Just How Wrong is Newtonian Gravitiation --- Pay Attention, Fred
Robert J. Kolker
corrections according to General Relativity will lead to a time error of
about 34,000 nanoseconds at the end of the fiduciary twenty four hour
correction interval (the clocks are re-adjusted every twenty four
hours). Taking the speed of light to be 300,000 kilometers/second this
leads to a distance error of as much as 10.2 kilometers at the end of
the period. With Relativistic correction this turns out to be no more
than ten mmeters. That is to say a factor of 1000.
Fred insists the General Relativity gives at most minor adjustments so
Newtonian Gravitation is "true" in most "contexts". Well it ain't in the
context of distance measurements. After all we can send an ox-cart to
the Moon, can't we. We sure can making midcourse corrections based on an
atomic clock with the aid of computers based on a theory that Newtonian
physics cannot produce.
And that is a measure of how wrong Newtonian Gravitation is.
Bob Kolker
TC
wrote:
> Fred insists the General Relativity gives at most minor adjustments so
> Newtonian Gravitation is "true" in most "contexts". Well it ain't in the
> context of distance measurements.
My take lately is that Fred is stuck with the idea he takes from
Objectivist epistemology that once a set of observations is properly
grasped, it is grasped that way (in context anyway)
then and forevermore.
Moon, apple, Galileo's experiments, Kepler's ellipses
properly grasped lead to Newton's universal theory of gravity.
This is still true historically, but this is not how modern
physicists grasp those historical observations since the
paradigm shift of general relativity.
The observations have been _re-grasped_.
But Objectivism seems to have no room for re-grasping or
paradigm shifts.
I suppose you could that an Objectivist-like point of view.
Think that Newtonian gravity is exact and universal in the
context of canon-balls and the like, rememberg to shift
to the general relativity point of view for GPS and the like.
But the general relativity point of view includes the
Newtonian point of view as an approximation. The only
"cost" is to realized that Newton's theory is incorrect and
Newton's "grasp" was flawed.
The single unified "grasp" that general relativity provides seems
a much better point of view to me than the apparent
Objectivist insistence on switching "grasps"depending
on context so as to avoid the paradigm shift from Newtonian
theory to general relativity.
Tom
Charles Bell
> On Jul 24, 6:29 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kol...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Fred insists the General Relativity gives at most minor adjustments so
> > Newtonian Gravitation is "true" in most "contexts". Well it ain't in the
> > context of distance measurements.
>
> My take lately is that Fred is stuck with the idea he takes from
> Objectivist epistemology that once a set of observations is properly
> grasped, it is grasped that way (in context anyway)
> then and forevermore.
>
> Moon, apple, Galileo's experiments, Kepler's ellipses
> properly grasped lead to Newton's universal theory of gravity.
> This is still true historically, but this is not how modern
> physicists grasp those historical observations since the
> paradigm shift of general relativity.
>
> The observations have been _re-grasped_.
>
> But Objectivism seems to have no room for re-grasping or
> paradigm shifts.
>
Guess what? "Paradigm-shift" Thomas Kuhn was not an Objectivist. Even
though they teach science-is-relative-to-the-times in Humanities, how
odd it is that they still teach paradigm-shifted-out classical
mechanics in Engineering. An engineering major will know nothing
about Relativity or Quantum Mechanics until (maybe) his last year at
university and then go on to have a productive career to build and
maintain our urban infrastructure and never think about Relativity and
Quantum Mechanics again. If classical mechanics is wrong, why do all
those bridges remain standing?
"All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition *does not
contradict* a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.
[. . . ] The only issue open to an individual's choice is how much
knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual
complexity he will be able to reach." ITOE p56 [1979]
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
Charles Bell
wrote:
> Fred insists the General Relativity gives at most minor adjustments so
> Newtonian Gravitation is "true" in most "contexts".
Isn't Generality Relativity "wrong" in and around Black Holes? Isn't
quantum gravity "right" and special-relativity gravity "wrong" in a
Black Hole?
Charles Bell
> Isn't Generality Relativity "wrong" in and around Black Holes? Isn't
> quantum gravity "right" and special-relativity gravity "wrong" in a
> Black Hole?
Let me try this again. Try building a GPS system near a black hole.
Would you be satisfied with what you call the "right" theory of
General Relativity? Isn't quantum gravity actually "right" and general-
relativity gravity, as well as Newtonian gravity "wrong"?
Fred Weiss
>... If classical mechanics is wrong, why do all those bridges remain standing?
Because we don't build actual bridges. We build approximate bridges.
We cross them in our approximate cars fueled by approximate gasoline
going to our approximate destinations.
This isn't a problem for pill Poppers because they can't find their
cars which is just as well because even if they did they could only
approximately start them - which is a good thing because they only
know how to approximately drive them.
Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Guess what? "Paradigm-shift" Thomas Kuhn was not an Objectivist. Even
> though they teach science-is-relative-to-the-times in Humanities, how
> odd it is that they still teach paradigm-shifted-out classical
> mechanics in Engineering. An engineering major will know nothing
> about Relativity or Quantum Mechanics until (maybe) his last year at
> university and then go on to have a productive career to build and
> maintain our urban infrastructure and never think about Relativity and
> Quantum Mechanics again. If classical mechanics is wrong, why do all
> those bridges remain standing?
It is close enough to right to work for some mechanical systems. There
are -degrees- of wrong. Newtonian physics is useless for dealing with
the strength and other characteristics of composite fibers, which
bridges are now being built with. To deal with composites you need the
quantum theory of solids.
Classical mechanics is useless in dealing with atomic forces and
structures. It is also useless in dealing with electromagnetic forces.
The point to point force model does not take into acount the velocity of
moving charges.
According to the Lorentz Force Law the law on a moving charge with
velocity v in a uniform magnetic field B is 1/c * B x v (x is the vector
cross product) and the force is at right angles to the velocity vector
v. Newtonian Mechanics does not handle this at all. Furthermore
Newtonian Mechanics is Galilean Invariant. Electrdynamics is Lorentz
Invariant right out of the box.
>
> "All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition *does not
> contradict* a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.
Yeah. Right. Just like Einstein curved spacetime -merely expands- the
incorrect Newtonian view of flat space. Right.
> [. . . ] The only issue open to an individual's choice is how much
> knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual
> complexity he will be able to reach." ITOE p56 [1979]
Without quantum physics and relativity we would be back before 1850 or
so scientificially and in terms of engineering. Maybe with luck, our
most advanced form of long distance communication would be the multiplex
telegraph. The good news is that we would not have any nuclear weapons
laying about.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> On Jul 25, 5:51 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>... If classical mechanics is wrong, why do all those bridges remain
>>standing?
>
>
> Because we don't build actual bridges. We build approximate bridges.
Actual bridges -are- approximate bridges. The details for their
non-dynamic and chaotic vibratory modes are rarely worked out. Bridges
are built heavier than they have to be so they will not become airfoils,
like the unfortunate Tacoma Narrows Bridge that shook itself apart
because of resonances induced by the wind flow over the roadway. It
turns out that the roadway was not only an approximate roadway. It was
an approximate wing. Bridges are overdesigned by a factor of five to ten
precisely because classical physics is bad at chaotic motions so the
bridges are overdesigned so they will not go into a chaotic vibratory mode.
>
> We cross them in our approximate cars fueled by approximate gasoline
> going to our approximate destinations.
The mix of which fuel for which is determined largely by the molecular
properties of the fuel found with the help of quantum theory. But wait.
The location of the cars can be determined very closely using the GPS
system which -requires- relativistic time corretions, totally out of
reach of classical theory. So using just Newtonian physics drives can
get lost very easily.
During WW2, bombs based on Newtonian aerodynamics missed their targets
by a distance of a mile on average and maybe one bomb out of one hundred
was on target. Now laser guided bombs augmented by GPS navigation hit
within ten feet of target.
Putz!
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Isn't Generality Relativity "wrong" in and around Black Holes? Isn't
> quantum gravity "right" and special-relativity gravity "wrong" in a
> Black Hole?
Special Relativity assumes a flat mass free space, so it was never
formulated to deal with gravitation. It was formulated to deal with
electrodynamics.
General Relativity has never been thoroughly tested in ueber strong
gravitational fields since their are none in the Solar system. Even the
gravitational field about the Sun is rather weak. GTR works very well.
It predicts the red shift, perihelion precession and light bending very
well.
The wierd rotation curves for stars might indicate that GTR is wrong for
the large gravitational fields produced by the galactic cores. Or they
might indicate a kind of non-baryonic matter that is producing the
observed effect. The question is still wide open. It has not yet been
resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It may turn out that GTR is wrong.
Even if so, we are not going back to flat space Newtonian theories.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Let me try this again. Try building a GPS system near a black hole.
> Would you be satisfied with what you call the "right" theory of
> General Relativity? Isn't quantum gravity actually "right" and general-
> relativity gravity, as well as Newtonian gravity "wrong"?
There is no theory of quantum gravity --- yet. There have been proposals
but none of them have produced testable results. The hypothetical spin 2
boson (graviton) is the particle which is supposed to mediate
gravitational interactions. No one has ever detected a graviton.
Bob Kolker
TC
> If classical mechanics is wrong, why do all
> those bridges remain standing?
Because - pay close attention -
classical mechanics is a good approximation to relativistic
mecahnics (and quantum mechanics) as far as ordinary
macroscopic bridges are concerned.
> "All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition *does not
> contradict* a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.
How do you think Rand was defining the term "expands".
If she mean something like Kuhn's paradigm shift then
I have been misunderstanding what she meant.
If she meant Newtonian mechanics is true in some domain,
she was wrong.
> [. . . ] The only issue open to an individual's choice is how much
> knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual
> complexity he will be able to reach." ITOE p56 [1979]
There is no choice with regard to things like GPS.
For that matter there is no choice with regard to what is true.
Tom
TC
> On Jul 25, 7:53 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Isn't Generality Relativity "wrong" in and around Black Holes? Isn't
> > quantum gravity "right" and special-relativity gravity "wrong" in a
> > Black Hole?
> Let me try this again. Try building a GPS system near a black hole.
> Would you be satisfied with what you call the "right" theory of
> General Relativity?
No one knows.
> Isn't quantum gravity actually "right" and general-
> relativity gravity, as well as Newtonian gravity "wrong"?
There is no accepted theory of quantum gravity.
Lots of attempts but no cigars yet.
Tom
acar
What if Realtivity is wrong? Does that make Newton's theory right?
What if both are wrong, but one coresponds better than the other with
the known "facts"?
FYI the context of Newtons's theory is the universe. If truth were
dependent on the context of human knowledge, then humans would have to
be regarded as infallible, in view of the fact that what they know
would always be regarded as true.
Sketch System
> What if Realtivity is wrong? Does that make Newton's theory right?
> What if both are wrong, but one coresponds better than the other with
> the known "facts"?
You're use of right and wrong is oversimplifying. Newton was as right
as he could be, and Einstein was as right as he could be. Neither of
their theories are "wrong" so much as "inaccurate." It so happens
that Einstein's take on gravity is more accurate than Newton's, but
some of what Newton created is still useful.
In the meantime, the GTR is about as accurate as we can be, until we
know better.
> FYI the context of Newtons's theory is the universe. If truth were
> dependent on the context of human knowledge, then humans would have to
> be regarded as infallible, in view of the fact that what they know
> would always be regarded as true.
Fortunately, that is not the case. The universe is what it is, we can
only get better at understanding it. It seems to me that scientists
don't refer to what is "true" so much as what "has the most evidence
to support it."
TC
> You're use of right and wrong is oversimplifying. Newton was as right
> as he could be,
It is not totally inconceivable that Newton could have developed
a curved space theory of gravity based on what was known to
him. He didn't, but there is no inherent reason he could not
have done so.
> and Einstein was as right as he could be.
That is present tense. Einstein's theory does not yet a
disagreement with experiment.
> Neither of
> their theories are "wrong" so much as "inaccurate."
Inaccuracy in science is "wrong".
> It so happens
> that Einstein's take on gravity is more accurate than Newton's, but
> some of what Newton created is still useful.
Yes. But Einstein's theory might continue to agree with
experiment into the indefinite future.
> In the meantime, the GTR is about as accurate as we can be, until we
> know better.
GTR is a accurate as any experiment to date.
> > FYI the context of Newtons's theory is the universe. If truth were
> > dependent on the context of human knowledge, then humans would have to
> > be regarded as infallible, in view of the fact that what they know
> > would always be regarded as true.
> Fortunately, that is not the case. The universe is what it is, we can
> only get better at understanding it. It seems to me that scientists
> don't refer to what is "true" so much as what "has the most evidence
> to support it."
True - sort of. The "evidence to support it" is of course the fact
of agreement with experiment that is passing the test of
experiment.
Do you think truth can be gotten at in a manner better than
that of science?
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You're use of right and wrong is oversimplifying. Newton was as right
> as he could be, and Einstein was as right as he could be. Neither of
> their theories are "wrong" so much as "inaccurate." It so happens
> that Einstein's take on gravity is more accurate than Newton's, but
> some of what Newton created is still useful.
Still useful (in the sense of being close enough to right) but never
right. Newtonian gravitation CANNOT be right. It presumes instantenous
interaction between mass points. Newtonian physics is based on a
categorically flawed idea of space and time. Space is not flat and time
is not absolute. In particular, simulteneity is not absolute.
Bob Kolker
Malrassic Park
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Charles Bell wrote:
.
>> Isn't Generality Relativity "wrong" in and around Black Holes? Isn't
>> quantum gravity "right" and special-relativity gravity "wrong" in a
>> Black Hole?
.
>Special Relativity assumes a flat mass free space, so it was never
>formulated to deal with gravitation. It was formulated to deal with
>electrodynamics.
Doesn't electrodynamics require four spatial dimensions? Or am I
thinking of something else.
--
Yes, we speak English!
acar
As judged by GTR characterization of gravity, Newton was as wrong as
he could be.
> and Einstein was as right as he could be.
That remains to be seen.
> Neither of
> their theories are "wrong" so much as "inaccurate."
IMO, both. Not just quantitavely (which would not be so bad) but
conceptually. Both have practical applications, but that satisfies
only people who go with function because they can't be sure of
anything. Ask Gordon. Fred has to tell him where his car is.
Charles Bell
wrote:
> Charles Bell wrote:
>
> > Guess what? "Paradigm-shift" Thomas Kuhn was not an Objectivist. Even
> > though they teach science-is-relative-to-the-times in Humanities, how
> > odd it is that they still teach paradigm-shifted-out classical
> > mechanics in Engineering. An engineering major will know nothing
> > about Relativity or Quantum Mechanics until (maybe) his last year at
> > university and then go on to have a productive career to build and
> > maintain our urban infrastructure and never think about Relativity and
> > Quantum Mechanics again. If classical mechanics is wrong, why do all
> > those bridges remain standing?
>
> It is close enough to right to work for some mechanical systems. There
> are -degrees- of wrong.
There are degrees of statistical certainty, and usually adding RT or
QM in ordinary contexts makes no change in this certainty, and only
adds to more difficulty by pointless complexity. If, however, as Rand
says, "The only issue open to an individual's choice is how much
knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual
complexity he will be able to reach," then added complexity to the
solution of the problem will add to knowledge and thereby increasing
certainly *when it rationally makes since to do so.*
>Newtonian physics is useless for dealing with
> the strength and other characteristics of composite fibers, which
> bridges are now being built with. To deal with composites you need the
> quantum theory of solids.
Nevertheless, there is not a single contractor who knows the first
thing about QM, nor should he rationally be expected to do so. I
doubt there is a single manufacturer of the materials who knows the
first thing about QM, nor should he rationally do so. Objectivist
contextual epistemology sets up a hierarchy of human understanding.
The only value attained from the concept of scientific paradigm shift
is to delineate "superstition" from "pseudoscience" from "science"
from science undergoing increasingly conceptual complexity and
hierarchical usefulness.
Charles Bell
wrote:
> Charles Bell wrote:
>
> > Let me try this again. Try building a GPS system near a black hole.
> > Would you be satisfied with what you call the "right" theory of
> > General Relativity? Isn't quantum gravity actually "right" and general-
> > relativity gravity, as well as Newtonian gravity "wrong"?
>
> There is no theory of quantum gravity --- yet.
It does point to the fact that GRT is not "complete" . It also points
to a hierarchical levels of scientific usefulness depending on the
context of the situation one is dealing with. We ignore what might be
called quantum gravity because there are not too many gravitational
singularities that cross our paths. That does not make that ignorance
"wrong" no more that the application of classical mechanics is a
"wrong" or "approximate" to engineering tasks However, your mention
of "the details of non-dynamic and chaotic vibratory modes are rarely
worked out" in building a bridge is a point well taken, but you do
know why, don't you? It is so complex a calculation, and ultimately
"approximate" because of the assumptions that have to be made, it is
far better (rational) to simply over-design the bridge.
Charles Bell
Correction, odd spelling mistake -
> then added complexity to the
> solution of the problem will add to knowledge and thereby increasing
> certainty *when it rationally makes since to do so.*
"sense" not "since"
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
>
TC
> Nevertheless, there is not a single contractor who knows the first
> thing about QM, nor should he rationally be expected to do so.
I rather doubt that. If some PhDs in physics wind up driving cabs,
no doubt some wind up as building contractors.
Tom
TC
> It does point to the fact that GRT is not "complete" . It also points
> to a hierarchical levels of scientific usefulness depending on the
> context of the situation one is dealing with.
Please note what you wrote:
"hierarchical levels of ... usefulness",
not levels of truth.
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Doesn't electrodynamics require four spatial dimensions? Or am I
> thinking of something else.
Maxwell's Equations can be written as four dimensionsial equations. They
all involve space and time.
Written in terms of the field tensor Maxwell's equations are lovely to
behold.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> know why, don't you? It is so complex a calculation, and ultimately
> "approximate" because of the assumptions that have to be made, it is
> far better (rational) to simply over-design the bridge.
Bingo! That is exactly how bridges are (over) designed.
Smarrttt as paint ye arrreee!
Bob Kolker
Charles Bell
> wrote:
>
> > Fred insists the General Relativity gives at most minor adjustments so
> > Newtonian Gravitation is "true" in most "contexts". Well it ain't in the
> > context of distance measurements.
>
> My take lately is that Fred is stuck with the idea he takes from
> Objectivist epistemology that once a set of observations is properly
> grasped, it is grasped that way (in context anyway)
> then and forevermore.
> [...]
> But Objectivism seems to have no room for re-grasping or
> paradigm shifts.
Objectivism sets up a hierarchy of necessary complexity in
understanding/knowledge according to context. It is not necessary to
account for the existence of Black Holes, Dark Energy or Dark Matter
or Stephen Hawking's ALS when building a bridge. This does not make
the knowledge of classical mechanics, to the exclusion of more
sophisticated science, to build a bridge 'approximate' but rational in
the context of building a bridge.
> The single unified "grasp" that general relativity provides seems
> a much better point of view to me than the apparent
> Objectivist insistence on switching "grasps"depending
> on context so as to avoid the paradigm shift from Newtonian
> theory to general relativity.
So you are on record as saying that the inclusion of GRT would make
for a better bridge?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> So you are on record as saying that the inclusion of GRT would make
> for a better bridge?
To the extent that GPS can be used for placing the parts.
Bob Kolker
TC
wrote:
> Charles Bell wrote:> worked out" in building a bridge is a point well
> > know why, don't you? It is so complex a calculation, and ultimately
> > "approximate" because of the assumptions that have to be made, it is
> > far better (rational) to simply over-design the bridge.
> Bingo! That is exactly how bridges are (over) designed.
Actually the Tacoma narrows bridge that collapsed
because of oscillations in a high wind led Von Karman
to develop his theory of turbulent vortex shedding.
So in this case bridge construction made a contribution to
complexity/chaos theory.
Tom
TC
> On Jul 24, 10:23 am, TC <polymath....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My take lately is that Fred is stuck with the idea he takes from
> > Objectivist epistemology that once a set of observations is properly
> > grasped, it is grasped that way (in context anyway)
> > then and forevermore.
> > [...]
> > But Objectivism seems to have no room for re-grasping or
> > paradigm shifts.
> Objectivism sets up a hierarchy of necessary complexity in
> understanding/knowledge according to context.
Why this word "necessary"? Can you demonstrate that
Newtonian mechanics must be learned before relativistic
mechanics?
> It is not necessary to
> account for the existence of Black Holes, Dark Energy or Dark Matter
> or Stephen Hawking's ALS when building a bridge.
For everyday bridges (but ignore turbulence at your peril).
But that is besides the point.
It is not necessary to take into account the curvature of the
Earth in most cases either. This does not mean the Earth is
flat.
> This does not make
> the knowledge of classical mechanics, to the exclusion of more
> sophisticated science, to build a bridge 'approximate' but rational in
> the context of building a bridge.
Is this a newsgroup about bridge building or is it concerned
with philosophy?
> > The single unified "grasp" that general relativity provides seems
> > a much better point of view to me than the apparent
> > Objectivist insistence on switching "grasps"depending
> > on context so as to avoid the paradigm shift from Newtonian
> > theory to general relativity.
> So you are on record as saying that the inclusion of GRT would make
> for a better bridge?
Slightly better.
Conversely are you implying that there would be NO difference
between a bridge designed using Newtonian theory and GRT?
None whatsoever, nada, zilch?
If you consider a "beanstalk" - a cable supporting elevators
stretching from Earth's surface to geosynchronous orbit a
bridge, then I would daresay GRT would be essential.
Tom
P.S. Back of the envelope. According to GRT the
curvature of space at surface of earth is about 1/light-year,
1/6-trillion-miles.
The departure of a 1 mile bridge from straightness would
be about 4.6E-8 femtometers, about a millionth of an
atomic nucleus. Rather small but not zero.
The LIGO gravitational wave observatory goes to
10-3 femtometers or so. So such departures from
straightness are measurable ; they are not zero.
In fact 3 trillion times larger than the Planck length
where quantum gravity effects would be expected.
TC
> P.S. Back of the envelope. According to GRT the
> curvature of space at surface of earth is about 1/light-year,
> 1/6-trillion-miles.
> The departure of a 1 mile bridge from straightness would
> be about 4.6E-8 femtometers, about a millionth of an
> atomic nucleus. Rather small but not zero.
> The LIGO gravitational wave observatory goes to
> 10-3 femtometers or so. So such departures from
> straightness are measurable ; they are not zero.
> In fact 3 trillion times larger than the Planck length
> where quantum gravity effects would be expected.
I did this wrong. The estimate of deviation is
separation-squared times curvature,
not separation times curvature-squared.
At any rate in Earth's gravity field the deviation from
straight line in a mile is 2.7 Angstroms (2.7E-10 meters)
About 3 atomic diameters.
Very easily measureable.
[2 times 10^25 times the Planck length]
Tom
Charles Bell
> On Jul 25, 5:51 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 10:23 am, TC <polymath....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If classical mechanics is wrong, why do all
> > those bridges remain standing?
>
> Because - pay close attention -
> classical mechanics is a good approximation to relativistic
> mecahnics (and quantum mechanics) as far as ordinary
> macroscopic bridges are concerned.
It is not an "approximation" of a conceptually more highly complex
theory. Scientists attach different meanings to the expressions;
"approximation" and "this hold true for . . ." Classical mechanics
*holds true for* building bridges. The bridge that is built is built
with *approximate* methods because of uncalculated-for natural
vibratory effects -- it is over-designed as mentioned in another
post. Classical mechanics is *not* an approximate method for
measuring interplanetary motions; it does not hold true for that
extraordinary -- outside of immediate human perception -- context. GRT
*holds true* for that context and newtonian physics does not. GRT
does *not* hold true for gravitational singularities -- it is not some
"approximation". There *is* a hierarchy of increasing complexity of
theoretical constructs going from the context of human perception to
the context of astronomical proportions to the context of an
extraordinary astronomical event.
>
> > "All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition *does not
> > contradict* a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.
>
> How do you think Rand was defining the term "expands".
It means that GRT *subsumes* newtonian physics in certain ways.
Subsumption and approximation are different, not even actually
related, concepts.
> If she mean something like Kuhn's paradigm shift then
> I have been misunderstanding what she meant.
No. It is not the same. The distinction to be drawn from a type of
(valid) paradigm shift going from mere superstition or pseudoscience
to real science, though true, is not the same as O'ist contextual
epistemology. Going from Newton to Einstein is O'ist shift in
contextual epistemology and not a paradigm shift at all. Going from
Newton to Einstein is not going from wrong to right, as in from
superstition to science, or going from approximate to less
approximate. The notion of paradigm shift for this last condition --
shift in degree of approximation -- approaches a kind of agnosticism
in that it implies that there is little enough certainty in
knowledge. Rand said: "On such a premise, every advance of knowledge
is a setback, a demonstration of man's ignorance." Rand 's
epistemology, in science or otherwise, is hierarchical complexity of
contexts with certainty within each context.
> If she meant Newtonian mechanics is true in some domain,
> she was wrong.
If Domain = "sphere of knowledge," she is right.
>
> > [. . . ] The only issue open to an individual's choice is how much
> > knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual
> > complexity he will be able to reach." ITOE p56 [1979]
>
> There is no choice with regard to things like GPS.
Yes, there is a choice in acceptable limits of uncertainty. In
another discussion, you were perfectly willing to accept a conclusion
based on a number 0.05 +/- 0.07 . Why was that?
>
> For that matter there is no choice with regard to what is true.
. . . if you think you are actually seeing metaphysical truth. Human
understanding does not need, and does not get, perception of
metaphysical truth. Philosophical skepticism is born from incongruous
acceptance of scientific theories as metaphysical truth.
Charles Bell
> > So you are on record as saying that the inclusion of GRT would make
> > for a better bridge?
> Slightly better.
> Conversely are you implying that there would be NO difference
> between a bridge designed using Newtonian theory and GRT?
> None whatsoever, nada, zilch?
I would be interested in seeing some empirical evidence for an
alternate conclusion. I would also like to see some rationale for
concerning one's self that much. Why isn't Relativity-adjusted
mechanics taught to engineers? Perhaps, because it is not rational to
do so?
TC
> On Jul 25, 11:04 am, TC <polymath....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If classical mechanics is wrong, why do all
> > > those bridges remain standing?
> > Because - pay close attention -
> > classical mechanics is a good approximation to relativistic
> > mecahnics (and quantum mechanics) as far as ordinary
> > macroscopic bridges are concerned.
> It is not an "approximation" of a conceptually more highly complex
> theory.
That is blatantly wrong. But I'll string along to see how you
support your argument.
> Scientists attach different meanings to the expressions;
> "approximation" and "this hold true for . . ." Classical mechanics
> *holds true for* building bridges.
Oh, you are changing the subject, introducing this
quasi-Objectivist concept of "this holds true for"
> The bridge that is built is built
> with *approximate* methods because of uncalculated-for natural
> vibratory effects -- it is over-designed as mentioned in another
> post.
How is that different? Known effects are ignored because they
are thought to be small in both cases.
> Classical mechanics is *not* an approximate method for
> measuring interplanetary motions; it does not hold true for that
> extraordinary -- outside of immediate human perception -- context.
I think you meant to say "does hold true". Many times GRT effects
can be ignored because Newtoian mechanics is an approximation.
> GRT
> *holds true* for that context and newtonian physics does not. GRT
> does *not* hold true for gravitational singularities -- it is not some
> "approximation".
No one knows if gravitational singularities even exist.
But it is widely expected that something has to give with GRT and
QM. New theory(ies) is(are) needed.
>There *is* a hierarchy of increasing complexity of
> theoretical constructs going from the context of human perception to
> the context of astronomical proportions to the context of an
> extraordinary astronomical event.
Newton gravitational theory is unnecessary.
Bridges could be designed using GRT.
Once GRT is replaced with theory-X, TX could
be used to design bridges.
Of course Newtonian gravity/mechanics is a easier
to use approximation to TX so people will continue to
use it.
There is nothing cast in stone about this hierarchy.
Your hierarchy is no part of existence.
> > > "All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition *does not
> > > contradict* a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.
> > How do you think Rand was defining the term "expands".
> It means that GRT *subsumes* newtonian physics in certain ways.
What do you mean by "certain".
As far as fundamental physics goes, GRT replaces Newton
in all ways.
> Subsumption and approximation are different, not even actually
> related, concepts.
I disagree. Newton can be derived from GRT as an approximation.
That is the scientific sense in which GRT subsumes Newton.
> > If she mean something like Kuhn's paradigm shift then
> > I have been misunderstanding what she meant.
> No. It is not the same. The distinction to be drawn from a type of
> (valid) paradigm shift going from mere superstition or pseudoscience
> to real science, though true, is not the same as O'ist contextual
> epistemology.
I gathered that Oism doesn't include the paradigm shift concept,
hence the thread title.
> Going from Newton to Einstein is O'ist shift in
> contextual epistemology and not a paradigm shift at all. Going from
> Newton to Einstein is not going from wrong to right, as in from
> superstition to science, or going from approximate to less
> approximate.
It is indeed going form aproximate to less approximate.
Whether you like it or not.
You also leave out the true sense of paradgim shift.
The replacement of one set of fundamental concepts
by another set. Of absolute time and space and
unknown field, by curved space-time in the immediate
case at point.
> The notion of paradigm shift for this last condition --
> shift in degree of approximation -- approaches a kind of agnosticism
> in that it implies that there is little enough certainty in
> knowledge. Rand said: "On such a premise, every advance of knowledge
> is a setback, a demonstration of man's ignorance."
Well that is true. Get over it. Even Newton admitted he didn't
know what the field of gravity is. Now we have a better idea by
taking one step back and two steps forward.
> Rand 's
> epistemology, in science or otherwise, is hierarchical complexity of
> contexts with certainty within each context.
If you take that literally then the context of Newton's
theory of gravity is different from the context of GRT.
But this is false since GRT applies everywhere Newton does.
So the only way to make that consistent is to say that
Newton is no longer a scientific theory. Newton is
just something used for bridge building etc.
> > If she meant Newtonian mechanics is true in some domain,
> > she was wrong.
> If Domain = "sphere of knowledge," she is right.
If it is scientific knowledge that is being discussed she is wrong.
Bridge building knowledge (absent beanstalks etc), OK,
But that makes Objectivism a philosophy for practical men,
so to speak, not a philosophy for natural philosophers.
>
> > > [. . . ] The only issue open to an individual's choice is how much
> > > knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual
> > > complexity he will be able to reach." ITOE p56 [1979]
> > There is no choice with regard to things like GPS.
> Yes, there is a choice in acceptable limits of uncertainty.
GPS is totally useless - way big errors - without GRT.
> In
> another discussion, you were perfectly willing to accept a conclusion
> based on a number 0.05 +/- 0.07 . Why was that?
You'll have to remind me of what the argument was.
Was it experimental results for something predicted to be zero?
>
> > For that matter there is no choice with regard to what is true.
> . . . if you think you are actually seeing metaphysical truth.
I think I am seeing theory-Newton that is an approximation
to theory GRT and theory GRT makes accurate predictions
where Newton does not.
There is no choice but to say GRT is closer to the truth.
> Human
> understanding does not need, and does not get, perception of
> metaphysical truth.
Human understanding gets scientific knowledge.
Which IS one step back and two steps forward.
It is not a strict hierarchy as Oism maintains.
> Philosophical skepticism is born from incongruous
> acceptance of scientific theories as metaphysical truth.
Philosophical skepticism predates science by millennia.
Science is the taming of skepticism.
Tom
TC
Relativity-adjusted mechanics? What is that.?
Relativity is usually introduced second semester in most
physics courses. Relativity is actually a good way to
teach electromagnetism which is essential for EEs.
[Magnetism is a relativistic effect of the electrostatic field]
> Perhaps, because it is not rational to do so?
It would be unnecessarily complicated for a structural engineeriing
course, but essential to EE's in many contexts.
I would hope that a well educated engineer would know
the "full context" of Newtonian gravity and mechanics.
How Newtonian theory is an approximation etc
The engineer ought to know a bit of philosophy as well.
Tom
TC
> Rand said: "On such a premise, every advance of knowledge
> is a setback, a demonstration of man's ignorance." Rand 's
> epistemology, in science or otherwise, is hierarchical complexity of
> contexts with certainty within each context.
I see this is from ITOE. If found citation at:
http://www.mises.org/asc/2004/long.pdf
[page 67]
This encapsulates why
"There ain't no paradigm shifting in Objectivism"
[I should have gone for League of Their Own allusion]
>From that source Rand also wrote:
"even if the scope of [one's] knowledge is modest and
the content of his concepts is primitive, it will not
contradict the content of the same concepts in the
mind of the most advanced scientists." [p43]
To be consistent with this the modest Objectivist
needs to realize that Newtonian gravity is false but an
approximation to GRT. Otherwise the modest
Objectivist would contradict the contents of the mind
of the scientist.
I guess Objectivists could argue that it is scientists who
have erroneous concepts. But I don't think that is
the case.
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Well that is true. Get over it. Even Newton admitted he didn't
> know what the field of gravity is. Now we have a better idea by
> taking one step back and two steps forward.
Newton would feign no hypothesis for the cause of gravitational force.
Bob Kolker
Malrassic Park
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>TC wrote:
.
Objectivism feigns no hypothesis concerning ontology, and yet it has
plenty of ontological criticisms to level everywhere it can find an
excuse.
Potroast
not making the time corrections according to General Relativity will
lead to a time error of about 34,000 nanoseconds at the end of the
fiduciary twenty four hour..... And that is a measure of how wrong
Newtonian Gravitation is.
One can tighten the scope of one's measurements and of course
Newton is dead wrong using the more accurate GR ruler. So why bother
confusing people with Newtonian gravity and just state it right in the
first place? (this is so in keeping with your purest attitude Bob :)
One word. Practicality.
F=m*a, a=(delta)v/t is simple.
The Newtonian sense of gravity is still useful under most
circumstances. GR is much more complex and abstract making it bulky to
use and teach. Under most situations we simply don't need that
resolution. Using Newton is efficient as long as it's explained that
he's only good until so-and-so resolution and conditions Satellites
are fast moving objects at great distance away...use GR. Calculating a
freefall jump with air resistance... use Newton (the difference is
still there but it's largely meaningless)
I think what this debate is really about is whether it is better to
bother teaching Newton or just cut to the chase with Einstein (that
somehow we unnecessarily pollute our worldview by tainting it with
Newtonian gravity) Do I need to pull out QM at every corner of my
existence to do things? Probably not. Besides, there may be
resolutions finer than Einstein (a somewhat flailing Witten and a
lessor known Mordehai Milgrom come to mind).
On the other hand... I can see the value of being the purest at times.
The curriculum has probably been updated since then but I never felt I
was sufficiently taught when and where I should use GR (when I studied
engineering).
~ cognitive dissonance in action
.................................
> Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Running the GPS in "Newtonian Mode", i.e. not making the time
> corrections according to General Relativity will lead to a time error of
> about 34,000 nanoseconds at the end of the fiduciary twenty four hour
> correction interval (the clocks are re-adjusted every twenty four
> hours). Taking the speed of light to be 300,000 kilometers/second this
> leads to a distance error of as much as 10.2 kilometers at the end of
> the period. With Relativistic correction this turns out to be no more
> than ten mmeters. That is to say a factor of 1000.
>
> Fred insists the General Relativity gives at most minor adjustments so
> Newtonian Gravitation is "true" in most "contexts". Well it ain't in the
> context of distance measurements. After all we can send an ox-cart to
> the Moon, can't we. We sure can making midcourse corrections based on an
> atomic clock with the aid of computers based on a theory that Newtonian
> physics cannot produce.
>
> And that is a measure of how wrong Newtonian Gravitation is.
>
> Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> One can tighten the scope of one's measurements and of course
> Newton is dead wrong using the more accurate GR ruler. So why bother
> confusing people with Newtonian gravity and just state it right in the
> first place? (this is so in keeping with your purest attitude Bob :)
>
> One word. Practicality.
>
> F=m*a, a=(delta)v/t is simple.
Actually F = dp/dt where p is momentum. This is how Newton stated it. If
you assume Galilean invariance and invariance of mass then this reduces
to the well known F = m*a.
However reality being what it is, the relativistic momentum is what is
conserved in collisions. This is given by m_rest*v/sqrt (1 - v*v/c*c),
where m_rest is the rest mass of the body in question.
>
> The Newtonian sense of gravity is still useful under most
> circumstances. GR is much more complex and abstract making it bulky to
> use and teach. Under most situations we simply don't need that
> resolution. Using Newton is efficient as long as it's explained that
> he's only good until so-and-so resolution and conditions Satellites
> are fast moving objects at great distance away...use GR. Calculating a
> freefall jump with air resistance... use Newton (the difference is
> still there but it's largely meaningless)
The sats of the GPS do not move at "relavistic speeds". Neither are they
very massive or very far off. Newtonian Gravitation simply does not
address the gravitational red-shift at all. That is one of the reasons
why it is Wrong. Also, as I have stated before, Newton Gravitation is an
-instanteneous- interaction between mass points. The effect of one mass
on another is instanteous which is contrary to Special Theory of
Relativity which is very well supported by evidence and has not yet been
falsified.
>
> I think what this debate is really about is whether it is better to
> bother teaching Newton or just cut to the chase with Einstein (that
> somehow we unnecessarily pollute our worldview by tainting it with
> Newtonian gravity) Do I need to pull out QM at every corner of my
Newtonian Gravitation gives a correct account of Kepler's laws which in
turn are a handy first order approximation of how bodies move in space.
> existence to do things? Probably not. Besides, there may be
> resolutions finer than Einstein (a somewhat flailing Witten and a
> lessor known Mordehai Milgrom come to mind).
Try inventing or discovering a new semi-conductor without QM.
Charles Bell
> Objectivism feigns no hypothesis concerning ontology, and yet it has
> plenty of ontological criticisms to level everywhere it can find an
> excuse.
Is this a case of telling a lie often enough, you begin to believe it
yourself? It is in the nature of O'ism itself that it defers from
statements of metaphysics other than A=A and existence exists and the
corollary principle that what ever is "true" in human understanding
must have a real referent, and that which is "false" does not, and
that something which is true metaphysically cannot also be false.
Fred Weiss
> Robert J. Kolker wrote: > Running the GPS in "Newtonian Mode", i.e.
> One can tighten the scope of one's measurements and of course
> Newton is dead wrong using the more accurate GR ruler. So why bother
> confusing people with Newtonian gravity and just state it right in the
> first place? (this is so in keeping with your purest attitude Bob :)
>
> One word. Practicality.
Uh, huh.
Or, in other words, Bob's "purest attitude" has nothing to do with
reality.
> The Newtonian sense of gravity is still useful under most
> circumstances.
Uh, huh.
Well, of course. It enables us to approximately start our approximate
cars to drive over approximate bridges.
The miracle is that it does this even though it is WRONG.
Thank God for miracles - and that engineers ignore pill Popper putzes.
Fred Weiss
TC
> Well, of course.[Newtonian gravity theory]
> enables us to approximately start our approximate
> cars to drive over approximate bridges.
> The miracle is that it does this even though it is WRONG.
The mystery is that someone who can write English as well
as Fred seems to be able to does not understand what the
word "approximate" means.
> Thank God for miracles - and that engineers ignore pill Popper putzes.
Fred, you'd better stay in your house lest the next
bridge you drive over collapse because it was designed
by someone who thinks science and engineering operate
by making and testing hypotheses.
Better make that sleep in a cave lest the house
itself collapse because of "Popperian" design.
Tom
Charles Bell
I am saying your use of "approximation" is (1) unscientific and (2)
opens the door wide open to philosophical skepticism with either your
intention or due to a bad education.
(1) An approximate answer to a scientific problem is one in which
some measurements are imprecise or unattainable. This is common in
problems in which nonlinear forces (like friction and chaotic forces)
play a major role; e.g., the bridge problem, what is 'approximate" is
ignoring vibratory effects, wind and weather, NOT the application of
classical vs. RT mechanics.
A real scientist when talking about slight difference in calculations
by RT or Classical would say:
"Very accurate observations of the planet Mercury revealed a small
difference between its motion and the the predictions of Newton's
theory of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted
a slightly different motion from Newton's theory. The fact that
Einstein's predictions matched what was seen, while Newton's did not,
was one of the crucial confirmations of the new theory. However, we
still use Newton's theory for all practical purposes because the
difference between its predictions and those of general relativity is
very small in the situations that we normally deal with. (Newton's
theory also has the great advantage that it is much SIMPLER to work
with than Einstein's!) [Emphasis added]" Hawking - Brief History of
Time p 11
This is a far more nuanced explanation of Newton vs Einstein than what
the word "approximation" implies. Notice also that use of the word
"simpler" is exactly what I said when referring to ordinary situations
where it is *rational* to apply the less complicated theory --
entirely O'ist in outlook.
(2) The subject of incompatibility of philosophical skepticism and
O'ism has been well discussed, and I do not want to go into it here.
Skepticism has its place in moving from superstition to real science
but is harmful within science itself unless applied loosely to mean
"well-verified", but it CANNOT mean agnosticism, in that nothing
cannot be true epistemologically, but rather only approximate.
TC
> I am saying your use of "approximation" is (1) unscientific and (2)
> opens the door wide open to philosophical skepticism with either your
> intention or due to a bad education.
Are you addressing me?
> (1) An approximate answer to a scientific problem is one in which
> some measurements are imprecise or unattainable.
This is your definition.
Quite simply an approximate theory is a theory that gives
an answer near the experimental value but makes no claims
as to ultimate exactness.
>This is common in
> problems in which nonlinear forces (like friction and chaotic forces)
> play a major role; e.g., the bridge problem, what is 'approximate" is
> ignoring vibratory effects, wind and weather, NOT the application of
> classical vs. RT mechanics.
Quantum physics has as its limit Newtonian mechanics as
as the objects being predicted get large (or as Planck
constant goes to zero).
Relativity (general and special) has as its limit Newtonian
(mechanics, gravity) theory as velocity is small and
gravitational field weak.
> A real scientist when talking about slight difference in calculations
> by RT or Classical would say:
> ".... However, we
> still use Newton's theory for all practical purposes because the
> difference between its predictions and those of general relativity is
> very small in the situations that we normally deal with. (Newton's
> theory also has the great advantage that it is much SIMPLER to work
> with than Einstein's!) [Emphasis added]" Hawking - Brief History of
> Time p 11
And Hawking agrees that Newton's theory is approximate.
What is there about his phrasing that confuses you?
> This is a far more nuanced explanation of Newton vs Einstein than what
> the word "approximation" implies.
???
Approximate:
2 : nearly correct or exact <an approximate solution>
> Notice also that use of the word
> "simpler" is exactly what I said when referring to ordinary situations
> where it is *rational* to apply the less complicated theory --
> entirely O'ist in outlook.
No. Oist's think that in those situations the theory is true.
Which is wrong.
> (2) The subject of incompatibility of philosophical skepticism and
> O'ism has been well discussed,
The compatibility of science and skepticism has also been
discussed. Combining the two observations one concludes
that science and Objectivism are not compatible.
> and I do not want to go into it here.
> Skepticism has its place in moving from superstition to real science
> but is harmful within science itself
And your proof of this is?
> unless applied loosely to mean "well-verified",
Do you mean "always verify"?
> but it CANNOT mean agnosticism, in that nothing
> cannot be true epistemologically, but rather only approximate.
What is your problem with the word "approximate" meaing
"nearly correct or exact"?
Tom
TC
> Skepticism has its place in moving from superstition to real science
Good observation. Skepticism is still needed to ward off
superstition today - Islam, Fundy Christian etc.
Tom
Charles Bell
.
> Quite simply an approximate theory is a theory that gives
There is no such thing as an "approximate theory". A theory either
is or is not. I know the term is used from time to time, but its use
is, as I described w/re bridge, when something is knowingly left out.
Newton did not knowing leave out bits and pieces of GRT to create an
approximate theory. Newton and GRT are separate theories, with quite
different premises, with similar results in similar contexts.
> And Hawking agrees that Newton's theory is approximate.
> What is there about his phrasing that confuses you?
The part where he uses the word "approximate". He does not say that
we use Newton for practical purposes because it is a good
approximation, he says it is simpler and more easily applied, and the
results differ only slightly from Einstein, which is complicated and
applied with difficulty.
> What is your problem with the word "approximate" meaning
> "nearly correct or exact"?
It cannot be used as a descriptor of a complete theory. It
unavoidably introduces philosophical skepticism. It is not necessary.
"Approximately" properly applies to degree of precision in
measurement.
Potroast
>> Neither are they very massive or very far off. Newtonian Gravitation
>> simply does not address the gravitational red-shift at all. That is one
>> of the reasons why it is Wrong.
Well there you go. When you said "newtonian" I wrongly assumed it
was a relativistic problem that was creating the discrepancy. As I
said I just don't know when to worry about GR... its just this vague
idea I'm told I should worry about. Without the math and reasoning
behind it how should I know when to worry about it?
This is actually one of those things that profoundly bugged me about
my EE training. I was thrown all these forumulas and usually not
explaining the reasoning that lead to the discoveries. (and the
biggest reason why I moved into programming). Now that I reflect back
on it, I understand where my discomfort came from. It made me feel
like an organ grinder monkey that does tricks but is never allowed to
really understand things. (I probably should have just gone straight
to physics but unfortunately I was one of those kids that couldn't
make his mind up and floated around different fields for awhile)
>> Bob wrote: Try inventing or discovering a new semi-conductor without QM.
"I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics"
Richard Feynman (and consider that GR is usually considered something
that is even LESS understood)
I know what you are saying here though and I personally wish I had
the time to devote to throughly understanding GM and GR far better
(because for f~cks sake it is our best understanding of how the
universe works so far). In an ideal world hairdressers and billionaire
sports team owners would also understand but I put to you on a
practical level is it necessary for most....or the domain of a
physicist or hardcore enthusiast?.
There is just so many hours in the day to study things and so many
fields. I love many fields. I'd love to have a Phd in philosophy AND
in physics AND in political science AND in business administration AND
etc.... I guess what I am saying here is there is huge chain of things
that we wish we had the time to learn in life but we are forced to
specialize in some tiny segment somewhere along that chain because we
have to eat.
~ still experiencing cognitive dissonance :)
TC
> On Jul 28, 12:56 pm, TC <polymath....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Quite simply an approximate theory is a theory that gives
> There is no such thing as an "approximate theory". A theory either
> is or is not.
Oh all right. A theory that gives results that agree approximately
with experiment.
> > And Hawking agrees that Newton's theory is approximate.
> > What is there about his phrasing that confuses you?
> The part where he uses the word "approximate". He does not say that
> we use Newton for practical purposes because it is a good
> approximation, he says it is simpler and more easily applied, and the
> results differ only slightly from Einstein, which is complicated and
> applied with difficulty.
Do you see the phrase "differ only slightly"?
What about it do you not understand?
> > What is your problem with the word "approximate" meaning
> > "nearly correct or exact"?
> It cannot be used as a descriptor of a complete theory.
Exactly. Newton's theory is wrong, incomplete even,
so "approximate" results are to be expected if the results
are any good at all.
> It
> unavoidably introduces philosophical skepticism. It is not necessary.
Skepticism is lots better than superstitious dogmatic
certainty.
> "Approximately" properly applies to degree of precision in
> measurement.
Theories make predictions that are compared to experiment -
by measurement.
Tom
Charles Bell
> Quantum physics has as its limit Newtonian mechanics as
> as the objects being predicted get large (or as Planck
> constant goes to zero).
No. The premise of quantized energy packets is a complete departure
from classical physics and the photoelectric effect, for example, was
never explained by classical physics *at all* [in contrast to gravity
and motion]. QM was a complete depature from classical physics in the
areas to which it was applied. Even your overwrought definition of
"approximate theory" cannot apply. How does a "constant go to
zero"? A theory either is or is not; it either involves a constant,
in a series of equations, or it does not.
Potroast
"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to
explain those things that you do not understand:
"What I cannot create, I do not understand"
"if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about
it... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them" (I wish more people on the political spectrum
practised this instead of sophistry)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for nature cannot be fooled" (ditto with this)
"Some people say, "How can you live without knowing?" I do not know
what they mean. I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you
get to know is what I want to know."
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it."
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Uh, huh.
>
> Well, of course. It enables us to approximately start our approximate
> cars to drive over approximate bridges.
>
> The miracle is that it does this even though it is WRONG.
There are degrees of WRONG. Some WRONG things are close enough for
Government Work. Others are not. For example the Tacoma Narrows Bridge
which shook itself to pieces in 1942.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> "I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics"
> Richard Feynman (and consider that GR is usually considered something
> that is even LESS understood)
But QM is -used- successfully. Just shut up and calculate (Dirac). By
the way, what Feynman meant was that QM cannot be reconciled with Common
Sense, that grasp of the world we acquire by operating at our size and
mass with the limitations of our sensory organs. Our Common Sense is
bounded and constrained by our scale. Fortunately we can get beyond it
using mathematics. Using mathematics onc can deal with a 30 dimemsional
space as easily as a 3 dimensional space.
Bob Kolker
TC
> On Jul 28, 12:56 pm, TC <polymath....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Quantum physics has as its limit Newtonian mechanics as
> > as the objects being predicted get large (or as Planck
> > constant goes to zero).
> No. The premise of quantized energy packets is a complete departure
> from classical physics
Look up the "correspondence principle"
Limit as h->0 (packet size ->0) of quantum mechanics is
classical mechanics.
> .... Even your overwrought definition of
> "approximate theory" cannot apply. How does a "constant go to
> zero"?
Learn some mathematical physics.
> A theory either is or is not; it either involves a constant,
> in a series of equations, or it does not.
I can only shake my head at your ignorance.
Tom
TC
> > No. The premise of quantized energy packets is a complete departure
> > from classical physics
> Look up the "correspondence principle"
> Limit as h->0 (packet size ->0) of quantum mechanics is
> classical mechanics.
> > ...... How does a "constant go to
> > zero"?
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle
In physics, the correspondence principle is a principle,
first invoked by Niels Bohr in 1923, which states that
the behavior of quantum mechanical systems reduce
to classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers.
Ehrenfest's theorem later justified and quantified this p
rinciple by showing how Newton's laws emerged from
post-1925 or the "new" quantum mechanics.
Tom
Charles Bell
> Do you see the phrase "differ only slightly"?
> What about it do you not understand?
In the sense he used it, it does not mean "approximate" . Theory A =
1.10; Theory B=1.100000001; NOT ergo Theory A is an approximate
Theory B. All one can really say is what Hawkings said, is that
Theory A produces a result that differs slightly from Theory B.
> > > What is your problem with the word "approximate" meaning
> > > "nearly correct or exact"?
> > It cannot be used as a descriptor of a complete theory.
> Exactly. Newton's theory is wrong, incomplete even,
> so "approximate" results are to be expected if the results
> are any good at all.
I would not say Newton's gravitational theory is "wrong" either. It
has weaker predictive capabilities. There are facts of nature that
GRT (about time and space) that subsume Newton's as there must be
about Black Holes in a theory that would have to replace GRT. That is
not to say that GRT is wrong about things of the universe that do not
involve gravitational singularities as Newton was not wrong about
things in nature that do not involve very large objects. You are
blind if you cannot see the hierarchy of increasing theoretical
complexity subsuming the simpler as the context changes (in this case:
of increasing mass density).
> > It
> > unavoidably introduces philosophical skepticism. It is not necessary.
>
> Skepticism is lots better than superstitious dogmatic
> certainty.
What does that have to do with the present discussion?
> > "Approximately" properly applies to degree of precision in
> > measurement.
> Theories make predictions that are compared to experiment -
> by measurement.
So what? Unless you are talking about measuring by imprecise, rather
than precise, means, "approximate" has no application here.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I would not say Newton's gravitational theory is "wrong" either. It
> has weaker predictive capabilities. There are facts of nature that
> GRT (about time and space) that subsume Newton's as there must be
> about Black Holes in a theory that would have to replace GRT. That is
Newtonian Gravitation incorrectly predicts the motion of planets. It was
first discovered for Mercury, but all planets exhibit "anomalous"
prcessions of the periephemiris.
Bob Kolker
Potroast
(Dirac). By
> the way, what Feynman meant was that QM cannot be reconciled with Common
> Sense, that grasp of the world we acquire by operating at our size and
> mass with the limitations of our sensory organs. Our Common Sense is
> bounded and constrained by our scale. Fortunately we can get beyond it
> using mathematics. Using mathematics onc can deal with a 30 dimemsional
> space as easily as a 3 dimensional space.
I can look at a clock to tell the time but if I don't know how its
innards work can I consider that the same as "knowing" the clock?
I sometimes wonder if it's at this point physicists should take a
few philosophy courses to help clear up their language. Are they
looking at things from the perspective one could infinitely observe a
new underlaying process as if one was peeling back layers of an onion?
As I understand a new processs.... I would have (by definition)
unearthed new principles. My very next question could be.... so why
are these principles so? So from this perspective what matters is
what is what is currently most "useful" not necessarily what is
(although peeling back layers certainly can add to our list of what is
useful),
Now there is another way to look at this too. Zeno had arrows that
never reached their destination... except they did.
I'm not disagreeing here though. I'm just trying to understand the
point up to where scientists are "sure" about the nature of physics
and where things start drifting into the next layer of the onion. We
have Newton where things are linear and complete until we start
checking the decimal points. Then QM comes into play but somewhere
down the line of investigating QM behavior things are perhaps
observable but not universally understood. I thought the nonsensical
nature of QM was the exact reason why Einstein said "god does not play
dice". What was the purpose of the EPR paradox if not to argue that QM
was incomplete? Doesn't this lead t the conclusion that what they are
saying is that they could describe QM behavior somewhat based on
empirical observations but did not entirely understand it (sort of
like a can watch a hand move on my clock by not know by what
principles it worked)
I also thought this is why QM now has such divergent schools of
thought as the Copenhagen Interpretation and string theory. If they
knew for sure... wouldn't they just choose one?
Malrassic Park
Objectivism only exists to criticize anything and everything while
"feigning no hypothesis" of its own.
And contextualism was not intended as an excuse for relativism.
Something is not simply true 'within that context,' but within a given
context of *KNOWLEDGE*. Or else one could say that Objectivism's
concept of 'time' is true within the context of Objectivism --
whatever that means.
My speedometer tells me miles per hour, but it doesn't tell what an
hour is. The alleged definition "Time is a measurement of motion" does
not differentiate 'time' from 'space,' since motion occurs in
relationship to space.
Someone else here asserted the notion that 'time' is a fundamental
concept, and yet it is not included among objectivism's fundamentals.
It seems to be fundamental since you cannot have motion without first
experiencing it in time and space, meanwhile, the chapter on absolutes
found in ITOE comes MUCH LATER in the book which is written in a
hierarchical fashion -- how "fundamental" then could these absolutes
be?
The noumenon may not "exist," but then neither do dozens of
concepts found in mathematics, such as 'infinity' or 'the square root
of negative one.' You need to learn that concepts, other than the
mathematical, don't necessarily have to 'exist' in order to be
practical.
A=A doesn't exist.
There is no Objectivist corollary stating that whatever is 'true' must
have a real referent.
You cannot appeal to the law of non-contradiction and then tell me
that 'time' is true in both the Einsteinian and QM "contexts," unless
you would like to change your story to say that 'time' has different
connotations depending upon context.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I also thought this is why QM now has such divergent schools of
> thought as the Copenhagen Interpretation and string theory. If they
> knew for sure... wouldn't they just choose one?
Many interpretations, but just one mathematical theory and that is what
counts. Just shut up and calculate (Dirac). Interpretations are at best
intuition pumps. They are not what produces the predictions. The
equations of quantum theory are what lead to the predictions.
Bob Kolker
Malrassic Park
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I found an answer on another forum which tells a slightly different
story:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39be7d424241.htm
"Although A = A is a simple statement of the logical principle of
identity, in the context of metaphysics it appears to be a tautology
on its face. But Rand explains why, in her view, it is not a
tautological statement as follows: A human being can ask any
particular thing why it exists... But no one in his right mind can
propound the question, 'why does existence exist?' and expect to find
an answer. Therefore, no one in his right mind should ask the question
in the first place. She thereby neatly forecloses any possibility of
metaphysical inquiry altogether. That is to say, to put it bluntly,
Ayn Rand does not have a metaphysics."
Potroast
Here is an interesting question.
What's different about a galaxy over a planet? Why do so many
cosmologists and physicists use the relatively new patchwork of dark
matter to keep galaxies together? This problem was first realized from
empirical observations and not predicted by GR proponents. Shouldn't
they have predicted it if they throughly understood GR?
It seems to me either dark matter is the new aether or most
physicists don't understand GR as completely as they claim (and there
are principles relating to it that either need to be further clarified
or perhaps the theory even tossed aside for one with better
resolution). I'm not trying to put down physicists (they are clever
blokes that deserve far bigger paychecks) I'm just trying to say that
I remain unconvinced that Einstein isn't in the process of befalling
Newton's fate. Although Copernicus was better at predicting orbits
than others doesn't mean he "understood" what was going on in an
absolute sense....it was more in a "useful" sense.
I am a layman but I am still capable of observing the observers.
While there are wins like the standard model... there are also many
descreptancies between physicists in the description of GR and QM. The
signs are all there that something is amiss with the theories or that
some of them are frauds pretending to understand Einstein. That
Copernicus was better at predicting orbits than others doesn't mean he
"understood" what was going on in an absolute sense. It was in a
useful sense. Likewise I can see how one can argue just because
physicists understand better than the next guy... doesn't mean they
understanding is absolute.
Why should I not believe that Einstein won't befall the same fate as
Newton at some later point in time? Just like it took awhile to deal
with Newton, no one is yet smart enough to put it all together into
something convincingly revolutionizing.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Why should I not believe that Einstein won't befall the same fate as
> Newton at some later point in time? Just like it took awhile to deal
> with Newton, no one is yet smart enough to put it all together into
> something convincingly revolutionizing.
There is a possibility that GTR will suffer the same fate as Newtonian
Gravitation. However, if GTR fails we are not going back to Newtonian
Gravitation. Something really new will have to be figured out.
Bob Kolker
Charles Bell
> Look up the "correspondence principle"
> Limit as h->0 (packet size ->0) of quantum mechanics is
> classical mechanics.
For one thing, a Principle is not a theory. There is nothing in
classical physics that can predict quanta, and there is nothing in QM
that predicts h=0.
The Correspondence Principle is just hooey and part of the pseudo-
metaphysical Copenhagen Interpretation with no scientific value.
Charles Bell
> I found an answer on another forum which tells a slightly different
> story:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39be7d424241.htm
>[. . . ]
> She thereby neatly forecloses any possibility of
> metaphysical inquiry altogether. That is to say, to put it bluntly,
> Ayn Rand does not have a metaphysics."
I don't have a problem with that. It would be on that basis there
would not be a nonscientific populace growing more and more cynical
about what science can do, and fewer scientists thinking that they
joined a priesthood.
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
Reggie Perrin
> [...]
> I sometimes wonder if it's at this point physicists should take a
> few philosophy courses to help clear up their language.
>From your lips....
Potroast
Gravitation."
What??? Next thing you know you're going to claim there is no hope for
Eudoxus. :)
You mentioned that great quote by Dirac ("just shut up and
calculate") That's exactly the problem with GR today though isn't
it?. It only appears to work sometimes and seems to fall apart with
galaxies (not too unlike how demoted Newton is still good but only
under certain criteria). What appears to have been happening the
last few decades is that physicists have been trying to fix GT by
inventing this mysterious dark aether (that no one has ever seen nor
heard from but is always just around the corner... sort of like string
theory) rather then just dump it or at least edit it with something
that simply matches empirical observations (at until they know better)
I don't think that it is too outrageous to suggest that when 95% of
universe appears to go awol to make some theory work then perhaps the
theory itself may be the problem not the universe.
(I now feel marginally better about being the dummy that doesn't get
GR .:)
TC
The Ehrenfest theorem provides proof that QM goes to classical
mechanics for large objects.or - what is the same - in the limit
as h->0.
Call it hooey if you like. In so doing you just reveal your
ignorance of physics.
Tom
Potroast
>> should take a few philosophy courses to help clear up their language.
>> From your lips....
I tried to articulate much the same a few years ago when I came to
this forum and brought up the issue of language (verbatim taken from
one of my first posts)
....
"from the first memory in life till now.... my only real thoughts have
been on philosophy.... whether or not I wanted it be so. That is why
I stay up to 5:12 am answering trivial replies... can't stop.My
shrink says I'm obsessive. Oh well. Granted that doesn't make me
right.... but it gives me a fighting chance in a very complex world.
My biggest problem is communication because my dialogue is far
different than most... and that created a barrier of misunderstanding
I did not forsee that I cannot seem to escape. I've already argued
everything philosophically with one set of words... so I moved on to
the next... and the next. I argue when I'm happy... to see how that
affects my judgment and when I'm sad. I argue about the meaning of
this response to you in my head as type. I can be an Objectivist,
Buddhist, Existentialist or Sophist tomorrow. I think I know the
words. Some times I play many roles to figure out what role I
believe."
....
Even though I consider it one of the driving themes in my outlook, I
rarely bring up the topic of language at this particular forum anymore
because it usually ends in a debacle with someone upset at me. Perhaps
if you could point out what specifically I said that you find
incoherent (rather than make the general point) so I can clarify.
I always argue what I believe at a particular moment in time but I
am always willing to adapt to new ways of doing and saying things
provided I can be convinced.
Reggie Perrin
> >> Potroast: I sometimes wonder if it's at this point physicists
> >> should take a few philosophy courses to help clear up their language.
> >
>
> [...]
> Perhaps if you could point out what specifically I said that you find
> incoherent (rather than make the general point) so I can clarify.
I think we may be talking at cross purposes. The expression I was
alluding to was "From your lips to God's ears" -- IOW, I endorse your
suggestion. Imprecise use of language by physicists has led to many a
squabble, both here and in more august settings.
Fred Weiss
wrote:
Don't try to squirm outa this with irrelevancies. The Tacoma Bridge
didn't collapse because they failed to use GTR. It had *nothing
whatever to do with what you consider WRONG with Newton".
Is the GWB merely "close enough for government work", moron?
The kind of thinking (or really, non-thinking) you are illustrating
here merely confirms your putziness.
Putz.
Fred Weiss
Ralph Hertle
You guys haven't specified your contexts.
The "cannonball" crack is just plain mudslinging, and that is apparently a
skirting of the responsibility to place your technical definitions of terms
at the top of the page.
That is true top posting.
I short, given my conventional 1960's to 1990's college physics books, I'd
say that Fred is right with the principles there given and the definitions
so specified.
If definitions are specified, e.g., specifying great distances in cm instead
of miles, then greater accuracies of measurement are the result. One must
first specify one's terms. Then present one's arguments and conclusions.
What you guys are really quibbling about is really measurement science. You
haven't yet identified what substance, energy, or, qua GR, what the
operating principles and causes of gravity are. Existence is still there,
you don't now what it is, and you guys are just quibbling over whose ruler
is more exact.
Where are the definitions of your GR terms, formulas, and arguments?
Or, if given so your called "cannonball" science, are we going to have to
give up the SI measurement system in favor of the Pragmatist adopted now
United States Govt. mandated official Imperial (or English) system?
Are we going to give up on the rules of deductive logic as identified and
formalized by Aristotle? That are the foundation of the scientific method?
Or give up Euclid? Recall that the anti-reason pseudo-scientific
commentators a few years ago were viciously attacking Euclid claiming that
flat geometry didn't apply to the GR of the cosmos or to the claimed
mathematically caused gravity. They stopped talking once it was shown that
Euclid's system was a solid (3D) system throughout, that the detractors
hadn't read Euclid in sufficient depth, and that Euclid's Elements were
completely and flawlessly logical throughout. They lied, and they couldn't
prove their case. Then came their quiet.
They're back, only this time its Newton.
I'm surprised that Archimedes' formalization of the ratios of lengths and
masses of the three classes of levers hasn't be also shunned by the
advocates of GR. He integrated concepts of physics, mass given values, with
concepts of length, in geometrical ratios, within an overall system of
relationships, and he based that in the reality of the concept of the
identity. Are we to give up the concept of the identity and revert to a
system of Platonic approximation in mathematics?
I don't know the high level of math required by GR, however, I can sense a
pattern of attack on the central tenets of logic and reason when I see it.
How do I know? NO DEFINITIONS. NO IS. NO IDENTITIES.
Ralph Hertle
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"TC" <polyma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185286980.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
: On Jul 24, 6:29 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <robert_kol...@hotmail.com>
: wrote:
:
: > Fred insists the General Relativity gives at most minor adjustments so
: > Newtonian Gravitation is "true" in most "contexts". Well it ain't in the
: > context of distance measurements.
:
: My take lately is that Fred is stuck with the idea he takes from
: Objectivist epistemology that once a set of observations is properly
: grasped, it is grasped that way (in context anyway)
: then and forevermore.
:
: Moon, apple, Galileo's experiments, Kepler's ellipses
: properly grasped lead to Newton's universal theory of gravity.
: This is still true historically, but this is not how modern
: physicists grasp those historical observations since the
: paradigm shift of general relativity.
:
: The observations have been _re-grasped_.
:
: But Objectivism seems to have no room for re-grasping or
: paradigm shifts.
:
: I suppose you could that an Objectivist-like point of view.
: Think that Newtonian gravity is exact and universal in the
: context of canon-balls and the like, rememberg to shift
: to the general relativity point of view for GPS and the like.
:
: But the general relativity point of view includes the
: Newtonian point of view as an approximation. The only
: "cost" is to realized that Newton's theory is incorrect and
: Newton's "grasp" was flawed.
:
: The single unified "grasp" that general relativity provides seems
: a much better point of view to me than the apparent
: Objectivist insistence on switching "grasps"depending
: on context so as to avoid the paradigm shift from Newtonian
: theory to general relativity.
:
: Tom
:
:
Ralph Hertle
You guys haven't specified your contexts.
The "cannonball" crack is just plain mudslinging, and that is apparently a
skirting of the responsibility to place your technical definitions of terms
at the top of the page.
That is true top posting.
I short, given my conventional 1960's to 1990's college physics books, I'd
say that Fred is right with the principles there given and the definitions
so specified.
If definitions are specified, e.g., specifying great distances in cm instead
of miles, then greater accuracies of measurement are the result. One must
first specify one's terms. Then present one's arguments and conclusions.
What you guys are really quibbling about is really measurement science. You
haven't yet identified what the substance, energy, or, qua GR, what the
operating principles and causes of gravity is. Existence is still there, and
you don't now what it is. You guys are just quibbling over whose ruler is
more exact.
Where are the definitions of your GR terms, formulas, and arguments?
Or, if given so your called "cannonball" science, are we going to have to
give up the SI measurement system in favor of the Pragmatist adopted now
United States Govt. mandated official Imperial (or English) system?
Are we going to give up on the rules of deductive logic as identified and
formalized by Aristotle? That are the foundation of the scientific method?
Or give up Euclid? Recall that the anti-reason pseudo-scientific
commentators just a few years ago were viciously attacking Euclid claiming
that flat geometry didn't apply to the GR of the cosmos or to the claimed
mathematically caused gravity. They stopped talking once it was shown that
Euclid's system was a solid (3D) system throughout, that the detractors
hadn't read Euclid in sufficient depth or at all, and that Euclid's Elements
were completely and flawlessly logical throughout. They lied, and they
couldn't prove their case. Then came their quiet.
Now they're back, only this time its Newton.
I'm surprised that Archimedes' formalization of the ratios of lengths and
masses of the three classes of levers hasn't be also shunned by the
advocates of GR. He integrated concepts of physics, mass given values, with
concepts of length, in geometrical ratios, within an overall system of
relationships, and he based that in the reality of the concept of the
identity. Are we to give up the concept of the identity and revert to a
system of guesswork and Platonic approximation in mathematics?
I don't know the high level of math required by GR, however, I can sense a
pattern of attack on the central tenets of logic and reason when I see it.
How do I know? NO FACTS. NO DEFINITIONS. NO IS. NO IDENTITIES.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I'm surprised that Archimedes' formalization of the ratios of lengths and
> masses of the three classes of levers hasn't be also shunned by the
> advocates of GR. He integrated concepts of physics, mass given values, with
> concepts of length, in geometrical ratios, within an overall system of
> relationships, and he based that in the reality of the concept of the
> identity. Are we to give up the concept of the identity and revert to a
> system of Platonic approximation in mathematics?
Archimedes theory of levers is perfectly fine for rigid elongated and
massless lever arms. They are also a good approximation to real
physical levers as well. When the forces on a -real physical- lever
starts to bend and then break the lever arm, Archimedes rules no longer
hold.
>
> I don't know the high level of math required by GR, however, I can sense a
> pattern of attack on the central tenets of logic and reason when I see it.
General Relativity requires the theory of tensors as applied to
semi-Riemannian manifolds. Curvature is a tensor. In GTR gravity is
modelled as curvature in a four dimensional manifold.
The mathematics required for GTR is somewhat more complex than is
required for, say, classical mechanics a la Newton. However when dealing
with virtual forces and D'Alambertian and Lagrangian physics the math
can get pretty hairy. It turns out many of the constructions used in the
refinements of mechanics (for example Poissson Brackets, and Least
Action Principles) show up again in quantum physics and relativity
theory. It turns out that the great mathematician David Hilbert almost
beat Einstein to the forumulation of the General Relativity by using a
Langrangian Density functional for determining the actions in a four space.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
"Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f888a4$q11$1...@victor.killfile.org...
: Sketch System wrote:
: >
: > You're use of right and wrong is oversimplifying. Newton was as right
: > as he could be, and Einstein was as right as he could be. Neither of
: > their theories are "wrong" so much as "inaccurate." It so happens
: > that Einstein's take on gravity is more accurate than Newton's, but
: > some of what Newton created is still useful.
:
: Still useful (in the sense of being close enough to right) but never
: right. Newtonian gravitation CANNOT be right. It presumes instantenous
: interaction between mass points. Newtonian physics is based on a
: categorically flawed idea of space and time. Space is not flat and time
: is not absolute. In particular, simulteneity is not absolute.
:
: Bob Kolker
The concept of something being absolute in that contrext troubles me. The
hidden premise it seems to me is that some type of discrete grav itational
unit or entity is presumed by Newton's detractors to move at some, however
unknown, velocity that influence one or the other attracted objects.
I think that that's not what Newton presumed. [I don't have access to
Newton's works, and that would be of interexst at this point.] I don't think
that Newton presumed that some type of gravitational existant or
gravitational entity travelled from point A to point B in order that one
object would be attracted to the other. Not that he excluded consideration
of existents or entities, rather that he presumed that some type of
continuous effect was present in the region between objects A and B, e.g., a
field of something that was as operative at point A as it was at point B. Or
some type of flow of something that exerted a cause where ever it was, or
that a flow may, in some way, have extended from one object to the other and
have resulted in a mutual attraction an reciprocal cause of attraction.
For example, a river may exert a force on one boat that is far upstream and
equally upon another that is somewhere downstream. The cause, here not
explained due to principle or property or scientific concept omission, is
everywhere universal it would seem, even though the unstated water
molecules, and their motions, are part of the integrated cause.
Or, for example, in the case of radiated light, object B may be lighted by
rays from object A at any selected distance B is from A. It may be assumed
that the flow of individual light photons is continuous so that at each of a
number of selected positions of B, B will result in B being lighted by A.
The cause would seem uniform everywhere [temporarily disregarding a
discussion of the role of the square area function], and at various selected
times making the cause appear to seem continuous. If objects B and a twin,
C, for example, are placed near A, the effect of the light beam(s) from A
may seem to simultaneuously produce the result of illumination of B and C.
Hence. where causes, as in the above examples, may appear to have equal
effect at different locations and or at the same time they may been imagined
to be absolute and instantaneous of their results. Such imagination is,
however, incorrect, and cannot be substantiated.
Actually, it was that the principle of causation was seen to be simultaneous
and continuous by Newton for the purposes of his demonstration. An
instantaneous absolute was not necessarily presumed by Newton. [Of course,
this requires a search of Newton's work for the term, instgantaneous, and to
check his exact words.]
It is of interest that Newton's detractors used the concept of the discrete
functioning of some, however unexplained, gravitational existent, or
discrete cause, that functions at selelected locations and simultaneously.
They then drop that notion to cover the context that was dropped when they
accused Newton of explaining by means of a claimed instantaneously and
everywhere functioning single absolute. What was dropped by Newton's
detractors was the principle of cause and effect in a relationship to
discrete plural, real, and, for the selected purposes of logical
demonstration, continuously existing physical existents in the local
universe. Newton's detractors used a notion that had a grain of truth in it
as a straw man argument.
The universe is still a cuntinuing purality of physical existents, and their
properties, relationships, and interactions were taken as reliably constant
causes and effects for the purposes of explaining his discoveries.
An existing entity theory of gravity that functions in terms of universally
operating causes and effects concurs quite well with Newton's theory. The
causes and effects, and the real existents so governed, can be found equally
at selected places in the universe.
What doesn't agree with Newton is the claim that some type of unitary
gravitational absolute exists that functions simultaneously everywhere.
Objects and their causes were to Newton plural, and the causes of the
objects and their properties, functioned discretely and finitely for the
respective objects.
It was that the principles that he explained or identified and demonstrated
that are universal. Perhaps the universality of concepts is what Newton's
detractors hate the most.
Potroast
Ah....I misunderstood. "x" was what was in my head and "y" is what you
were saying. Language strikes again :)
I find in most instances people can work through these things (if
they keep talking and are somewhat reasonable). Unfortunately what
I've observed happens far too often (and I am by no means immune to
this) is that one or both usually end giving up (because of
time...anger....ego... etc....) and the lines in the sand end up
getting drawn.
I believe to a large extent inconsistent definitions is responsible
for instigating a great deal of negativity and conflict (both on a
personal and even international level). And once those lines have been
drawn, people appear prone to hate one another rather than tolerate
(and even marvel) at the differences. The universe is filled with all
sorts of wonderfully different things and I don't imagine that's going
to change soon (nor would I wish it so).
Other than patience and civility.... I have no solution for this
problem but I think about it a great deal. I sometimes ponder if the
word "love" found a way to enter into the lexicon of capitalism if
those on the left and right of the political spectrum would get along
better.
........
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I think that that's not what Newton presumed. [I don't have access to
> Newton's works, and that would be of interexst at this point.] I don't think
> that Newton presumed that some type of gravitational existant or
> gravitational entity travelled from point A to point B in order that one
What Newton presumed is stated clearly in his law of gravitation. The
interaction is instantenous which we know from experiment is just plain
wrong. It is part of the reason why Newton's law does not predict
planetary motion correctly.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
This reply is in interspersed posting mode, and my comments are placed
following the appropriate statements.
"Robert J. Kolker" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f87nic$tf1$1...@victor.killfile.org...
:
: It is close enough to right to work for some mechanical systems. There
: are -degrees- of wrong.
Wrong? Where do you get that? From some idealistic Platonic Heisenbegian
mathematical system?
That somewhere out there in the ideal world of ideal forms are "wrongs" that
are only inaccurately perceivable and knowable to humans?
Get serious.
: Newtonian physics is useless for dealing with
: the strength and other characteristics of composite fibers, which
: bridges are now being built with. To deal with composites you need the
: quantum theory of solids.
:
My experience participating in the designing of composite highway bridges
for structural engineering firms is that what you say is totally wrong.
Basic principles of physics are indeed accurately applied in bridge
engineering, however, the quantum theory of solids is so highly specialized
that it would probably address only some and not all of the design
condiderations.
:
: Classical mechanics is useless in dealing with atomic forces and
: structures.
That isn't what the purpose of Classical mechanics is. definitions are based
in specific contexts and one major contextual factor is the purpose of the
definition.
That is basic science. I'm shocked that you slurred over that important
differentiation.
For example, a field of wheat is not a field that was defined Maxwell.
Check your concepts, Bob. You failed to check.
: It is also useless in dealing with electromagnetic forces.
: The point to point force model does not take into acount the velocity of
: moving charges.
:
You perfectly demonstrate at least one fallacy of logic, that is, you
switched terms in your statement. Newton was dealing with objects having
substance and inertial massproperties - and not with photons or electrons.
You've given HPO a non-sequitur, for example.
Check your work, Bob.
: According to the Lorentz Force Law the law on a moving charge with
: velocity v in a uniform magnetic field B is 1/c * B x v (x is the vector
: cross product) and the force is at right angles to the velocity vector
: v. Newtonian Mechanics does not handle this at all.
Nor was it intended to. Physics is a specialized science that describes
actual materials, properties and relationships. Newton's inertial studies
dealt with the inertial properties of larger objects having mass and not
only just the electron.
: Furthermore
: Newtonian Mechanics is Galilean Invariant. Electrdynamics is Lorentz
: Invariant right out of the box.
:
:
That's great if you have "electromagnetic" entities that at "C" are in orbit
around the Sun.
:
:
: >
: > "All definitions are contextual, and a primitive definition *does not
: > contradict* a more advanced one: the latter merely expands the former.
:
: Yeah. Right. Just like Einstein curved spacetime -merely expands- the
: incorrect Newtonian view of flat space. Right.
:
What Newton says is simply basic logical and hierarchical theory of
knowledge.
Since you deny the validity of deductive logic, e.g., the basics as provided
by Aristotle, for example, you cannot appreciate the fact that knowledge
builds upon prior knowledge.
:
: > [. . . ] The only issue open to an individual's choice is how much
: > knowledge he will seek to acquire and, consequently, what conceptual
: > complexity he will be able to reach." ITOE p56 [1979]
:
: Without quantum physics and relativity we would be back before 1850 or
: so scientificially and in terms of engineering. Maybe with luck, our
: most advanced form of long distance communication would be the multiplex
: telegraph. The good news is that we would not have any nuclear weapons
: laying about.
:
: Bob Kolker
Lets see.... The gratuity for the waitress, calculated at 2 times the NYC
sales tax is the gross selling price or ennrgy of the food = the mass of the
food times the speed of light squared... .. . .. times (2).0825 plus the
SP . . .. . Bob, your comlexity demon has you going in circles.
Perhaps your Pragmatist friends are laughing because the Pragmatists,
Communists, and Platonists who stole the nuclear secrets and technology
placed same on 41 C-47 Lend Lease aircraft that were given to the USSR
during WW2. Your Pragmatist altruist morality is what caused the
proliferation of the nuclear technology. It was as easy then as
Pragmatically allowing 2 million illegal aliems into Texas and other
Southern US states. Your Pragmatism, Bob, is the enemy of the United States.
Summing up, the main fallacy that youv'e used in your anti-Newton tirades,
besides conext switching and the non-sequitur, is the stolen concept. You
use that fallacy time and time again.
Check your work, Bob. Your use of fallacies makes you appear the
non-scientist --- quite inappropriate for a discussion group that is devoted
to Objectivism and logic.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
TC
> Basic principles of physics are indeed accurately applied in bridge
> engineering,
An ironic statement in light of recent events.
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Check your work, Bob. Your use of fallacies makes you appear the
> non-scientist --- quite inappropriate for a discussion group that is devoted
> to Objectivism and logic.
What I said was correct. You are ignorant of two things:
Physics and Mathematics. Learn some.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
"TC" <polyma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186412131.2...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
:
Well, yes.
I meant that accuracy is the general intention, whereas, statistically
unknowable and hence inaccurate Heisenbergian Platonism, seems to be the
main charge of many (meaning some) Post Modernist and Pragmatist engineers
and Scientists. ........ Its teachers in space time.
Speaking of the MN bridge, I noticed one design deficiency and possible
cover up based upon observations of the collapsed structure. [BTW, I am not
an engineer, however, I am a designer and technologist.]
That is, the diaphragms. That is a technical term in bridge engineering.
A "diaphragm" is the "X" bracing structure or solid steel plate that is
placed at intervals between the main span bridge beams beneath the concrete
deck slab. The main span beams in the MN example [or case] were made of very
large steel "I" section beams. Those were the long spaghetti-twisted things
that were visible in the wreckage.
The term "diaphragm" used to refer to a solid steel plate that placed
between main beams [or sometimes called girders] will act to maintain the
vertical orientation of the beam. That is essential, if not critical, to the
functioning of the several individual beams in a beam system.
Why system? Beams do not function only independently. The "X" bracing
function of the diaphragms serves to translate vertical deflection forces
from one beam to one or more adjacent beams on either side of the loaded
beam. Thus, the deflection of one beam is greatly reduced and the strain on
the selected beam is greatly reduced. The loads are transferred to more than
one beam, and the deflection of one beam is greatly reduced.
If, however, some engineering designer and state bridge bureaucrat decided
that the diaphragms do not have a necessary function in "X" bracing and load
dispersion, and only act as a dimensional spacer between beams for
construction convenience purposes, what you get is a simple "I" beam piece
that is placed between beam webs. [A web is the thin part of the beam
between the upper flanges of the beam and the lower flanges.].
From the videos of the MN bridge we can see just that sort of
non-"X"-bracing load dispersing "diaphragm". What was provided was only a
dimensional spacer type "diaphragm" that was flexibly connected. Technically
it wasn't a diaphragm, and was merely a spacer. Spacers do not disperse
vertical loads.
The MN or other state standards probably recommended the spacer type
diaphragm, and didn't require the load dispersing "X-brace" type of
diaphragm. Why? because back in 195X, when the MN State bridge design
standards were probably written, they found that the more economical spacer
would suffice just fine and the bridge would not fail during construction.
Lateral loading and load dispersal were not factored in.
The state bureaucrat who approved the use of spacer type diaphragms should
be identified as the guilty party for the MN bridge collapse.
The spacer probably required the additional reinforcing of the steel rebar
matrix reinforced concrete deck slab above to provide additional bridge deck
load dispersion to beams adjacent to loaded beams. The spacers were attached
to the main bridge beam webs with bolted flexible connections. Bolted
connections are, without triangulating braces, are what are called "flexible
connections". Triangulated diaphragms are connected by what are called
"rigid connections".
Note the attention of the engineering investigators to the weights of the
trucks and equipment that the contractors had parked on the bridge.
Was that on an approach span? Do they want to transfer legal liability to
the contractor and not to the state bureaucrats or design engineers?
Note that the TV news interviews pointed to the in-line parking of the
equipment on the span that failed first. That was the approach span and not
the main span. Additional weight would cause the beam or beams directly
below the equipment to have additional vertical deflection.
The real cause of failure was probably due to the original bridge design
that included non-load dispersing spacers [nominally called diaphragms]. The
MN bureaucrat in charge of the structural engineering, who didn't say no to
the spacer diaphragms, and the engineering firm structural engineer who
signed off on the diaphragm design, may be the quilt parties.
Without the "X-brace" diaphragms the loads would lie entirely upon the
loaded beams and not be transferred to the adjacent beams. The TV pictures
clearly show the use of non-"X"-brace diaphragms, and show only a minimal
spacer type diaphragm. Minimal means the cheapest type of clip-attached
piece of steel possible to be placed between the main beams.
The steel rebar reinforced concrete deck was probably acting as the main
load dispersing system, when it should not have been.
The 6:00 PM traffic on the bridge was not present in the area that the
contractor's equipment was parked. I suspect that the equipment was not the
primary load factor that led to the increased deflection of the bridge beams
below.
Additional weight due to the increased traffic weight and vibration of rush
hour and year 2007 traffic were a partial factor.
One engineer who was interviewed said that one should check the weather
reports for the day because winds may have been a factored in the collapse.
That recalls the act-of-god theory for the Tacoma Narrows bridge, and
obfuscates the real physical cause. Is that using god to cover one's or
other's faulty actions?
If the concrete decking surface cover layer was being milled away with the
intention of replacing it, the then structural decking would be more highly
stressed and strained. The remaining concrete surface layer between the top
layer of rebars would have been highly stressed in compression and the
neutral axis would have been lowered resulting in the spalling and failure
in compression of the resulting lower layers of concrete. The beams below
would have increased deflection, and where there were spacer-type diaphragms
below that were attached with "flexible connections" to the beam webs, loads
were not transferred to the adjacent beams. Increased (dimensional) strain
would have resulted in the loaded main beams.
Hence, the loads applied were not resisted by the now slightly weakened
concrete deck [which shouldn't have been called into play if the
superstructure beams had been properly reinforced by "X" bracing
load-dispersing type diaphragms], and the loaded beams would have been
capable of supporting any ordinary 2007 traffic or contractor's equipment.
The contractor's vehicles and deck milling were merely additional factors to
the 2007 rush hour loads. That was factored into the overall strength
calculations and was not a primary cause of the collapse.
The primary cause, in my estimation, was the lack of load-dispersing
"X-brace" type diaphragms that were called for in the original design.
The substitution of spacer type diaphragms called into play the deck slab
for primary load dispersion, which was not what the additional loadings the
slabs were designed for.
Diaphragm load dispersal could have been further lost due to bolted clip
diaphragm beam flexible connections, possibly loosened by rusted bolt
threads.
The main cause of failure of the MN bridge was probably [or in part] due to
the lack of "X-brace" type of load dispersing diaphragms and the consequent
increased greater deflection and possible rotation of the main span beams.
The main beams were probably calculated to be sufficiently strong, however,
due to the increased modern loads, corrosion weakening, and lack of load
dispersing diaphragms, the critically loaded beam may have deflected and
rotated, with its strength rapidly going to zero.
I would check the cause of the highly visible longitudinal ripping of the
failed deck slabs.
The known rusted bridge bearings should, of course, be checked, however, I
would further check for the existence of "X-brace" diaphragms at the ends of
the main beams. Also, if there is no means of web stiffening and compression
load transfer from the compression side of the main beams to the bearing the
critical main beam may have collapsed in rotation and web end failure. I
would check the diaphragms and web stiffeners at the ends of the main beams
of the approach sections. Upon rotation the main beams may have failed and
pulled the support foundation out from under the bearings of the main or
greater bridge span beams.
After the initial cause of failure has been initiated the sequence of
collapse that takes place is irrelevant.
If all that is so, then the remedy for future bridge engineering maintenance
is to remove spacer type diaphragms from all bridges, and to replace them
with "X-brace" type beam load-dispersing diaphragms.
Ralph Hertle
TC
> ...., statistically
> unknowable and hence inaccurate Heisenbergian Platonism,
That is at the very least phrased wrongly.
Quantum mechanics is knowable in a statistical sense.
God does seem to play dice, as it were.
Rest of interesting discussion of MN bridge 35W deleted.
Tom
Ralph Hertle
"TC" <polyma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186412131.2...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Matt Barrow
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hpo.20070807192916$14...@news.killfile.org...
> That is, the diaphragms. That is a technical term in bridge engineering.
>
>
> From the videos of the MN bridge we can see just that sort of
> non-"X"-bracing load dispersing "diaphragm". What was provided was only a
> dimensional spacer type "diaphragm" that was flexibly connected.
> Technically
> it wasn't a diaphragm, and was merely a spacer. Spacers do not disperse
> vertical loads.
>
> The MN or other state standards probably recommended the spacer type
> diaphragm, and didn't require the load dispersing "X-brace" type of
> diaphragm. Why? because back in 195X, when the MN State bridge design
> standards were probably written, they found that the more economical
> spacer
> would suffice just fine and the bridge would not fail during construction.
> Lateral loading and load dispersal were not factored in.
While an arch span is very strong, it contains a single point of failure
(SPOF) if even ONE element fails. The steel arch base mounts at one corner
of the end of the bridge failed and the rest of the structure followed.
(Note: Your mention of the "spaghetti" strands (?) was re-bar, used to
strengthen the concrete ??).
A couple things to consider:
1) The salt that the use back east to remove ice from roads is highly
corrosive towards the steel supports and their mountings.
2) I completely agree that the steel arch was done "on-the cheap", as
indicated by your assessment of the structural design.
3) As above, the maintenance was undoubtedly skimped on.
And finally.
4) What happened to all those $$$BILLIONS in federal and state gas tax money
(much more each years than Exxon takes in) that is supposed to fund all that
infrastructure building and maintenance? Minnesota takes in 40.4 cents (S&F)
per gallon -- where did the money go?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=
20060426&view=1
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY
Ralph Hertle
"TC" <polyma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186515641....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
: On Aug 7, 3:27 pm, Ralph Hertle <ralph.her...@verizon.net> wrote:
:
: > ...., statistically
: > unknowable and hence inaccurate Heisenbergian Platonism,
:
I don't know...... I suspect that Heisenberg, as judged by his theory of
the ultimate unknowability of measurements, is a Platonist in that regard.
That theory is in perfect concord with Plato's theory of the world of forms
and of the ultimate unknowability of reality,
: That is at the very least phrased wrongly.
It is probably wrongly phrased, however, its a joke.
It is redundant to say " inaccurate" because both H and P were advocates of
the impossibility of the knowability of physical existants or the
identifications or measurements of physical reality.
Plato did say that ideas are also unknowable except insofar that the
concepts or "ideals" can only be completely known by specially trained
philosopher priests. Or something like that, to be sure.
The ideas of H and P constitute a double inaccuracy, and to add the word
inaccurate would be an unknowable mess.
One is never right when discussing those guys. Reason is never an absolute
to them for nothing can never be known.
[Nothing being in the realm of unknowable Platonic ideals.]
: Quantum mechanics is knowable in a statistical sense.
Mathematics is the science of measurement, and it measures physical entities
as well as identifies and measures new relationships of ideas.
:
: God does seem to play dice, as it were.
Quantum statistics is another matter.
The origins of that is the origin of Platonic unknowability and of the
claimed impotence of the rational mind in knowing the facts of objective
reality, or existants, and the functions of the human mind.
To both Heisenberg and Plato there is no objective reality, and reason to
them is non-absolute in identifying the facts.
Objectism holds that there is objective reality, and that reason is
absolute.
:
: Rest of interesting discussion of MN bridge 35W deleted.
:
: Tom
Try to sift the PR out of the wreckage, distortions, and obfuscations to get
the facts. The engineering firms know how to dance.
It isn't the engineering [read Socialist infrastructure] bureaucracy or
plastic engineering firms that are on trial. Its the free press.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
"Matt Barrow" <mba...@performancehomes.com> wrote in message
news:xb7ui.24921$rH6....@newsfe22.lga...
:
: "Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
: news:hpo.20070807192916$14...@news.killfile.org...
: >: (Note: Your mention of the "spaghetti" strands (?) was re-bar, used to
: strengthen the concrete ??).
:
Its not a great grammatical point, however, the spaghetti I was referring to
was the main beams that would have been immediately beneath the concrete
deck. Not the deck rebars.
The main beams visible on TV were under the main bridge span where the deck
concrete had somehow been torn away. They were greatly twisted.
The rebars were probably placed in four layers embedded in the concrete that
formed the deck. The concrete deck may have been 12 in thick with 4 layers
of steel rebars. The rebars after the concrete has spalled may have been
converted to dust due to shear and compression forces. The dust was easily
visible on the videos of the collapse. Note that the kids on the bus stated
that pebbles or rocks struck the bus immediately before or during the
collapse. That may indicate the failure of the concrete decking that was
being subjected to major compression forces when it should not have been.
Where the bits came from we don't know, and I would check if they originated
from the milled, and weakened, areas of the deck. If the deck concrete was
being relied upon for designed load dispersion or that was designed to be
the compression side of the main beam superstructure, that would have been a
major instance of mis-engineering. Tremendous forces must have been placed
upon the concrete decking to cause spalling to the extent of causing flying
rocks or pebbles.
The rebars are plainly visible in the destroyed deck structures where the
concrete has been crushed and broken away. The numerous rebars are like
sinuous wires, and they are even more like spaghetti.
The rebars would have to be checked for corrosion and possible weakening.
They were not epoxy coated in those days.
One thing that I noticed about the main bridge span foundation design is
that there appears to be just two generally conical metal bearing supports
for the truss superstructure at each end of the main span. All that weight
resting on just two bearing points at each end? That is daring but not
unusual. However, if just one fails ..............
We can see that the footing piers, that support the bearings that support
the superstructure and hence the roadway deck, were, at one end, quite
tilted out of vertical position. One wonders what forces could do that.
Now, we should here be able to listen to what a professional structural
engineer who had all the necessary facts available would have to say.
Will the Federal Govt. publish the plans for the failed bridge? Engineers
all across the USA would be interested. Would they be available on the USDOT
site? Probably not due to Homeland Security rules.
Ralph Hertle
TC
> Will the Federal Govt. publish the plans for the failed bridge? Engineers
> all across the USA would be interested.
State of Minnesota already has
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/history.html
Have at it!
Tom
TC
> Tom:
> "TC" <polymath....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : God does seem to play dice, as it were.
> Quantum statistics is another matter.
> The origins of that is the origin of Platonic unknowability and of the
> claimed impotence of the rational mind in knowing the facts of objective
> reality, or existants, and the functions of the human min
The origin is in observation.
You think physicists invented the uncertainty principle
because they like having their potential knowledge limited?
Inventing the math of QM was the only way anyone has
found to explain atomic and subatomic phenomena.
Interpreting the math of QM in everyday language still
causes problems as this thread evidences.
I refer to the thread title:
It looks like Ralph Hertle allows no stinking
paradigm shifts - no matter how compelling the evidence.
Tom
Robert J. Kolker
x>
>
> I don't know...... I suspect that Heisenberg, as judged by his theory of
> the ultimate unknowability of measurements, is a Platonist in that regard.
> That theory is in perfect concord with Plato's theory of the world of forms
> and of the ultimate unknowability of reality,
The Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle first showed up in classic optics.
See
http://www.optics.arizona.edu/masud/Uncertainty.pdf
The outline of the principle was known before quantum mechanics was
formulated.
Intuitively if you want to locate a teeny tiny particle with precision
you must use a beam of electromagnetic energy of wavelength less than
the size of the particle you are trying to locate. But this beam has
energy proportional to the reciprocal of the wavelength hence it will
knock the particle from whatever course it was following. Hence you will
not be able to determine the momentum. On the other hand if you want to
measure momentum precisely you must use a beam of low frequence (or
large wavelength). This will give an imprecise reading of the particle's
location. So there is an inverse relation between the precesion of
determining the momentum and the precision of determining the position.
If anything this goes against Platonic ideals. To measure something or
observe it you have to throw photons at it. It is like locating a bear
in a dark cave. You can do so by throwing pebbles and listening for the
clatter or lack of it. In short there has to be an energy exchange to
determine location and trajectory which gives rise to the uncertaintly.
There is not such thing as location in the abstract. The is location as
determined by a specific kind of measuring process which invariably
involves either the reflection or radiation of electromagnetic energy.
One cannot KNOW simply. One must measure. To measure is to perturb.
BTW, you do not know what your are talking about. The uncertainty
principle is a direct result of the non-commutative multiplication of
Hermitean Matrices.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
x
>
>
> Mathematics is the science of measurement, and it measures physical entities
> as well as identifies and measures new relationships of ideas.
>
First of all, mathematics is not a science. Abstract mathematics as such
has no empirical content whatsoever and its standard of proof is purely
deductive and not empirical. One does not justify mathematical
conclusion by mere measurement and observation. One must produce
-proofs- accourding to strictly defined rules of inferrence. Mathematics
is a discipline and an art, but NOT a science.
Second, mathematics in the most general sense is about abstract
structures and relations, not about the measurement of physical
entities. There are many areas of mathematics which are not "about" the
physical world at all. Category Theory comes to mind.
Historically, mathematics originated with counting and surveying. The
word "geometry" is literally derived from the Greek phrase -earth
measure-, i.e. surveying. The Greeks added a new dimension to geometry
by removing it from the world of empirical measurement and placing it in
the world of deduction. Thales was the first (known) Greek philosopher
to postulate a few axioms (so called self evident truths) about planar
figures and -deduce- the results from these few assumptions. This
approach was a Greek Original. It never happened anywhere else prior to
Thales. By making geometry -deductive- rather than inductive, geometry
was removed from the realm of purely practical and empirical art. This
is not to say that geometry ceased to have practical uses. By
interpreting the objects and relations of geometry (abstract ideas) in
terms of observable external objects -- point like things, line like
things and such geometry was able to produce practical results, such as
bridges and buildings. But an empirical element had to be superimposed
on the abstract infrastructure of geometry.
Ditto for counting. Men have always needed to count days, months, and
valuable objects such as herd animals and money. From the activities of
counting an abstract theory of arithmetic was derived. In the abstract
theory one could consider infinite sets of objects (integers, for
example) and quantities so large that they never would be encountered in
the real world. The famous googol (ten to the hundredth power) is
larger than the cardinal number of the set of physical particles in the
known cosmos.
Mathematics has come a long way since. We have the theory of groups,
which deal with abstract symmetries. We have topology which deal with
very abstract and general types of figures in many dimensions. Algebraic
geometry which can deal with spaces of any number of dimensions, much
large than the three physical dimensions of space we experiance and the
dimension of time. In fact the notion of dimensions is generalized and
abstracted so we can deal with fractional dimensions as we do when we
treat Fractals (a fairly recent subject of mathematical investigation).
This is a far cry from the restricted and feeble notion of mathematics
that you (and ultimately Rand) put forth. You really should come to
terms with some facts: Rand and her lap dog Peikoff are mathematical and
scientific ignoramuses. What is even worse, they are invincible
ignoramuses. We are all born ignorant. The sane response to ignorance is
to learn what we don't know (or some of what we don't know). Not Rand.
Not Peikoff. They had their fucking philosophy which trumps facts (or at
least so it seemed to them). They are no different from the Church
Fathers who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because what
they would see would contradict Aristotle and the Pope. (Note: not all
the Church Fathers were so benighted. Father Clavius, for example,
embraced the use of the telescope to determine exact dates for the holy
days like Easter)
Bob Kolker