. The models used within successful theories are
not necessarily true of reality. And theories that work do not
necessarily provide us with "true" explanations of how the world
"really" works. (Science is NOT natural philosophy.) As scientific
theories go, ET is a "good" theory, which says nothing about whether
or not it is a "true" theory.
> And I know you have to
> agree that if we had a theory that was the truth,
> then it would work. So what is your problem?
Of course I agree with that. The BIG question is then, How do we ever
know that we have truth as a starting point?
> Let us be clear: In order for you to accept your
> evolution theory, you do not have to lie about it and
> claim scientific support where there is none.
I do NOT accept ET as a "true" theory. I accept it as a "good" theory
judged by the formal requirements placed on all scientific theories. A
"good" scientific theory
1) makes a good agreement between its predictions on its domain of
applicability and empirical tests of those predictions, and
2) is able to incorporate new empricial data with little "disturbance"
to the main principles of the theory (Lakatos).
It is never the case that a scientific theory has to "explain"
everything about a data set to be "good." (We probably could never
have gotten science started if we demanded that much of a theory.)
[snip]
>
> Reany wrote:
> >You haven't even mentioned the geologic record on
> >its merit. Why not? Are you intending to avoid that
> >forever?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> It is the fossil records that are used by the
> punctuated equilibrium people. They say that the
> fossil records show no evolution.
It is true that the fossil record by itself only shows fossils in
rocks, not the evolution of species per se. As a general
classification, ET is one of many "explanations" for the fossil record
as we know it.
> That is, they show
> only horizontal time lines. That is, no changes in
> specific species in the fossil records, and for many,
> this is for millions of years. And so why is there
> no evidence? They say because evolution mainly
> occurs during times of stress. These times of stress
> occur only over short times (speaking geologically),
> and these times are too short for the changes to
> become embedded.
Let's start of with a definition: Evolution means "change over time."
Now, the geologic strata shows us that not all species were leaving
remains in all strata. Why? Well, to answer that we invent a theory.
Theories are part subjective. They incorporate our formal point of
views, don't they?
If we accept that different strata are the result of processes working
at different times and that the fossils found in these different
strata are statistically fair representations of the flora and fauna
of the life forms living at the time when the strata were laid, then
we have a justification for claiming that not all life forms (we infer
to have ever existed) did ever exist at the same time in any location
or at any geologic time interval, and that there is an overall
increase in biological complexity over geologic time as judged by the
fossil record. Now, there is no unique explanation for these facts and
simple inferences. There are various evolutionary and creationist
theories to "explain" the geologic record. Any theory, scientific or
otherwise, which you want to consider as "true" has to be taken so on
faith.
O'Barr, my sole interest in discussing ET was to discuss the nature of
the scientific theory.
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> I'm interested in the high school and undergraduate college levels in
> particular. Do people generally come out of those institutions knowing
> how to think critically?
There are several hundred students in the graduating class of the Bronx
Highschool of Science who would dispute what you say.
> No. Do they come out knowing what science is
> as a means of vetting "scientific knowledge"? No. Do they come out
> understanding the concept of the domain of applicability? No. Do come
> out with any concept of epistemology? No.
So you assert. Now provide the statistics to -prove- your assertions. Do
you really believe that those who go on to become engineers or go to
graduate programs of physics do not know these things? I doubt it. Show
me some facts to prove me wrong.
>
> Do they know the difference between a law, hypothesis, theory, and
> model?
These are your crotchetts, bubbah. Real scientists are too busy doing
science to niggle and haggle over terms like that. Methinks you are an
intellectual snob. Why don't you do real science instead of criticizing
from the sidelines?
> No. Do they understand the need for operational definitions,
> especially in physics? No. Do they understand that physical
> concepts/models/theories are not uniquely determined from a set of
> physical data? No. Do they understand the pros and cons of both
> principle and constructive theories? No. Do they understand the role
> of heuristics in science? No. Do they understand that a theory can be
> a "good" theory quite apart from whether or not it is "true"? No.
Again you assert, without providing proof. Do you know what the term
blovating jackass means?
>
> Do they understand that at any moment in time science is the product
> of a combination of empirical facts and creative-inventive thinking of
> its best scientists, and that therefore science is never just the
> result of making simple deductions going from mere facts to successful
> theories? No. Do they understand the need in science for a formal
> point of view to direct a research program over the long term? No.
More ASS-ertions. No proof (and why am I not surprised?).
>
> Therefore, I say that science education has failed in the West. I
> think that it would be no problem to teach this stuff to students from
> ages 10 to 18. All we have to do is to just do it. One thing's for
> sure: It isn't going to "just happen."
In the mean time science is getting done in the West in spite of your
Angst.
Have you read -Gulliver's Travels-? Go to the part where Gulliver is
watching the philosophers turning cranks to produce letter sequences.
You would fit right in there.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
> The scientific theory is typically constructed according to the
> criteria afforded it by some research program, which is founded on a
> formal point of view.
That is what an epistemologist might say. What do -real scientists- say
when they do what they do.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
> glo...@yahoo.com (Gerald L. O'Barr) wrote in message news:<e9b03d3c.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>In <844a1b64.04041...@posting.google.com>
>>re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>Reany wrote:
>>
>>>Scientific education in the West has failed.
>>
>>O'Barr comments:
>> And where were you educated, Reany?
>
>
> Scientific education failed me too. And I resent the hell out of that!
> I spent over 20 years after graduating college learning just how badly
> science education failed me as well.
In short, you want to blame your failures and deficiencies on someone
else. Way to go! Why don't you take responsibility for your shortcomings
instead? It would be the manly thing to do.
The reasons why I am not a Great Mathematician are:
1. I lacked the talent
2. I did not work hard enough to develop the talent that I did possess.
And shame on me for that! In my next life I will do better.
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
"Nobody has measured this yet, so we could do a really crappy job and it
will be publishable."
(Said in connection with radiative beta decay.)
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
Robert J. Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
>
>
> "Nobody has measured this yet, so we could do a really crappy job and it
> will be publishable."
It is a true statement. So what? No one is oblidged to do a crappy job.
Bob Kolker
Gregory L. Hansen
You asked what real scientists say when they do what they do. Real
scientists said that. It's a little joke that got passed around for a
while in the group I'm with at NIST. Wouldn't be funny if it weren't
true.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
Patrick Reany
Well, in the past caloricicts employed caloric until that wasn't
fashionable or feasible any more. At one time the etherists ran the
roost to extend explanation of physics in terms of ether. The most
popular research program ever devised was the so-called Mechanical
Program, in which every explanation was attempted from the mechanical
viewpoint -- that is, from the viewpoint that all can be explained in
terms of point mass particles in motion and undergoing mutual
interactions at a distance. String theorists try to employ string
theory in all cases, I suppose. There's nothing wrong with this. It
makes sense to take any formal point of view that has worked in the
past to its logical conclusion. If a research rogram runs out of
steam, sotospeak, so be it.
The relativist research program is the attempt to devise all theories
according to the assumption that it is possible to build theories that
do not need absolute spaces to "explain" phenomena. This program was
credited by Einstein as the direct reason he extended SR to GR, and
why he invented SR instead of settling for LET. I have posted the
quotes many times before.
Formal points of view include everything that isn't "falsifiable" in
the naive sense, which includes the notion of logical economy. You
either choose to adopt it or you don't, but experiment isn't going to
tell you you can't use it or that you must use it.
Einstein used the PoR as a heuristic to implicitly define a general
law of physics. No definition is ever forced on a theorists by nature.
Yet the procedure was useful for inventing theories that work.
So, I haven't any idea what most theorists would claim on behalf of
their research, but the purpose of the research program is to be an
ongoing motivator to building theories according to certain
constraints that are freely chosen. If there is such a thing as a
constraint that is demanded by nature on all physical theories then it
isn't part of a formal point of view.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Well, in the past caloricicts employed caloric until that wasn't
isn't part of a formal point of view.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
I find your "conclusion" very illogical. You and a lot of physicists
on this NG have a penchant for turning viewpoints into personal
attacks against other posters. Why don't you stop doing that for a
wonderful change of pace. Are you saying that it's impossible for a
citizen to have a value judgment of what ought to be taught in science
education on its own merit?
I simply mean this: What I should have been taught about science
should have been normal stuff taught to all people in the West. It
isn't hard to learn this stuff if it is spread out over a number of
years and embedded as normal in science presentation at all levels. It
doesn't take 20 years to learn this stuff unless you have to stumble
upon it on your own unguided efforts.
I can only take from your reply that you don't agree with any of the
science education reforms I have suggested.
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
> I can only take from your reply that you don't agree with any of the
> science education reforms I have suggested.
Your reforms will reform nothing. Science depends on talent and talent
will make its way to the light. All the philosphical probity and purity
in the world will not substitute for intuition and imagination.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> > Do they know the difference between a law, hypothesis, theory, and
> > model?
>
> These are your crotchetts, bubbah. Real scientists are too busy doing
> science to niggle and haggle over terms like that.
I'm not talking about the needs of scientists, real or otherwise; I'm
talking about the needs of science students so they can properly
understand science. Besides, don't scientists use these terms
themselves? Don't they have well-defined meanings for them by now?
Isn't 400 years enough time for them to nail them down?
> Methinks you are an
> intellectual snob. Why don't you do real science instead of criticizing
> from the sidelines?
I've snipped out the majority of your inane personal attacks so I can
deal with just one issue for a change. Do you really believe that it
is NOT important for a science student to be able to distinguish
between a law, hypothesis, theory, and model? If so, why?
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> I've snipped out the majority of your inane personal attacks so I can
> deal with just one issue for a change. Do you really believe that it
> is NOT important for a science student to be able to distinguish
> between a law, hypothesis, theory, and model? If so, why?
Will knowing verbal distinctions produce more and better physics? I
don't see why. Science education should be designed to push the talent
young could be scientists and would be scientists into active research
asap. The best will survive the cut and provide goodies for the rest of us.
Bob Kolker
Bill Hobba
"alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:dfca704b.04041...@posting.google.com...
> re...@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message
news:<844a1b64.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > [...]
> > And when it comes to biogenesis we have two logical choices (assuming
> > that life had a beginning): Naturally caused or supernaturally caused
> > (special creation). I'm not going to take a stand myself. However, you
> > seem to claim that biogenesis cannot be natural. Your "proof" uses
> > what we know of nature right now. Maybe we just need to learn other
> > things about nature. If spontaneous generation is a violation of
> > natural law, so too is special creation. Furthermore, it's possible to
> > have both special creation and the change of species thereafter.
> >
> > Patrick
>
>
> This is not about relativity but, since it is
> an important question, I will make a short comment.
>
> To me it is impossible that random mutation, over
> however long a time, could ever build rather than
> destroy. The number of possible destructive alternatives,
> for any structure of any complexity, is always
> astronomically larger than the constructive or improving
> alternatives, so that a random principle will almost
> always create a destructive alternative. If, for example,
> you randomly move the positions of individual bricks
> in a building, it will degrade rather than improve, and
> eventually collapse.
>
> Natural selection cannot answer this because all the
> supposedly competing organisms that implement it are all
> also randomly mutating themselves, and must therefore all
> degrade together.
All however do not degrade - by probability alone some are better. The ones
that are better continue on - those that degrade die out.
> The only way mutation can build rather than destroy is
> if it is not really random, but planned and guided.
Mutation may be random but survival is not - those that are better breed
more and thrive.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc7lnq4....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
And that is exactly what universities have turned into - even when I was
studying. Lecturers knew - nearly all students wanted was a piece of paper
to get them a job. A smaller percentage were or became interested in
knowledge. They were nurtured and formed the future pool graduate school
students were drawn from.
Thanks
Bill
Daniel Weston
discussion on evolution and creationism. Creationism is premised on
super-natural intervention. Super-natural means non-natural or
extra-natural. Science is about the natural; and within the
jurisdiction of science, science has nothing to say about explaining
anything from the super-natural or non-natural or extra-natural
standpoint, except that it is not science.
Those familiar with science history know the extremely heavy price that
science and mankind suffered by relying on super-natural explanations
for things observed in nature. Such a super-natural approach to nature
squelches scientific inquiry. If during the dark ages you were to ask,
"Why is a rose red?", you would be informed that this is God's way to
remind us of Jesus's blood shed on the cross. (I am not kidding) If
you were to ask why the sun and the moon moved the way they do, you
would be told that they were in God's hand, and they move as God wills.
If the sun and moon moved as God wills it and he can do whatever he
wants whenever he wants, why spend time, money and effort in finding
some other explanation? As a result science suffered. In the same
vein, religion taught us that mental illness is caused by demon
possession and the cure is to get the demons cast out. Under such
circumstances, why spend time, money and effort, to find a natural
explanation.
At this point we can thank the philosophers (Spinoza et al) who at great
personal sacrifice, pain, and punishment, finally freed the
intellectuals from the necessity and acceptability of super-natural
causation for anything. Science then came alive as the necessity for
the super-natural receded.
The belief that God created the universe 4 or 12 thousand years ago by
super-natural intervention, is a religious belief. Different religions
teach quite different accounts of the universe's beginning. Public
schools should not subsidize ideas of the Southern Baptist Convention to
the exclusion of other religions. They should avoid showing religious
preferences since they are publicly funded enterprises run by
governments.
Has science answered all the open questions about evolution? Decidedly
not.
There are still open questions about the sun's movement. (Does it frame
drag?) That is no reason to put matters about the sun, the moon, and
the stars, back in the moving hands of a god. Incomplete science is
never justification for returning the the super-natural.
Conclusion: Scientists and like minded citizens support the teaching of
evolution because it a a natural theory, whereas creationism is a
super-natural theory and a religious belief.
Gerald L. O'Barr
<deletes by O'Barr>
Reany wrote:
>ET = "evolutionary theory"
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> . . . I do think that the purpose
>> of science is to determine the truth. . . .
Reany wrote:
>I know you do; I have long known this. So, I'll ask
>you to comment on this claim:
> It takes truth to beget truth.
>Tell me what you think about it. Do you think it is
>true or false or what? Does it imply anything for
>the scientific method? What is the scientific
>method a method of?
O'Barr comments:
'Truth is knowledge of things as they were, and as
they are, and as they will become.' You, Reany, you
exist, you have knowledge, you know about many things
as they were, and as they are, and as they might
become. And to that extent, you have that much
truth. We all have enough truth to say some of these
things.
The scientific method involves the concept that
there is truth (or a reality) that is fixed,
repeatable, and capable of being known. Because it
is 'repeatable,' then a process of using tests has
been found to be useful to confirm our understanding
or knowledge of this reality. Science involves this
process of testing, and using the results of these
tests with our intelligence to decide on correct
theories about our reality. To the extent that this
all works, then it does not matter what people we
might be, speaking what language, believing in what
religion, having different degrees of smartness, we
will all eventually come to the same conclusions!
O'Barr wrote
>> And I am sure you like theories that work.
Reany wrote:
>I believe that science can prove whether or not a
>scientific theory works, but that it can prove no
>more than that.
O'Barr comments:
You could be more careful in your thinking.
Science cannot really do anything. But scientists
can do much by using science. I am sure you can see
and observe many areas where we presently stand
helpless to know many things. It was designed to be
so. But at the same time, we have the power to know
many other things, very important things. It is far
from the position you seem to want to establish.
Reany wrote:
>Science should be characterized by what it can
>actually prove, not by what people merely
>wish it could prove. The models used within
>successful theories are not necessarily true of
>reality. And theories that work do not necessarily
>provide us with "true" explanations of how the world
>"really" works. (Science is NOT natural philosophy.)
>As scientific theories go, ET is a "good" theory,
>which says nothing about whether or not it is a
>"true" theory.
O'Barr comments:
I guess that what I would say is this: I
understand why you said everything you said above.
There are situations where such things you say are
even true. But what I would say is that your
thinking is incomplete. Not all science is equal.
Not all theories are equal. Not all facts are equal.
Once we get to have multiple reinforcements of some
theory or fact, once you get multiple duplications,
having independent confirmations, using different
approaches and getting the same conclusions, there
does come a time when the confidence is improved to
the point that if you do not conclude that it is
true, then you are becoming irresponsible. You seem
to want to have things in such a way that you can
never be responsible. But this will never be
allowed. You are responsible for what you determine
to be correct, and you will never be able to escape
into la la land.
O'Barr wrote:
>> And I know you have to
>> agree that if we had a theory that was the truth,
>> then it would work. So what is your problem?
Reany wrote:
>Of course I agree with that. The BIG question is
>then, How do we ever know that we have truth as a
>starting point?
O'Barr comments:
Truth never conflicts with truth. So take that
which you are the most confident about, and begin to
build. As long as everything correctly fits with
this, then continue to build.
O'Barr wrote:
>> Let us be clear: In order for you to accept your
>> evolution theory, you do not have to lie about it
>> and claim scientific support where there is none.
Reany wrote:
>I do NOT accept ET as a "true" theory. I accept it
>as a "good" theory judged by the formal requirements
>placed on all scientific theories. A "good"
>scientific theory
>
>1) makes a good agreement between its predictions on
>its domain of applicability and empirical tests of
>those predictions, ...
O'Barr comments:
I ought to call you a liar. But I really do not
do this until you have to be corrected more than a
few times. Let me tell you a few things that
evolution theory has personally done to my family.
My poor mother was often under the care of doctors,
doctors who were raised with evolution. Back in my
days, when medical doctors did not really know much,
if a person needed a tonsil to come out, it came out.
And why did the tonsils come out? Because tonsils
were just a left over from some pre-human evolution
process, and we had no more need for it. Did you
hear that? Evolution was being used as justification
to remove human parts. And the health care that my
mother got, and the rest of my family, was not good,
some of it justified by these false evolution
concepts.
And today, of course, we know that this automatic
removal is not correct. So you tell me how correct
evolution theory has been to our family! If they had
had the concept that the body was make to be as it
was, then better decisions would have been made.
<deletes by O'Barr>
Reany wrote: . . .
> Any theory, scientific or otherwise, which you
>want to consider as "true" has to be taken so on
>faith.
O'Barr comments:
True, but the amount of faith needed depends on
that being assumed. You cannot use your statement as
justification for saying you can never believe
anything, or that all beliefs are equal.
Reany wrote:
>O'Barr, my sole interest in discussing ET was to
>discuss the nature of the scientific theory.
O'Barr comments:
And of course you failed.
I am going to end this non-relativity discussion.
But I assure you; evolution is not good science.
There are millions of facts in evolution that are
correct, and should be learned and studied. But the
main conclusions are unsupportable. I hope I will
not hear you say again that evolution is good
science. It is a weak science, and needs to be
improved as much as SR.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com>
P.S. The day will come when some will take the time
and trouble to research the harm that has been done
by having false concepts such as are seen in
evolution, and other so called advanced theories. It
will not be nice to be around during these times!
How about doing this now? It could be done now, if
we were really honest about all these things!
Bilge
>> Patrick Reany:
>> >
>> >Scientific education in the West has failed.
>>
>> All you can really say is that science education in the US at
>> the primary and secondary level has become mediocre and trend
>> is making it's way through universities at the undergraduate
>> level.
>
>I'm interested in the high school and undergraduate college levels in
>particular. Do people generally come out of those institutions knowing
>how to think critically? No. Do they come out knowing what science is
>as a means of vetting "scientific knowledge"? No. Do they come out
>understanding the concept of the domain of applicability? No. Do come
>out with any concept of epistemology? No.
>
>Do they know the difference between a law, hypothesis, theory, and
>model? No. Do they understand the need for operational definitions,
>especially in physics? No. Do they understand that physical
>concepts/models/theories are not uniquely determined from a set of
>physical data? No. Do they understand the pros and cons of both
>principle and constructive theories? No. Do they understand the role
>of heuristics in science? No. Do they understand that a theory can be
>a "good" theory quite apart from whether or not it is "true"? No.
understanding what society expects them to understand (which is not
necessarily the same things to which society gives a lot of lip service).
Society does not care about those things. Whether or not a small segment
of the population might, is irrelevant.
>
>Do they understand that at any moment in time science is the product
>of a combination of empirical facts and creative-inventive thinking of
>its best scientists, and that therefore science is never just the
>result of making simple deductions going from mere facts to successful
>theories? No.
Does it matter them, financially? No.
> Do they understand the need in science for a formal
>point of view to direct a research program over the long term? No.
Does it matter them, financially? No.
>Therefore, I say that science education has failed in the West.
When I referred to primary and secondary education, I was not
referring to the ``west''. I was referring to the US. The ``west''
is also comprised of the educational systems in europe, for which
the countries which represent the majority of the ``best'' is comprised.
>I think that it would be no problem to teach this stuff to students from
>ages 10 to 18. All we have to do is to just do it.
It would be ``no problem'' to teach a lot of ``stuff'', that would
be of value to individuals in learning to teach themselves. Except that,
society equates better education with higher scores on standardized
tests. If education was about learning to think about complex subjects
and analyzing them analytically, schools would ban things like scantron
type tests. Schools would encourage controversy. Parents expect public
schools to shield their kids from facts and dilemnas, to prevent their
kids from thinking too much. But people aren't encouraged to think as
adults, so what makes you think that teaching everyone to think would
result in anything but a lot of adult malcontents? While that might
very well be desirable, I don't think you'll find many adults that
think a world full of educated rabble rousers is very desirable. After
all, how far do most people get pointing out unpleasant facts to their
employers?
>One thing's for sure: It isn't going to "just happen."
Well, here's an example of someone who apparently shares your opinion:
"If Alabama's students are going to understand how science really works,
they must learn to evaluate and analyze theories," Gov. James said."
http://www.textbookleague.org/72crank.htm
However, upon closer examination, you'll discover you and he have quite
different opinions on what it means to ``analyze theories''. The quote
above is a pretext to promote a textbook on creationism in Alabama. If you
read through a number of articles on that site, you'll discover that
school textbooks are chosen for a lot of reasons that have little to do
with content excellence. You're argument revolves around trying to change
the wrong thing. Teaching people lots of definitions and terms for
abstract concepts is just going to give you a lot of creationists and
pseudoscien- tists with a better vocabulary to exploit in promoting
unscientific views. So long as society thinks that it's natural to panic
and trample people when someone yells ``fire'' in a crowded theater,
society will do its best to insure no one has to look around and evaluate
what was said and act upon their own analysis of the circumstances by
threatening the person who would take advantage of society's right to
cattle mentality.
Your constant reference to science education as deficient neglects the
fact that the way people think about science is not separate from the way
people think about everything else. Analytical thinking involves a lot
more than knowing the words to describe the process. In fact, I see little
point in teaching people definitions of words or describing a process
unless students have the freedom to put those things into practice,
regardless of whether it's science class or political science class.
I suggest that if you employ your own program and analyze the bigger
picture, you'll find that science education is pretty much accomplishing
the basic goals that society expects schools to acheive. I don't have
to find that desirable or undesirable to recognize it.
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
>> . . .
>
><delete by O'Barr of the entire post!>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr <glo...@yahoo.com> comments:
> Thank you, Bilge, for making this post so easy.
Why thank me o'bargain? You're the one who deleted the entire content of
my post in order to make your ``post so easy''. Obviously, what you've
written has nothing to do with what I posted, so I certainly didn't
provide you with any help. Give credit where credit is due. You deleted
everything that would have made your task more difficult, so you should
get the credit for simplifying your task of writing a response. On the
other hand, since there is nothing in the rest of your post that applies
to me or what I wrote, I see no reason to address the rest what you
posted.
Patrick Reany
I don't think that I'm missing the point. It is debatable whether or
not society thinks that high school education in critical thinking
(avoidance of fallacies for one thing) and scientific thinking is OK
where it's at. If society just doesn't give a damn then you could be
right. On the other hand, society may place a lot of importance for
students to really get how to think critically and scientifically, but
is unaware of just how bad high schools meet the challange.
I still say that society is better served if students graduate high
school knowing how science is really done than not knowing.
>
> >
> >Do they understand that at any moment in time science is the product
> >of a combination of empirical facts and creative-inventive thinking of
> >its best scientists, and that therefore science is never just the
> >result of making simple deductions going from mere facts to successful
> >theories? No.
>
> Does it matter them, financially? No.
I learned a lot of things in high school that society thought was
important but not really finacially benficial, such as history. And
I'm not necessarily advocating a separate class. In fact, that
wouldn't do at all.
>
> > Do they understand the need in science for a formal
> >point of view to direct a research program over the long term? No.
>
> Does it matter them, financially? No.
>
> >Therefore, I say that science education has failed in the West.
>
> When I referred to primary and secondary education, I was not
> referring to the ``west''. I was referring to the US. The ``west''
> is also comprised of the educational systems in europe, for which
> the countries which represent the majority of the ``best'' is comprised.
I have yet to find anyone from any country, either who I met
personally or by way of NGs, that demonstrates that their science
education left them understanding the nature of science. So, I say the
West. I would be happy to learn that some country in the West, such as
Canada, England, France, Germany, Spain, Australia, Japan, etc, does a
lot better in teaching the nature of science to their people.
I think that it matters though. Maybe I'm the only one in the world
that does.
>
>
> >I think that it would be no problem to teach this stuff to students from
> >ages 10 to 18. All we have to do is to just do it.
>
> It would be ``no problem'' to teach a lot of ``stuff'', that would
> be of value to individuals in learning to teach themselves.
How much does the West/US value science is the question. Maybe society
would agree with me if it was aware of the situation, or maybe it
wouldn't. The next big question is not what society thinks about my
claims, but is what scientists and science educators think about them.
My question to you, Bilge, is this: Do you think that on every issue I
raised above about the "deficiencies" of standard Western/US education
that our science students are learning the minimum to be good science
students? In other words, do you disagree with my specific assessments
above point by point?
I have a lot of saved posts in which physicists tell some poster that
he or she doesn't understand how science really works. I tend to
agree. So, how did this situation happen? If it should be fixed, how
should it be fixed?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
And Hume disprove the naive belief in causation by undermining the
"principle of sufficient reason."
Disprove this claim: The supernatural is the ultimate cause of
everything.
Disprove this claim: The supernatural is the immediate cause of
everything.
Why does it matter to you if people believe in the supernatual?
> Science then came alive as the necessity for
> the super-natural receded.
Science is hindered neither by the possible existence of the
supernatural nor by the belief in the supernatural per se. The problem
is intolerance from both sides toward the other side.
>
> The belief that God created the universe 4 or 12 thousand years ago by
> super-natural intervention, is a religious belief. Different religions
> teach quite different accounts of the universe's beginning. Public
> schools should not subsidize ideas of the Southern Baptist Convention to
> the exclusion of other religions. They should avoid showing religious
> preferences since they are publicly funded enterprises run by
> governments.
The belief in evolution theory as true is also religious. To believe
in the truthfulness of any scientific theory is to go beyond what
science can prove and is thus outside of science.
>
> Has science answered all the open questions about evolution? Decidedly
> not.
> There are still open questions about the sun's movement. (Does it frame
> drag?) That is no reason to put matters about the sun, the moon, and
> the stars, back in the moving hands of a god. Incomplete science is
> never justification for returning the the super-natural.
>
> Conclusion: Scientists and like minded citizens support the teaching of
> evolution because it a a natural theory, whereas creationism is a
> super-natural theory and a religious belief.
What officially/logically separates the natural from the supernatural?
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> >
> > I've snipped out the majority of your inane personal attacks so I can
> > deal with just one issue for a change. Do you really believe that it
> > is NOT important for a science student to be able to distinguish
> > between a law, hypothesis, theory, and model? If so, why?
>
> Will knowing verbal distinctions produce more and better physics?
I think it can help. The fewer misconceptions the better. The clearer
the parts, the clearer the whole.
> I
> don't see why. Science education should be designed to push the talent
> young could be scientists and would be scientists into active research
> asap.
In other words, science education should not be designed to teach the
masses about science; it should only be designed to address the needs
of the very few students that go on to become scientists, right? Even
in that case, those few students should be able to make the proper
distinctions!
> The best will survive the cut and provide goodies for the rest of us.
>
> Bob Kolker
Is there something special about those four terms, Bob, that make you
so lax on them? Or is your operative principle that we shouldn't
bother to define scientific terms generally to science students. Is it
really that big of an investment of time to teach students the meaning
of these four terms, Bob?
I can't think of any more fundamental terms in science than law,
hypothesis, theory, and model. It is reasonable to believe that if
students don't properly understand what those terms mean then they
will have profound misconceptions about the nature of science. It's
virtually inevitable. The only remaining question is this: do we even
care if students graduate high school or college with fundamental
misconceptions about the nature of science? I guess we as a society do
not care. But I care.
Below are my definitions of these terms. They are given in the most
general form I could think of, yet still being amenable for
specialization to scientific use by additional constraints added to
them if needed. I also crafted them to be maximally consistent with
how I found the terms being used in the writings of the best
physicists I have read:
Model -- a representation of a thing, concept, or relationship
Theory -- an explanation in the form of a deductive system
Law -- an invariable relationship on values or events
Hypothesis -- a simple speculation
But there's a lot more to say about those four terms for science
students.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
So, "talent" isn't ever advanced by "proper" education or hindered by
lack thereof? Isn't science a group activity? Don't scientists have to
communicate among themselves using jargon that they all agree on to
obtain meaningful conversations? I'm NOT framing my position as a
choice between raw "talent" or proper philosophical understanding and
proper, consistent definitions. Why can't we have it all?
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> Model -- a representation of a thing, concept, or relationship
>
> Theory -- an explanation in the form of a deductive system
>
> Law -- an invariable relationship on values or events
>
> Hypothesis -- a simple speculation
All are -descriptions- of the world. The rest is mere detail. The Word
is not the Thing and the Map is not the Territory.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
Could you explain yourself a bit better. Do you take issue with any of
the definitions? If so, what would you offer in its place?
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
>
> Could you explain yourself a bit better. Do you take issue with any of
> the definitions? If so, what would you offer in its place?
Models, theories, laws and hypotheses are abstract surrogates for
reality. They are similacara. The only justification for them is how
well they resemble and predict the real thing. Is that plain enough.
They are -all- models. The only difference is in the degree of
generality and detail.
Bob Kolker
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Could you explain yourself a bit better. Do you take issue with any of
> > the definitions? If so, what would you offer in its place?
>
> Models, theories, laws and hypotheses are abstract surrogates for
> reality. They are similacara. The only justification for them is how
> well they resemble and predict the real thing. Is that plain enough.
No. Are you going to answer my questions or not? We don't stick
"reality" into physics textbooks. It won't fit. Instead, we stick
equations and sentences into them. Those sentences are supposed to
communicate ideas to students. The efficiency of that communication is
a function of, among other things, the clarity and usefulness of the
definitions given to the fundamental terms used in physics.
So, once again, do you take issue with any of the definitions I
presented? Do you have better definitions of any of the four terms?
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
>
> No. Are you going to answer my questions or not?
I just did. The distinctions you make are -irrelevent- to the essention.
Does or does not the theory, model, hypothesis lead to correct
quantiative predictions about what happens in the world under specified
circumstance. Anything thing other than this is irrelevent and the kind
of thing the useless academics and philosophers do.
> We don't stick
> "reality" into physics textbooks. It won't fit. Instead, we stick
> equations and sentences into them. Those sentences are supposed to
> communicate ideas to students. The efficiency of that communication is
> a function of, among other things, the clarity and usefulness of the
> definitions given to the fundamental terms used in physics.
We stick verbal/mathematical artifacts into text books and hope that he
help us deal with the oh to solid real world.
>
> So, once again, do you take issue with any of the definitions I
> presented? Do you have better definitions of any of the four terms?d
I have none, because it does not matter how you define these things
beyond being descriptors and predictors of what happens in the world. I
reject the relevency of the distinctions you make, root and branch. They
are useless. Only one question is relevent --- how well does your verbal
artifact predict what will happen Out There.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> Could you explain yourself a bit better. Do you take issue with any of
> the definitions? If so, what would you offer in its place?
Read Matthew 23:24 -- Ye blind guides who strain at gnats and swallow
camels. That is just about what you are doing.
Bob Kolker
Androcles
|
|
| Patrick Reany wrote:
| >
| >
| > No. Are you going to answer my questions or not?
|
| I just did. The distinctions you make are -irrelevent- to
the essention.
What the heck is an essention?
1. ascension
2. Ascension
3. ascensions
4. assertion
5. assentation
6. assertions
7. ascensional
8. assonance
9. ozonation
10. essential
Mispelling "irrelevant" is bad enough, but when the
dim-witted resort to manufacturing their own words it
betrays a certain lack of cape and compet, doesn't it? :-)
Androcles
Robert J. Kolker
Androcles wrote:
> "Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:z_sfc.142593$w54.947555@attbi_s01...
> |
> |
> | Patrick Reany wrote:
> | >
> | >
> | > No. Are you going to answer my questions or not?
> |
> | I just did. The distinctions you make are -irrelevent- to
> the essention.
>
> What the heck is an essention?
Typo. Essential\
Petty stupid people niggle over spelling.
Bob Kolker
>
Patrick Reany
And this from the guy who talked about if his grandmother had balls. I
knew he wouldn't give an honest answer in the end.
Patrick
Robert J. Kolker
Patrick Reany wrote:
> And this from the guy who talked about if his grandmother had balls. I
> knew he wouldn't give an honest answer in the end.
You got a very honest answer. I told you plainly your distinctions are
nonsensical and useless in four different ways. They have little or
nothing to do, with the -doing- of science. You just don't like the
answer I gave you.
Scientists do science. Wannabees and camp followers do philosophy. If
you want to be an informed science -fan- then be that. Theere is no
shame in that. Not everyone can be Babe Ruth or Hank Aarons. Learn some
stuff, relax and enjoy watching the game. If you can't or won't play, at
least be an intelligent watcher and enjoy the game.
Bob Kolker
Amanda
Are you having problems understanding science and just stuck with
those 4 definitions and cannot proceed from there? Just wondering.
>
> Patrick
Daryl McCullough
>Scientists do science. Wannabees and camp followers do philosophy.
I don't agree. Philosophy has had a great influence on the way
science is actually done. What is considered a scientific theory
today is very different from the sorts of theories advanced at
the time of the Greeks or through the Middle Ages. The difference
is not completely due to the steady increase in knowledge, but
also due to the changing conception of what it means to do science,
what constitutes a scientific theory, the role of hypothesis testing,
the role of falsifiability, etc. The sort of issues that Patrick is
talking about have played an enormous role in the advance of science.
Of course, most people don't learn about how to do science from
books or from philosophers, they learn about it from other scientists.
They learn their philosophy as they go, but learn it they certainly
do.
It is speculation on Patrick's part to believe that we would have
better scientists or a public that is better trained to make intelligent
decisions if we had more rigorous training in the philosophy of science.
It could very well be that those who are capable of being good scientists
learn what they need to know on their own, and for the rest an education
in the philosophy of science would be pearls before swine.
But I think it is wrong to say that philosophical principles play
no role in science. They not be verbalized, but
they are part of the culture and practice of science.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Robert J. Kolker
Daryl McCullough wrote:
> But I think it is wrong to say that philosophical principles play
> no role in science. They not be verbalized, but
> they are part of the culture and practice of science.
Straightforward realism is implicit in physics. Physicists believe there
is an Out There out there and that physics is -about something- that is
not entirely in our heads. So to that extent you are right.
To go any further you would have to demonstrate an essential and
positive contribution that philosophy has made to physical science
(which is the only kind of science). I would be most anxious to see such
a demonstration. Until then, I will share Richard Feynman's high opinion
of the philosophers.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Amanda wrote:
>
> Are you having problems understanding science and just stuck with
> those 4 definitions and cannot proceed from there? Just wondering.
>
I think Mr. Reany his obsessed with a fetish. He strains at gnats and
brings forth camels.
Bob Kolker
Daryl McCullough
>Daryl McCullough wrote:
There is a big difference between philosophy and professional
philosophers. Feynman had a philosophy of science, (as did
Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg) he just didn't learn it from
professional philosophers. Feynman had very strong opinions about
the nature of scientific theories, of the importance of experiments,
the importance of thought experiments. His attitude towards science
is the product of centuries of development of scientific thought.
As I said, you need to compare the sorts of science done in the time
of Aristotle or in the Middle Ages with the sort of science done today.
The difference is not simply knowledge about specific theories, but
the evolution in the knowledge of what constitutes good science.
Daryl McCullough
I'm not sure that I agree with Reany's diagnose of what's wrong
with scientific education, but it is certainly more thoughtful
than your attacks on him. Those I cannot understand at all.
If you think it is important that people just do science, and
not talk about doing it, then you can lead by example by not
participating in threads like these.
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
............. ...For the time being, scientific education has not
failed nowhere, and never and ever would. However, only and only, from a
time to an other, the primordial component as an essential ingredient which
is the motivation along the science, can fall or a made to be failed along
an arbitrary manners. For the simple reason, that, as the science requires a
deep concentration to attain the required insight along a specific
objectivity.
............. ...Systematically, an infinite amount of a sociological
problems makes their intrusion usually in the life of a human beings as
among all of them and the most destroyers problems as a creators of a
crucial problematic which it can be a major handicap along the science are
the psychological problems. Therefore, which are a very, very hard to cross.
Because, those kind of a psychological problem, they do usually apply along
along a specific moment as among a crucial support which is a time matter.
.............. ...The primordial reason, that the philosophy along
the science, it is an essential as a crucial matter. Something, which it
does makes to go a deeper along the space time. However, also along an
accordance to play as a head researcher along any missing details, whether,
among its technical sides can makes it to stand along a required
demonstration. However, basically along a philosophycal source as it makes
to attain an objectivity to follow, whether a most of a time to determine
the significant as the most functinal direction along any natural, whether a
surnatural boundaries. to cross or to use to accomplish any missing detail,
definitely as a matter a fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....................
...
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Daryl McCullough" <da...@atc-nycorp.com> wrote in message
news:c5m7s...@drn.newsguy.com...
Androcles
"essentions".
Androcles
Androcles
Hey! I could understand "irrelevent", but "essention" is
totally incomprehensible.
Your sentence isn't grammatically correct, how could anyone
guess what you meant?
"The distinctions you make are -irrelevent- to the
essential." Essential WHAT?
Pretty stupid people that write a sentence ending in an
adjective, Kentucky Fried Kolker.
Androcles
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> > And this from the guy who talked about if his grandmother had balls. I
> > knew he wouldn't give an honest answer in the end.
>
> You got a very honest answer. I told you plainly your distinctions are
> nonsensical and useless in four different ways. They have little or
> nothing to do, with the -doing- of science. You just don't like the
> answer I gave you.
>
> Scientists do science.
Scientists ALSO make claims about what they do as science in
scientific journals and in textbooks. And those claims come in the
form of sentences. And those sentences contain words. And sometimes
those sentences contain one or more of these terms: model, theory,
law, hypothesis. And it would be nice, in the name of scientific
communication, if scientists had among themselves a consistent set of
definitions of those terms, and that they would share them with the
rest of us.
Are there any other scientists here that side with Bob on this?
> Wannabees and camp followers do philosophy. If
> you want to be an informed science -fan- then be that. Theere is no
> shame in that. Not everyone can be Babe Ruth or Hank Aarons. Learn some
> stuff, relax and enjoy watching the game. If you can't or won't play, at
> least be an intelligent watcher and enjoy the game.
>
> Bob Kolker
Bob, now you're not even being consistent. A few posts back you had
this to say:
Patrick asked:
> So, once again, do you take issue with any
> of the definitions I presented? Do you have
> better definitions of any of the four terms?
To which Bob replied:
I have none, because it does not matter how you
define these things beyond being descriptors and
predictors of what happens in the world. I reject
the relevency of the distinctions you make, root
and branch. They are useless. Only one question
is relevent --- how well does your verbal artifact
predict what will happen Out There.
You did NOT at first tell me that my "distinctions [in the definitions
of the four terms: model, theory, law, hypothesis] are nonsensical."
As proof of your own claim that making these distinctions is
irrelevant, even for yourself, is that fact that you claimed that you
don't have any better definitions of those terms than I do. (In fact,
I'm sure you don't!) What you said is that it is a waste of time to
worry about forming any set of distinctions about the meaning of those
four terms. According to you, physics does just fine making accurate
statements about the "real" world without worrying about the
definitions of its fundamental terms in making those statements.
Certainly my alleged "nonsensical" definitions (for which you claim to
have none better) can't be any worse in practice than your arbitrarily
set definitions (on any given day) of those terms.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> Daryl McCullough wrote:
>
>
> > But I think it is wrong to say that philosophical principles play
> > no role in science. They not be verbalized, but
> > they are part of the culture and practice of science.
Philosophers are not the only contributers to the philosophy of
physics, so Bob's pretending that they are is false. The fact that
Galileo was a physicist does not undo his contribution to physics in
his disingushing between primary and secondary qualities of objects.
The fact that Poincare was a mathematician/physicist does not
invalidate his contributions to the philosophy of physics, such as in
conventionalism and logical economy, and he was one of the first
instrumentalists perhaps.
The fact that Einstein was a physicist does not negate his important
contribution to the philosophy of physics in the distinction of
principle vs constructive theories, his doctrine that physical
concepts are free creations of the human mind, and his affirmation of
the Pure Principle of Relativity as an epistmeologically inspired
heuristic.
The fact the Bridgman was a physicist does not undo his contribution
to the philosophy of physics in his invention of operationalism.
That Sir Arthur Eddington was a physicist does not invalidate his
contribution of the concept of selective subjectivism. He said in his
book The Philosophy of Physical Science (1939, p. 5):
If our epistemology is at fault, it will lead to an impasse
in the scientific developments proceeding from it; that warns
us that our philosophical insight has not been deep enough,
and we must cast about to find what has been overlooked.
>
> Straightforward realism is implicit in physics. Physicists believe there
> is an Out There out there and that physics is -about something- that is
> not entirely in our heads. So to that extent you are right.
Child's play, Bob. Really, Bob, you should be able to do much better
than that for such a philosophically educated person as yourself.
>
> To go any further you would have to demonstrate an essential and
> positive contribution that philosophy has made to physical science
> (which is the only kind of science).
Well, go further we did, and we did so on the philosophies of the best
physicists in history!! If scientific education in the West had been
successful, then you and everyone else on these NGs would already know
all this history from your schooling alone! It's your ignorance that
makes you contemptuous of things you don't understand.
> I would be most anxious to see such
> a demonstration. Until then, I will share Richard Feynman's high opinion
> of the philosophers.
>
> Bob Kolker
Why don't you let Feynman speak for himself, sotospeak, by presenting
these quotes you seem to have with their references so that we can
decide for ourselves where Feynman really stood on the question of
philosophy's value to science.
For the longest time I have been accused of Einstein worship for doing
no than you do to Feynman, except that my scholarship is better than
yours. But there's another difference: You people hate my quoting of
Einstein, but I can't wait to see Bob's quotes from Feynman.
Patrick
Mike
> > Patrick Reany wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
> > >
> > > Do they know the difference between a law, hypothesis, theory, and
> > > model?
> >
> > These are your crotchetts, bubbah. Real scientists are too busy doing
> > science to niggle and haggle over terms like that.
>
> I'm not talking about the needs of scientists, real or otherwise; I'm
> talking about the needs of science students so they can properly
> understand science. Besides, don't scientists use these terms
> themselves? Don't they have well-defined meanings for them by now?
> Isn't 400 years enough time for them to nail them down?
>
> > Methinks you are an
> > intellectual snob. Why don't you do real science instead of criticizing
> > from the sidelines?
>
> I've snipped out the majority of your inane personal attacks so I can
> deal with just one issue for a change. Do you really believe that it
> is NOT important for a science student to be able to distinguish
> between a law, hypothesis, theory, and model? If so, why?
>
You must have attended a public school like most and have bad
experiences in retrospect. In public schools teachers are of the
lowest capacity and get a low pay. There are private high schools with
teachings at the level of university but you must pay to get it. You
only get what you pay for and you learn all the good stuff. But, if
you attended a low grade public school you can still learn these
things at the university if you take the right courses. It is a fact
of life: some schools prepare leaders and some prepare workers.
There are also those who have all the knowledge you described already
in their genes and need no teachers to tell them. Science walks with
them and thus schools are irrelevant anyway. Look at the Gauss case:
when asked by his teacher when he was 7 years old to sum up the first
100 integers he replied:
Sum(N)=N(N+1)/2
Do you think Gauss needed someone to teach him anything? of Newton? or
Leibniz? or Lorentz, or Einstein (math maybe) etc?
But you need apparently. I just did that.:)
Mike