sci.physics.TaHellWithTheWayPhysicsIsDoneTheseDays
Patrick Reany
1) sci.physics.TaHellWithTheWayPhysicsIsDoneTheseDays
2) sci.physics.ether
3) sci.physics.QM
That way sci.physics.relativity can do what it is chartered to do.
Sci.physics.relativity is not the right newsgroup to defend or explain
the very nature of how science is done, or to receive new theories of
everything, or to unconfuse posters on that which is QM and that which
isn't.
Some "problems" of sci.physics.relativity:
1) Matter is classical
2) Space is Descartian
3) Everything is caused by something and thus everything can be
explained
4) Reality (whatever the hell it is) is here to stay
5) spacetime diagrams are of the devil
6) light propagates in an ether no matter what empirical tests suggest
7) Physicality *must* be explained in terms of a priori ontological
concepts
8) True physical theories are uniquely descriptive of reality
9) Anthropomorphic variables of length, time, mass, etc are TRUE!
10) Covariance is artificial
Patrick
Daniel Weston
The way I look at it is that if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Sci.physics.relativity is busy, full of energy, has a large number of
participants, has energetic posts, is broadbanded meaning that there is
something here for those interested in relativity, it is multi faceted.
and has an abundant sense of vitality.
Everything Patrick mentions is interesting, bring it on and I would like
to jump into it for sure.
Relativity is such an incredibly rich subject that it legitimately
involves many tangential issues. My vote is not to change anything
until it becomes obvious to all that there is a clear reason to
bifurcate.
Danel Weston
Bilge
sci.physics.TaHellWithTheWayPhysicsIsDoneTheseDays to usenet:
>I would like to see three new newsgroups:
>
>1) sci.physics.TaHellWithTheWayPhysicsIsDoneTheseDays
>2) sci.physics.ether
>3) sci.physics.QM
>
How about just sci.physics.retro?
L Hoffman
Very well said. I agree completely. This isn't a peer previewed
journal where only "acceptable" ideas are permitted to be heard. What we
have here is truly an open forum, where ideas can be freely submitted for
review and comment. Almost all of the posts I've seen actually do relate
to relativity. So, lighten up Patrick.
Gerry Quinn
>I would like to see three new newsgroups:
>
>1) sci.physics.TaHellWithTheWayPhysicsIsDoneTheseDays
>2) sci.physics.ether
>3) sci.physics.QM
>
Have you *read* the charter?
- Gerry Quinn
Patrick Reany
L Hoffman wrote:
>
> >
> > Relativity is such an incredibly rich subject that it legitimately
> > involves many tangential issues. My vote is not to change anything
> > until it becomes obvious to all that there is a clear reason to
> > bifurcate.
>
> Very well said. I agree completely. This isn't a peer previewed
> journal where only "acceptable" ideas are permitted to be heard. What we
> have here is truly an open forum, where ideas can be freely submitted for
> review and comment. Almost all of the posts I've seen actually do relate
> to relativity. So, lighten up Patrick.
>
I'm not suggesting that sci.physics.relativity be moderated, at least not yet.
And there's plenty of room for controversy within the domain of so-called
relativity. And everything that is interesting that I'd like to see taken out
of this NG can be fully supported in some other NG(s).
The point is that while we're having fun arguing, the people who could really
benefit from this group, such as physics students, are not likely to post here
after reading some of the posts that are either way off topic or very mean
spirited. I've been a regular reader of sci.math for years and it doesn't have
the same problem that this NG does, so it can effectively help students. OK,
that's my personal view of the purpose of this NG. Everyone else can decide
for themselves.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
Yes, and I stand by my "recommendations." There's plenty of room in this NG for
controversies and new directions for relativity to go in, but the posts arguing that
science of today needs to be re-organized according to this methodology or that one,
are way off subject here. Posts about the ether are, by their shear volume, shifting
this NG away from its purpose. IMO. In fact, those post about the foundations to
science could be posted in sci.philosophy.sci-foundations if such a NG existed.
Patrick
Tom Corbett
learn.relativity.TaHellWithReality
Patrick Reany
Tom Corbett wrote:
> A more suitable name for the student NG would be......
>
> learn.relativity.TaHellWithReality
What means "reality" for scientific purposes? This is a good example of
what I meant by my original post. Why should this NG be singled out for
deep discussions of "reality" and not sci.physics or sci.chem etc? The
place for metaphysics in some philosophy NG.
I'll give the short answer: Reality is personal, but science is a
communal activity and a lot of philosophy must be eliminated to
accommodate the multitude of possible contradictory beliefs about
"reality." Science needs to conform to measurement, but there is very
little ontology needed for this: Ordinary visible objects and the set of
all observable events -- that's all! (Both of these are needed for
either manufacturing or using measuring instruments.) The rest is just
theoretical and used formally. It's then again a *personal decision*
what to believe in as "real" that comes out of scientific theories.
Science is being blamed for not being *dogmatic*. Nonsense.
Patrick
Daniel Weston
To Patrick:
Patrick said that reality was personal! ! ! !
He therefore thinks that reality is subjective not objective !
If Patrick thinks that reality is subjective what for heavens sake is he
doing at this NG? The scientists here are looking for reality that is
objective and verifiable.
Once reality becomes personal then science becomes anarchy.
Patrick---did you really mean what you said???
Daniel Weston
Patrick Reany
Daniel Weston wrote:
> To Patrick:
>
> Patrick said that reality was personal! ! ! !
>
> He therefore thinks that reality is subjective not objective !
Correct. But it still hinges on a definition of "reality" and I know of no
generally accepted definition of "reality" in the halls of science. Science
has taken another path -- an epistemological path. It searches for
verifiable knowledge about measurements and the theories that account for
them. This is not what constitutes anybody's definition of "reality" that I
would think. It leaves out too much. (It certainly wouldn't be acceptable to
me.) Our realities must include our subjective experiences in my opinion.
But they are not fair game for science, except in the realm of psychology,
but even then psychology can't deal with "experiences" per se, only claims
about experiences. And I don't consider claims about an experience to be the
same thing as the experience itself.
But even that doesn't get to the heart of the matter: Human science cannot
prove that human theories are TRUE. What else need I say? What does it mean
to say that something is *real* if it can't be verified as also being TRUE?
So it doesn't even solve the problem of defining "reality" by leaving out
all notions of subjective experience in its definition.
> If Patrick thinks that reality is subjective what for heavens sake is he
> doing at this NG? The scientists here are looking for reality that is
> objective and verifiable.
Is that your definition of "reality"? Please define "objective."
> Once reality becomes personal then science becomes anarchy.
Reality is personal; science is epistemological. No anarchy. But even the
objectivity of science comes out of the conventions it invents for the doing
of science. How can absolute truth come from arbitrary definitions and
conventions? I believe that the list of possible definitions of "reality" I
presented in my last post contains examples of how the term "reality" is
used in reasonable ways, and they don't all agree, and they don't all amount
to a description of what science does.
Reality is part subjective and part objective, and it's possible that the
two subsets are not well-defined. In between anarchy and dogmatism is a
conventional and arbitrary view of the attainment of certifiable *knowledge*
(i.e., scientific knowledge) called *Science*. (Think about where the rules
for doing science come from.)
Objective -- 1) that which is founded on measurement,
especially in a repeatable way,
2) observer independent.
> Patrick---did you really mean what you said???
>
> Daniel Weston
Yes, I really meant it. To help illustrate my point, I invite everyone on
this NG that thinks that science is about "reality" to argue out a
definition of "reality" among themselves suitable for science to use in a
meaningful way. Good luck! I'll be very interested in this "little"
argument!! I think you'll find that it's a lot easier to use the term
"reality" than to define it rigorously, and this is the cause of the
confusion about it.
Alternatively, I invite anyone to reply to this post with their own
definition of "reality".
cheers,
Patrick
L Hoffman
>
> The point is that while we're having fun arguing, the people who could really
> benefit from this group, such as physics students, are not likely to post here
> after reading some of the posts that are either way off topic or very mean
> spirited. I've been a regular reader of sci.math for years and it doesn't have
> the same problem that this NG does, so it can effectively help students. OK,
> that's my personal view of the purpose of this NG. Everyone else can decide
> for themselves.
I'm all for helping students. While there are plenty of places they can
go to learn the orthodox dogma of relativity, where else can they be
exposed to such a rich diversity of opinion?
TSCFKATC
derive, that specific set of rules form are what form our present objective
reality.
Knowing total reality means knowing the complete set of rules i.e god, not
knowing the set of rules doesn't mean you can't study some of the
features/rules/charectaristic of reality.
In the aim of abstract and derive these rules by math, man
study/observe/perceive events in the "universal time" time flow, sometimes
in closed and controlled environments, and sometimes events that took place
far away. The people who perform such issues ís said to be devoted to
sciense most of them tries to study reality by measuring and apply logic and
derive the laws by math, (while some other is devoted to study pure math and
others to pure fiction).
Most man have accepted that the orginal set of rules that form reality do
not change over time, and that there are some simple and wellknown features
of the objective reality, that seems to apply to all objects in the
universe.
One of those features is that matter obey under the laws of causality and
that's why the timeflow is said to pass forward, any objects behaviour can
be studied in the form of ordered snapshots/events using a timeline, i.e. it
is not exposed to random action.
Knowing that matter obey under the laws of causality i.e. cause and effect,
the use of logic as a tool to study reality emerges. This since all matter
obey the laws of causality and can therfore be described as a set of
logically followed by order deductable events.
In contemporary logic, any statement derived by a transformed rule upon an
axiom; more generally, the term now refers to a process of deriving theorems
from axioms, or conclusions from premises, by formal rules (transformation
rules).
Of course there can be situations where cause and effect relationships are
no longer ascertainable due to the infinitely small variations in initial
relationships.
But this is not the same that they don't exist.
As often interpreted, quantum mechanics requires us to believe that
subatomic particles can act causelessly—that the laws of causality and
identity to which we are accustomed on the macro scale do not hold true on
the micro scale of the atom. Mills, on the other hand, holds that the fully
deterministic laws of classical physics do indeed apply at the subatomic
level.
I'm not the one to say if quantum mechanics is crap or not, but i sure can
tell you it obey under the laws of causality if it's not.
If events don't occur randomly at the macro level, they for sure won't do it
on the micro level
TSCFKATC
The space cadet formerly known as Tom Corbett
Ilja Schmelzer
> Correct. But it still hinges on a definition of "reality" and I know of no
> generally accepted definition of "reality" in the halls of science.
False. The EPR criterion of reality, as well as the relevant part of
the assumptions used by Bell to prove his famous inequality, are
generally accepted notions of classical realism.
It is better to use the prefix "classical" here, because many
mainstream scientists reject classical realism but prefer to think of
themself as realists. Their notion of realism is, indeed, quite
undefined.
Instead, classical realism is a well-defined and generally accepted
concept.
> But even that doesn't get to the heart of the matter: Human science
> cannot prove that human theories are TRUE. What else need I say?
> What does it mean to say that something is *real* if it can't be
> verified as also being TRUE?
That's simple. The statements about reality are themself part of the
theory. If the theory is true, they really, objectively describe
reality.
There are different realistic theories with, therefore, different
hypotheses about reality. So what? Every theory defines reality in a
unique, well-defined way, as objective reality.
>> Once reality becomes personal then science becomes anarchy.
>
> Reality is personal;
No. Personal is your choice to prefer a particular theory as the IYO
best guess about truth.
> science is epistemological. No anarchy.
No, science is anarchy. (Looking around for a government of science.)
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Gerry Quinn
>
>Yes, I really meant it. To help illustrate my point, I invite everyone on
>this NG that thinks that science is about "reality" to argue out a
>definition of "reality" among themselves suitable for science to use in a
>meaningful way. Good luck! I'll be very interested in this "little"
>argument!! I think you'll find that it's a lot easier to use the term
>"reality" than to define it rigorously, and this is the cause of the
>confusion about it.
>
>Alternatively, I invite anyone to reply to this post with their own
>definition of "reality".
>
Reality is the 'Gods-eye' view of the world. Realists aspire to
envisioning it, even whilst knowing that only an imperfect envisioning
of reality is logically accessible to beings forming part of the world.
For the realist, science - in the form of theories and their equally
important interpretations - forms a great part of that project, and is
interesting precisely because of its perceived utility towards that end.
(The realist may sometimes wear other hats - at times he will be a
breakfast-eater, who will bless science for its contribution to
toasters, and curse it for its chiding about the carcinogenic and
arterioschlerogenous properties of buttered burned toast. But that is a
different issue.)
- Gerry Quinn
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <397602B5...@xroads.com>, Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> >Alternatively, I invite anyone to reply to this post with their own
> >definition of "reality".
> >
>
> Reality is the 'Gods-eye' view of the world. Realists aspire to
> envisioning it, even whilst knowing that only an imperfect envisioning
> of reality is logically accessible to beings forming part of the world.
> For the realist, science - in the form of theories and their equally
> important interpretations - forms a great part of that project, and is
> interesting precisely because of its perceived utility towards that end.
Gerry, how does one know when one has "God's-eye view of the world"? A unique
"reality" viewed through multiple interpretations?
Does God use anthropomorphic variables to "know" the world? Does He use our system of
units or our mental or mathematical models? Is His science dependent on human
instrumentation? Does He have to follow our requirements of reproducibility and
falsification? What about peer review? Has any of His papers ever been rejected for
publication?
Science is a human invention.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> writes:
> > Correct. But it still hinges on a definition of "reality" and I know of no
> > generally accepted definition of "reality" in the halls of science.
>
> False. The EPR criterion of reality, as well as the relevant part of
> the assumptions used by Bell to prove his famous inequality, are
> generally accepted notions of classical realism.
False. A "notion of classical realism" is *not* a definition of "reality."
Define "reality" that most physicists agree on! And connect that meaning to the
person-in-the-street's definition of "reality" because that IS what Daniel
Weston expects to be the case, if I'm not mistaken! I don't think that Daniel is
interested in a pluralism of theory-dependent notions of TRUE REALITIES. Neither
am I. Everybody on this NG has notions galore, but few have any definitions to
bring to the table. I'm sick of notions masquerading as definitions.
Is there a precisely defined boundary between classical realism and nonclassical
realism?
> It is better to use the prefix "classical" here, because many
> mainstream scientists reject classical realism but prefer to think of
> themself as realists. Their notion of realism is, indeed, quite
> undefined.
I know. That is blatantly contradictory. I asked for a definition and even you
haven't given one. I'm not interested in being redirected to the "literature."
Give a definition yourself or admit defeat. I challenge any scientist that
believes that science discovers reality as truth to present a definition of
"reality" and "truth." The burden of proof is on those who make such outrageous
claims to prove their claims.
Most people on this NG who defend that science deals with "reality" assume that
reality is uniquely determinable because it implies the physical existence of
the universe in a unique ontological/metaphysical state independent of human
conceptions. So you are wasting your time in this thread to present a multitude
of theory-dependent "realities" simultaneously existing.
> Instead, classical realism is a well-defined and generally accepted
> concept.
So, well-define it for us and show its relevance to what Daniel Weston wants!
What does it take to get people to supply their own rigorous defense? Can
Schmelzer only present vacuous platitudes in defense of his outrageous claims?
This NG is so terrified of presenting definitions!
> > But even that doesn't get to the heart of the matter: Human science
> > cannot prove that human theories are TRUE. What else need I say?
> > What does it mean to say that something is *real* if it can't be
> > verified as also being TRUE?
>
> That's simple. The statements about reality are themself part of the
> theory. If the theory is true, they really, objectively describe
> reality.
Wonderful circular logic. Your logic is: A = "theories are True," B = "theories
objectively describe reality," and (A implies B). And since B is "true" you tell
us, then we'd better conclude A is "true" to justify it (by modus ponens). When
will realists ever learn? Look everyone and observe just why Science had given
up on the hopeless quest for ultimate truth. Schmelzer, I doubt that you speak
for many physicists. Not a single one I ever known or know. I've discussed the
philosophy of physics for 25 years now with physicists and you don't represent
any of them on the subject of realism in science. And though I suppose that most
of those physicists believe in an independent physical reality, not one of them,
if I pinned them down to it, would claim that science can tell us what that
reality is. How can reality be contingent upon human anthropomorphic variables?
Who could prove such a thing?
For most physicists just mentioning the phrase "quantum mechanics" is enough to
drain them of any energy to defend "realism" in physics, but my arguments
against realism in physics are much deeper than QM and do not in any way depend
on it. No one can prove that Eddington was wrong in his belief of "selective
subjectivism." My arguments against realism in physics are just as effective in
classical physics. How can reality be contingent upon human instrumentation? On
arbitrary definitions, models, choices of units? Who could prove such things?
> There are different realistic theories with, therefore, different
> hypotheses about reality. So what? Every theory defines reality in a
> unique, well-defined way, as objective reality.
If the theory *defines* "reality" and there are different theories of
"objective" reality then you are never going to connect with what Daniel Weston
is after. Or me either for that matter. If reality isn't unique, it's not
reality to ME. It's instead some kind of modified "reality," like your
"classical reality."
Physical theories are merely instruments for mental convenience and empirical
prediction with no PROVABLE connection to metaphysical reality. Prove that ANY
THEORY at all in physics IS TRUE. I'll calmly declare your "true" theory to be
metaphysically and temporally (being an induction) false. I win. In the end
truth exists only by faith of the believer, though I have nothing against faith,
just against arrogance and dogmatism.
> >> Once reality becomes personal then science becomes anarchy.
> >
> > Reality is personal;
>
> No. Personal is your choice to prefer a particular theory as the IYO
> best guess about truth.
No. Definitely not! I am not interested at all in the "truth" of any physical
theory, since it's a completely superfluous and specious notion in science! The
only truth I need in science is in the reporting of experimentalists in the
collection of their data. Schmelzer, I find your characterizations of my beliefs
disingenuous. You already know that I'm an instrumentalist, completely
uninterested in ineffable "true theories." We've been over my views in length
before, so I'll apologize for being "incensed" if you can support your
accusation with some unequivocal quote from me from previous posts of mine.
One thing is certain on this NG: Try to discuss or debate "reality" in physics
and debating objectivity (of point-counterpoint) will be in very short supply.
The physicist Schmelzer gives his best shot at a reply and presents only a
hand-waving argument. I expect better of a physicist. As far as I'm concerned
Schmelzer lost the debate already because he did not define "reality" commonly
accepted by most physicists today, which is what I requested. In fact, Schmelzer
supports my thesis by saying that, "Their [most "realist" scientists's] notion
of realism is, indeed, quite undefined."
Theories have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH TRUTH because no one can prove the truth
of any theory at all! I find it funny that so many people believe that the
purpose or outcome of science is the production of an *ineffable* thing called
TRUTH or metaphysical "objective reality."
I will give my definition of a *stipulated* "objective reality" in *physics*:
"Objective reality" is the intersection of all physical theories accepted by the
majority of physicists at any given instant. This definition is epistemological,
not metaphysical. But Daniel is after a "metaphysical" definition of "reality,"
if I'm not mistaken.
Daniel, Your case has been "defended" by the self-proclaimed scientific
**anarchist**, Ilja Schmelzer, who does *not* define "reality," admits that it's
undefined by most self-proclaimed "realist" scientists, and contends that
whatever reality is, it's pluralistic and dependent on the current beliefs of
physicists through their theories. Don't you find that ironic?! Reality by
definition! Ha!
Ilja, My guess is that Daniel isn't much happier with your explanation than he
was with mine.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
L Hoffman wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I'm all for helping students. While there are plenty of places they can
> go to learn the orthodox dogma of relativity,
just not on line, right?
> where else can they be
> exposed to such a rich diversity of opinion?
But that's my point! Yes there's plenty of diversity of opinion *expressed* but only
on two main subjects: "reality in science" and "ether vs SR", both of which amount
to saying "SR is FALSE"! But neither of these are of much practical use to high
school or undergraduate physics students, who get the very short end of the deal
because of all the noise here. A little bit of "scientific reality" or "ether" is
fine, but it's instead a juggernaut! And they are represented completely out of
proportion in relation to the broad purpose for this NG. Why do you suppose that the
relativity interests were kicked out of sci.physics and "politely" asked not to be
included by cross posting to it (as I recall it)? Well, it's happened again IMO.
I don't see why you say "dogma of relativity." This is yet another case in point of
the hostility on this NG toward its chartered purpose. What do you expect on
sci.physics.relativity??? Is it dogma just to defend or even state the orthodoxy?
This is not sci.physics.is-relativity-true!!
If you don't like the "dogma" on this NG group, there are many other less
"offensive" NGs you can post to and exercise your right to free speech.
Patrick
Gerry Quinn
>
>
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>> In article <397602B5...@xroads.com>, Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com>
> wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >Alternatively, I invite anyone to reply to this post with their own
>> >definition of "reality".
>> >
>>
>> Reality is the 'Gods-eye' view of the world. Realists aspire to
>> envisioning it, even whilst knowing that only an imperfect envisioning
>> of reality is logically accessible to beings forming part of the world.
>> For the realist, science - in the form of theories and their equally
>> important interpretations - forms a great part of that project, and is
>> interesting precisely because of its perceived utility towards that end.
>
>Gerry, how does one know when one has "God's-eye view of the world"? A unique
>"reality" viewed through multiple interpretations?
>
As I pointed out, one can't. One can only try to approach it.
(Incidentally, I don't see why a God would have multiple
interpretations. I would imagine that only one of several competing
human interpretations would best describe the God's-eye interpretation.)
>Does God use anthropomorphic variables to "know" the world? Does He use our
> system of
>units or our mental or mathematical models? Is His science dependent on human
>instrumentation? Does He have to follow our requirements of reproducibility and
>falsification? What about peer review? Has any of His papers ever been rejected
> for
>publication?
>
I don't think I hypothesised the existence of a God. A realist,
however, aims towards understanding the world as a hypothetical God
would understand it. (And needless to say, a God would not need to use
the methodology of science to approach reality.)
>Science is a human invention.
It is a name for a category of human endeavour which cannot be described
by a set of formal rules and procedures, and whose purposes and
methodologies are various.
- Gerry Quinn
Patrick Reany
TSCFKATC wrote:
> The universe contain a set of rules that mankind tries to find out and
> derive,
Prove it. Derive from what, and how?
> that specific set of rules form are what form our present objective
> reality.
>
> Knowing total reality means knowing the complete set of rules i.e god, not
> knowing the set of rules doesn't mean you can't study some of the
> features/rules/charectaristic of reality.
So far no definition of "reality." Something getting close to "objective
reality."
> Most man have accepted that the orginal set of rules that form reality do
> not change over time,
an unverifiable belief system
> and that there are some simple and wellknown features
> of the objective reality, that seems to apply to all objects in the
> universe.
"seems to apply"
> One of those features is that matter obey under the laws of causality
Prove it.
> and
> that's why the timeflow is said to pass forward,
Prove it.
> any objects behaviour can
> be studied in the form of ordered snapshots/events using a timeline, i.e. it
> is not exposed to random action.
Prove it.
> Knowing that matter obey under the laws of causality i.e. cause and effect,
> the use of logic as a tool to study reality emerges.
How do we know this? Where does logic come from?
Seems to me that the "objective reality" presented here is at best just "the set
of all physical theories held in common by most scientists today."
Patrick
TSCFKATC
1. Reality incorporate what we call logic in it's structure since matter is
not exposed to random behaviour.
2. Laws of causality, should be incorporated, and applied to explain any
physic theory that deals with reality.
3. Pure math excercises doesn't necessarily dealin with matter and reality,
and they never are if they not supported by logic reason and the laws of
causality.
4. A theory that's not overthrown by contradiction within it's logical
structure, and has an explanation for any physical transforms, that's in
agree with/conforms to the laws of causality is a strong candidate for a
theory that explain a certain subset of reality.
5. If it's further supported by numerous different experimental setups and
data, the chance is pretty good that it describes the objective reality.
TSCFKATC
L Hoffman
> In article <397602B5...@xroads.com>, Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
> >
> >Alternatively, I invite anyone to reply to this post with their own
> >definition of "reality".
>
> Reality is the 'Gods-eye' view of the world. Realists aspire to
> envisioning it, even whilst knowing that only an imperfect envisioning
> of reality is logically accessible to beings forming part of the world.
> For the realist, science - in the form of theories and their equally
> important interpretations - forms a great part of that project, and is
> interesting precisely because of its perceived utility towards that end.
That's the way I look at it too. But this will not satisfy the
positivists, even though almost everyone else knows exactly what you mean.
Perhaps a more attainable goal would be to strive to formulate our
theories to best integrate them with the rest of our knowledge. Why
should physics be different than any other science in this regard?
L Hoffman
>
> L Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > I'm all for helping students. While there are plenty of places they can
> > go to learn the orthodox dogma of relativity,
>
> just not on line, right?
Certainly online! Have you not seen Wayne Throop's excellent
webpage? And, there are many other's like it, complete with email
correspondence.
Sorry about the phrase "orthodox dogma." I get carried away
sometimes. But it's not only crackpots who feel there's something
dogmatic about the standard approach to SR. I've seen physicists Herbert
Dingle and G.B. Jeffrey use that word to describe it as well.
Here's the quote from Dingle:
"Anyone who cares to examine the literature from 1920 to the present day
[1972] can see the gradual growth of dogmatic acceptance of the theory and
contempt for its critics, right up to the extreme form exhibited today..."
I don't have Jeffery in front of me so I paraphrase:
Four-D spacetime is a concept that might occur to one after deep study of
the theory, and not a dogma to be accepted at the start.
Frank Wappler
> [...] verifiable knowledge about measurements and the theories
> that account for them. This [...] leaves out too much.
> must include our subjective experiences in my opinion.
There's a crucial difference between the reality that is
observed and asserted by each individual,
and "our" _shared_ reality, of statements that _we_
can mutually derive/understand/reproduce/measure.
IOW ...
> Reality is personal; science is epistemological.
... but scientific/measured results are real, too, IMHYPO.
Incidentally, the differentiation between (individual)
observations and (collective, reproducible) measurements
is of particular importance in this newsgroup - why else
should the reproducible measurement procedures of SR be discussed.
> Human science cannot prove that human theories are TRUE.
> What else need I say? What does it mean to say that something
> is *real* if it can't be verified as also being TRUE?
Don't forget that observations are collected and measurements
are being derived _trial by trial_. Any one such measured value
(i.e. usually, some real number/ratio) simply remains, no matter
what theory might summarize it (together with others), or what
other values have been or will be found in other trials.
OTOH, theories usually make general claims about _all_ trials,
especially about trials of the future (even if it were future
archeological results).
> I invite everyone on this NG that thinks that science is
> about "reality" to argue out a definition of "reality"
> among themselves suitable for science to use in a
> meaningful way.
As I understand, science is concerned with shared reality,
as derived through reproducible measurement procedures
from individual observations, i.e. from individual realities.
The use of reproducible measurement procedures allows even to
obtain agreement about results that are _unique_ and that may
not be found repeated in the trials under consideration.
Individual observations are strictly distinct anyways -
trial by trial, and observer by observer;
they are irreproducible, in contrast to measurements.
Incidentally, that allows each observer to _order_ the own
observations into an ordered set of states/proper_times.
> I think you'll find that it's a lot easier to use the term
> "reality" than to define it rigorously
I'm using the notion of "reproducible measurement procedures"
to the same effect, I guess. The definition however is simple,
AFAIU: procedures are reproducible only if they require
no more assumptions than observers' ability to distinguish
"same" and "not same", to collect/compare/order their own
observations, and to count.
Best regards, Frank W ~@) R
ryker1
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Patrick Reany wrote:
>>
>> L Hoffman wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm all for helping students. While there are plenty of
places they can
>> > go to learn the orthodox dogma of relativity,
>>
>> just not on line, right?
>
>Certainly online! Have you not seen Wayne Throop's excellent
>webpage? And, there are many other's like it, complete with
>correspondence.
Rod: Hahahahahahaha . :)
Throopw doesn't believe his own eyes !
I told him that objects traveling at relativelistic speeds
appear longer in length . Throopw said shorter , but
he was using Lorentz transforms (math) as his reasoning ,
insted of commonsense and his eyes . :)
Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth .
http://homestead.deja.com/user.ryker1/begin.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Harold Ensle
L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.HPX.4.21.000720...@pavo.U.Arizona.EDU...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Patrick Reany wrote:
> >
> > L Hoffman wrote:
> Here's the quote from Dingle:
>
> "Anyone who cares to examine the literature from 1920 to the present day
> [1972] can see the gradual growth of dogmatic acceptance of the theory and
> contempt for its critics, right up to the extreme form exhibited today..."
Yes. H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof that
showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem to
understand it.
Herbert Dingle was a true hero.
H.Ellis ensle
Patrick Reany
L Hoffman wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Sorry about the phrase "orthodox dogma." I get carried away
> sometimes. But it's not only crackpots who feel there's something
> dogmatic about the standard approach to SR. I've seen physicists Herbert
> Dingle and G.B. Jeffrey use that word to describe it as well.
It's human nature to succumb to dogmatism. I find lots of it on this NG, but not
by the establishment physicists here. Maybe dogmatism is in the eye of the
beholder, maybe not.
> Here's the quote from Dingle:
>
> "Anyone who cares to examine the literature from 1920 to the present day
> [1972] can see the gradual growth of dogmatic acceptance of the theory and
> contempt for its critics, right up to the extreme form exhibited today..."
Dingle is of course not an impartial source, since he was a staunch
anti-"relativist," and some physicists might label him a crackpot as well. But
it is a separate question whether or not the physics establishment is dogmatic
and whether this NG's physicists are dogmatic. I think you should provide an
example of an establishment physicist on this NG that has been dogmatic on this
NG. Evidence is the best convincer -- well, at least some people require
evidence.
> I don't have Jeffery in front of me so I paraphrase:
>
> Four-D spacetime is a concept that might occur to one after deep study of
> the theory, and not a dogma to be accepted at the start.
Spacetime is a convenient mathematical model for correlating the description of
events in multiple reference frames. It needs no ontology to be useful. (Oh,
that Instrumentalism were more widely accepted!) But I really don't know what
aspect of 4D spacetime or its establishment presentation you find dogmatic.
Could you be more specific? I found 4D spacetime difficult to understand at
first, but well worth the effort in the long run. You have to get used to
thinking in a non-Pythagorean mode.
If you claim that it's dogma just to support the "standard approach to SR," I
would respectfully disagree from my own experience being taught the "standard
approach" in college by four different physicists (in four different classes).
The kind of reproach someone with a nonestablishment viewpoint can expect to get
from the establishment is in direct proportion to the aggressive,
confrontational presentation with which it is given to the establishment. In
other words, the establishment will often return dogmatism for dogmatism. Human
nature.
What you have to understand is that the establishment has been inundated by
alternatives to SR and GR from nonphysicists from the day they were published
(which is not to say that every physicist liked or likes SR and GR either, of
course). But, to put it bluntly, the establishment is worn out from it all.
Somebody comes along and thinks they've come up with something really new to
show the establishment to challenge SR, say, but the establishment has known
about it for decades. So what do you expect?
Also, physicists aren't interested in contrary theories that are "just as good
as a conventional theories." There's way, way too much invested in the
acceptance of a physical theory world-wide to let its place be challenged unless
the challenger theory can go demonstrably beyond the established theory. I call
that common sense. And that's why, for example, an ether theory that doesn't go
beyond SR in terms of predictability is forever doomed.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
L Hoffman wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> That's the way I look at it too. But this will not satisfy the
> positivists, even though almost everyone else knows exactly what you mean.
Without precise definitions one cannot KNOW what he means, one can only GUESS at what he
means. Suppose you tell us precisely what he means. Maybe he will even contradict your
interpretation!
> Perhaps a more attainable goal would be to strive to formulate our
> theories to best integrate them with the rest of our knowledge. Why
> should physics be different than any other science in this regard?
Please define for us "the positivist." Thanks.
Patrick
L Hoffman
> L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >Certainly online! Have you not seen Wayne Throop's excellent
> >webpage? And, there are many other's like it, complete with
> email
> >correspondence.
>
> Rod: Hahahahahahaha . :)
> Throopw doesn't believe his own eyes !
> I told him that objects traveling at relativelistic speeds
> appear longer in length . Throopw said shorter , but
> he was using Lorentz transforms (math) as his reasoning ,
> insted of commonsense and his eyes . :)
Good point. It is easy to derive that a fast moving object will LOOK
longer as it's approaching, but it will LOOK shorter as it recedes. At
any rate, Throop does a good job presenting SR. I didn't say I agree with
everything Throop says. Just that it's a good site for people who want
to read about the 4-D space-time approach to SR.
L Hoffman
>
> > > L Hoffman wrote:
>
> > Here's the quote from Dingle:
> >
> > "Anyone who cares to examine the literature from 1920 to the present day
> > [1972] can see the gradual growth of dogmatic acceptance of the theory and
> > contempt for its critics, right up to the extreme form exhibited today..."
>
> showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem to
> understand it.
>
> Herbert Dingle was a true hero.
Thanks, Ellis! Would you care to summarize Dingle's proof? I haven't
seen it yet.
L Hoffman
>
> Please define for us "the positivist." Thanks.
I consider positivism to mean the philosophy which asserts that only that
which can be measured is real.
Here's how Webster defines it:
"positivism, n. [...] 2. dogmatism, 3. a system of philosophy that
is based solely on the positive data of sense experience [...] based solely
on positive, observable, scientific facts and their relations to each
other and to natural law: IT REJECTS SPECULATION ON OR SEARCH FOR ULTIMATE
ORIGINS."
Here's what philosopher Charles Peirce said about it:
"[Positivism assumes] Life upon the globe is a phase, quite accidental,
tending as far as we know to no permanent end, of no sort of use, except
in producing a pleasant titillation now and then on the nerves of this or
that wayfarer on this weary and purposeless journey- which like a
treadmill starts nowhere and goes nowhere, and whose machinery produces
nothing at all. There is no good in life but its occasional
pleasures; these are mostly delusive, and as likely as not will soon
utterly pass away."
Jackie & Barry
Patrick Reany wrote:
> Please define for us "the positivist." Thanks.
Isn't a positivist one who espouses a positivist philosophy?
Doesn't positivism reject speculation?
Didn't positivism originate in the 18th century, with some Frenchman,
whose name escapes me?
One of his pronouncements was that it was pointless to speculate about
the structure of the stars, since they were too far away for us ever to
know.
Since then we have since discovered ways to examine the structures of
bodies that are much further away than the stars that he could see - no
thanks to him.
Positivism seems to be a sterile philosophy, it always follows, it never
leads.
Not so long ago, one of them there positivists posted a message
suggesting that it is now was late in the day for science, since most of
the good stuff had already been discovered, we were now merely filling
in gaps.
It seems to me, that we're still just children, playing with pebbles on
the beach, while before us...
Perhaps someone could develop an anti positivist vaccine that would be
injected into the young before they go to school.
That'll be the day!
Barry
Patrick Reany
Frank Wappler wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> > [...] verifiable knowledge about measurements and the theories
> > that account for them. This [...] leaves out too much.
> > (It certainly wouldn't be acceptable to me.) Our realities
> > must include our subjective experiences in my opinion.
>
> There's a crucial difference between the reality that is
> observed and asserted by each individual,
> and "our" _shared_ reality, of statements that _we_
> can mutually derive/understand/reproduce/measure.
>
> IOW ...
>
> > Reality is personal; science is epistemological.
>
> ... but scientific/measured results are real, too, IMHYPO.
>
> Incidentally, the differentiation between (individual)
> observations and (collective, reproducible) measurements
> is of particular importance in this newsgroup - why else
> should the reproducible measurement procedures of SR be discussed.
[snip]
> OTOH, theories usually make general claims about _all_ trials,
> especially about trials of the future (even if it were future
> archeological results).
The notion of physical theories being included in a definition of
"scientific objective reality" has its own problems. I presented a
possible definition earlier in this thread: Together with reproduced
physical measurements we can add in the set of all physical theories
believed by all (or just most) scientists. But this has its problems
too. How do we define "scientist"? And the determination of this set of
intersection is impractical. Still, the concept has its uses, with
appropriate cautions.
Frank, I think you've done a good job of filling in the details of a
definition of "scientific objective reality" which is tacitly held by
most scientists. Certainly it proves my point about the difficulty of
defining the term. Reality is personal. That which can be agreed upon by
more than one person can be thought of as collective, shared, or
objective reality. That which can be agreed upon in the halls of science
can be thought of as "scientific objective reality." And I know that
this is what you've meant all along when you used the term "real" or
"reality."
My problem is not with the definition per se, but with the word
"reality" being used on THIS NG. Used within the context of the
philosophy of physics or of physics generally (except for QM) the term
"reality" presents no big problem that I'm aware of, once a definition
has been stipulated and accepted. The problem with the use of the term
"reality" on this NG is that half the posters here despise Science for
killing off their concept of "reality." Therefore, any use of the term,
no matter how well crafted and stipulated, will be met by only "one"
definition: The tacit "definition" those posters have always intuitively
held about what "reality" is. It's a very different view of reality than
you have defined, but they aren't going to accept your definition
because they like theirs better.
The term "reality" is too emotional and overloaded by numerous concepts
and definitions to be a serviceable term for most posters on this NG.
The fact is that when someone uses the term "reality" on this NG, they
will probably not convey the meaning they intended to convey, and the
really bad part of this is that this lack of faithful conveyance of
meaning will probably go unrecognized, causing unproductive arguments
that can never be resolved even in principle.
Patrick
Eric Fournier
system without first defining its bases, which will not have to be
prooved/defined extensiely. To make it short, reality IS one of such axioms.
Its exact meaning is not to be defined, for we consider it is an intuitive
notion.
Regards, DrkMatter
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Yes. H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof that
> showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem to
> understand it.
>
They do understand it. They understand why it's wrong.
You keep posting things here that purport to disprove
SR and they're all crap. They just show that you don't
understand SR.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Harold Ensle wrote:
> >
> > > > L Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > > Here's the quote from Dingle:
> > >
> > > "Anyone who cares to examine the literature from 1920 to the present day
> > > [1972] can see the gradual growth of dogmatic acceptance of the theory and
> > > contempt for its critics, right up to the extreme form exhibited today..."
> >
> > showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem to
> > understand it.
> >
>
> Thanks, Ellis! Would you care to summarize Dingle's proof? I haven't
> seen it yet.
Great idea. Let's see this killer proof.
The ball's in your court, Harold.
John Anderson
Patrick Reany
Eric Fournier wrote:
> Patrick, you seem to be forgetting one thing: it is impossible to define a
> system without first defining its bases, which will not have to be
> prooved/defined extensiely. To make it short, reality IS one of such axioms.
Again, undefined "reality." Below I present what I believe to be a better
foundation. Yes, it has its primitive concepts but they aren't so argumentative
as undefined "reality."
>
> Its exact meaning is not to be defined, for we consider it is an intuitive
> notion.
>
> Regards, DrkMatter
So far everybody has missed the point I was trying to make. We establish science
on the barest minimum of ontology: only ordinary visible objects and observable
events, both being needed to provide a means for making measurements. Each of
us has our own personal reality belief. It is far bigger than scientific
reality. That which all scientist can agree on as being in common to all of
their personal realities may be DEFINED as "scientific objective reality." (But
this is very tricky too!) So, yes the base IS defined, but it is very much
smaller than what any of us would call (complete) reality as each of us believes
reality to be.
So far posters have attempted to define communal/scientific "objective reality,"
not "reality" per se. It is highly debatable whether or not "scientific
objective reality" is really a part of anyone's personal reality, except as an
act of faith in this human invention, because it's a received system of
knowledge rather than a first-hand system of knowledge.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
> In our reality, there appears to be `things.' There
> appears to be things that act, and things that are acted upon.
> These things appear to be independent of us, and are not
> controlled by our personal thoughts or personal wishes. Thus,
> science is concerned with these `things,' and in how they are
> controlled; or: how things act, and how things react, when
> acted upon.
O'Barr, if "OUR reality" (a thing which you have yet to define) is so
unproblematic, then why do you believe in a physical ether that I do
*not* believe in? If only you wouldn't reify these appearances, you
wouldn't be so confused. I believe only in ordinary visible objects and
observable events -- all the rest is scientific chimera!
Patrick
GLOBARR
Frank Wappler <fw7...@csc.albany.edu> wrote:
Ref: <3975CE7B...@xroads.com>
<8262-397...@storefull-113.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<397602B5...@xroads.com>
Patrick Reany wrote:
> [...] verifiable knowledge about measurements and the
> theories that account for them. This [...] leaves out too
> much. (It certainly wouldn't be acceptable to me.) Our
> realities must include our subjective experiences in my
> opinion.
Frank Wappler wrote:
There's a crucial difference between the reality that is
observed and asserted by each individual, and "our" _shared_
reality, of statements that _we_ can mutually
derive/understand/reproduce/measure.
IOW ...
as Reany wrote:
> Reality is personal; science is epistemological.
Wappler continues:
... but scientific/measured results are real, too, IMHYPO.
Incidentally, the differentiation between (individual)
observations and (collective, reproducible) measurements
is of particular importance in this newsgroup - why else
should the reproducible measurement procedures of SR be
discussed.
Reany wrote:
> Human science cannot prove that human theories are TRUE.
> What else need I say? What does it mean to say that
> something is *real* if it can't be verified as also being
> TRUE?
O'Barr comments:
The technically correct point that we, being finite, cannot
know all, and thus cannot in reality say anything positively,
is junk! I do not mean to say that it is not true, or that it
is not important, or that it should never be said. But all
this means is that we have to be more careful! We have to
allow for more possibilities! We have to be prepared for
possibly some unexpected changes! But at no time does it make
anything impossible! We have the power to double check, and
to cross check, and to triple check, until the uncertainty can
be fairly removed! And if we want to pay the price, we can
get this uncertainty down to acceptable levels that all sane
people would have to accept certain things as facts!
There is nothing wrong with saying things that are correct,
but at the same time, let us not use these things as an excuse
to say things that are not true! We, as thinking individuals,
do have great power! And we can do things! And we have done
things. And we can really do all things that are necessary!
Just because it is not easy does not mean it is impossible!
Wappler wrote:
Don't forget that observations are collected and
measurements are being derived _trial by trial_. Any one such
measured value (i.e. usually, some real number/ratio) simply
remains, no matter what theory might summarize it (together
with others), or what other values have been or will be found
in other trials.
OTOH, theories usually make general claims about _all_
trials, especially about trials of the future (even if it were
future archeological results).
O'Barr comments:
This point by Wappler is most important! Assuming what we
normally assume, that `physics' remains unchanged with time,
then any correctly done measurement, stands forever! It is
true that we might in time add more to what we already know,
but what we already know (if we are careful to correctly state
what we know) can not be changed. There is power in these
thoughts, and we do not need to think that we are powerless in
the situation we face!
Reany wrote:
> I invite everyone on this NG that thinks that science is
> about "reality" to argue out a definition of "reality"
> among themselves suitable for science to use in a
> meaningful way.
O'Barr comments:
Again, there is nothing wrong in defining words. But many
words are not able to be well defined. In life, try to define
love, or in law, try to define pornography. An inability to
define a word does not mean that the reality of these things
do not exist.
Wappler wrote:
As I understand, science is concerned with shared reality,
as derived through reproducible measurement procedures
from individual observations, i.e. from individual realities.
The use of reproducible measurement procedures allows even
to obtain agreement about results that are _unique_ and that
may not be found repeated in the trials under consideration.
Individual observations are strictly distinct anyways -
trial by trial, and observer by observer; they are
irreproducible, in contrast to measurements.
Incidentally, that allows each observer to _order_ the own
observations into an ordered set of states/proper_times.
Reany wrote:
> I think you'll find that it's a lot easier to use the term
> "reality" than to define it rigorously
Wappler wrote:
I'm using the notion of "reproducible measurement
procedures" to the same effect, I guess. The definition
however is simple, AFAIU: procedures are reproducible only if
they require no more assumptions than observers' ability to
distinguish "same" and "not same", to collect/compare/order
their own observations, and to count.
O'Barr comments:
In our reality, there appears to be `things.' There
appears to be things that act, and things that are acted upon.
These things appear to be independent of us, and are not
controlled by our personal thoughts or personal wishes. Thus,
science is concerned with these `things,' and in how they are
controlled; or: how things act, and how things react, when
acted upon.
Now we have found that measurements are helpful in doing
these things. And the science of measurement is important.
But the measurement is not itself what science is all about!
Thanks for an interesting post!
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to imporve the SR FAQ)
Gerry Quinn
>Perhaps someone could develop an anti positivist vaccine that would be
>injected into the young before they go to school.
>
That would be as bad as Patrick Reany's suggestions. He also wishes to
vaccinate the thought processes of the young.
- Gerry Quinn
Paul Stowe
writes:
Agreed! The greatest gift to man is to think and reason for one's
self, uninhibited by dogma and censorship...
Paul Stowe
Jackie & Barry
Gerry Quinn wrote:
> Barry wrote:
> >Perhaps someone could develop an anti positivist vaccine that would be
> >injected into the young before they go to school.
> That would be as bad as Patrick Reany's suggestions. He also wishes to
> vaccinate the thought processes of the young.
You seem to have misinterpreted the satirical intention of my post.
I do suggest that our young need protection from an educational system
from which a Chris Hillman can emerge, after perhaps 20 years, and
writes that the dense, hot early Universe is a *fact*.
Barry
Patrick Reany
Paul Stowe wrote:
> > That would be as bad as Patrick Reany's suggestions. He also wishes
> > to vaccinate the thought processes of the young.
>
> Agreed! The greatest gift to man is to think and reason for one's
> self, uninhibited by dogma and censorship...
>
> Paul Stowe
What dogmatism? What censorship?
Patrick
Bjerknes
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote, among other things:
[redacted]
>I believe only in ordinary visible objects and
> observable events -- all the rest is scientific chimera!
>
> Patrick
>
>
The rest including "metaphysical, a posteriori derived space-time",
which is a pseudonym for "aether", I presume? Or are you yet another
relativist who believes in absolutism by pseudonym?
Christopher Bjerknes
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patrick Reany
Bjerknes wrote:
> The rest including "metaphysical, a posteriori derived space-time",
> which is a pseudonym for "aether", I presume? Or are you yet another
> relativist who believes in absolutism by pseudonym?
>
I'd sure like to answer your question, Christopher, but since you've
used the fallacy of the "complex question," I don't think I should.
Patrick
Harold Marcus
>Yes. H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof
>that showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem
>to understand it.
L Hoffman wrote:
>Would you care to summarize Dingle's proof? I haven't seen it yet.
You almost certainly HAVE seen it already. It's the same "proof"
that every crackpot puts forward. In a nutshell, Dingle considers
two systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x't' with a relative
velocity of v, and then very elaborately and clumsily constructs
the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, and the partial
derivative of t with respect to t'. He notes that these partials
are equal, and declares this to be logically inconsistent. Sad.
His "proof" consisted of the observation that from the temporal
component of the Lorentz transformation t' = (t-vx)/g and it's
inverse t = (t'+vx')/g where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) we have the partials
Dt'/Dt = Dt/Dt' = 1/g. Like many freshman calculus students,
Dingle imagined Dx/Dy must be the algebraic inverse of Dy/Dx, so
he concluded this was a contradiction for any g other than 1 (i.e.,
any v other than 0), and therefore the Lorentz transformations are
logically inconsistent (which of course would invalidate Lorentz's
theory as well as Einstein's - not to mention elementary calculus,
linear algebra, arithmetic, and rational thought in general).
Needless to say, Dingle's argument is trivially specious.
The more interesting question is what happenned to Dingle.
For most of his life he wrote approvingly about relativity,
including a text on special relativity in which he carefully
explained the relativity of simultaneity, and so on. But then
in his later years he embarked on a passionate anti-relativity
crusade, and apparently could never grasp the relativity of
simultaneity. The obvious question is, how could he explain
a concept for years, and then later demonstrate a complete
inability (or refusal) to grasp that same concept?
I think the answer can be found through a careful reading of
Dingle's essay for the Encyclopedia Britannica on the philosophical
consequences of relativity (written during his pro-relativity
days). This article, in retrospect, shows that his acceptance
of special relativity (he never claimed to understand general
relativity) was based firmly on the notion that there is no
external objective reality. He believed that the essential
significance of relativity was that, in his words,
...the idea of something existing objectively, which physical
measurements revealed, had to be given up... The philosopher
must henceforth interpret physics in terms of operations and
their results alone, leaving external existences out of
account... Physics was thus thrown back on the unadorned
description of itself as the discovery of relations between
the results of chosen operations of measurements.
It's clear that Dingle accepted relativity (prior to old age) as
simply a collection of brute facts that need not yield any coherent
picture of an objective external reality. His view was similar to
the modern acceptance of quantum mechanics with the "measurement
problem" unresolved, i.e., we can't think of a realistic model
of an external reality that always yields the results of our
measurements; we can only describe the patterns in those results
as abstract brute facts that must be accepted. In other words,
Dingle's attitude (in his early days) was that "one does not
understand relativity, one merely gets used to it". This of
course is a paraphrase of a famous remark concerning quantum
mechanics, but the point is that Dingle was entirely mistaken
in applying this "shut-up-and-calculate" approach to relativity,
because in fact relativity (unlike quantum mechanics) is an
entirely classical theory, and is firmly based on a perfectly
coherent model of objective external reality. In retrospect we
can see that the young Dingle never grasped this model - indeed
his whole philosophy of science (in those years) was that
relativity had rendered all such models unviable.
If he had applied this line of reasoning to quantum mechanics, he
would have been in the mainstream of scientific thought, which still
today has been unable to reconcile the full range of demonstrated
quantum phenomena with any classically realistic objective model.
However, Dingle was very mistaken in applying this line of reasoning
to special relativity, which is a purely classical theory with a
perfectly sound objective model (Minkowski spacetime). Looking back
at Dingle's early explanations of the twins paradox, we can see that
he had NEVER grasped this simple model. Instead he had simply told
himself (like someone thinking about Schrodinger's cat) that when we
make certain measurements we get certain results, despite the fact
that he himself did not understand it. He accepted this because he
believed that NO ONE understood it, and in fact he believed that that
was the whole point of relativity, i.e., that we must now believe
things that cannot be "understood" in the classical sense of being
manifestations of an external objective reality.
Then in his later years he rejected this approach (as did most of
the formerly enthusiastic circle of logical positivists), and decided
that we cannot reasonably dispense with the idea of an objective
reality. (Ironically, this was also Einstein's mature view.) The
problem was that once he made this change, it exposed the fact that
he had never grasped the simple objective model of special relativity.
In fact, he had spent much of his life trying to convince himself and
others that no such model was possible, and that this impossibility
was the whole message of relativity. He could not, in his old age,
accept the idea that in fact relativity had a perfectly simple
objective model, and that his views on this subject, to which he had
devoted much of his life, had always been fundamentally flawed and
misguided. To contemplate such a possibility is not within the
capacity of old men (as is demonstrated daily in this newsgroup).
On a related point, I note that Professor McCrea (with whom Dingle
had his famous "flame war" in the pages of Nature in 1962) just
passed away in April of last year at the age of 94. Obviously McCrea
was on the right side of the debate, but in reading his rebuttals of
Dingle's position I think they weren't as clear and as direct as they
could have been. Of course, any false premise can be refuted in
infinitely many ways, and there is always the temptation to pile
refutations on top of each other, even though the effect of this
is often to blunt rather than sharpen the refutation.
Bjerknes
I agree with your philosophy of science. However, I often find you
using it politically. Mathematics is as anthropomorphic as any other
belief system. Simply asserting that such a thing as anthropomorphism
exists is self-defeating, because it presuppose that which it denies.
Everything we do is anthropomorphic, including
conceptualizing "anthropomorphism". To state that a belief in aether is
not science because we do not directly observe the aether, but
hypothesize it a posteriori, and then to further state that SR is real
science, because it accomplsihes exactly the same thing, is politics.
Conversely, it would be politics to deny SR, while accomplishing the
same thing with a hypothetical rest aether. The aether is no more or
less "superfluous" than is "space-time". I hope that in both theories,
LET and SR, the absolutes of mathematics (frames) are abandoned in
favor of a universe in flux, such that the mathematical identities
reflect our observations accurately and effectively. GR is not the
solution. We have never observed space-time, flat, curved or otherwise.
Space-time is a metaphysical conceptualization, not an observation. We
have observed a universe in flux, both "instantaneously" and
through "time". Most of the methods of describing the flux we observe
do so by juxtaposing flux to hypothetical changelessness, and that is a
mistake. Deriving the absolute a posteriori is a mistake. We ought to a
posteriori hypothesize physical phenomena and then test for them.
Wayne Throop
::: H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof
::: that showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't
::: seem to understand it.
:: L Hoffman
:: Would you care to summarize Dingle's proof? I haven't seen it yet.
: hma...@oberlein.com (Harold Marcus)
: You almost certainly HAVE seen it already. It's the same "proof" that
: every crackpot puts forward. In a nutshell, Dingle considers two
: systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x't' with a relative velocity
: of v, and then very elaborately and clumsily constructs the partial
: derivative of t' with respect to t, and the partial derivative of t
: with respect to t'. He notes that these partials are equal, and
: declares this to be logically inconsistent.
: [...]
: he had never grasped the simple objective model of special relativity.
: In fact, he had spent much of his life trying to convince himself and
: others that no such model was possible
: [.. additional interesting comments omitted ..]
For an outline of Dingle's argument framed by Dingle as as a specific
experiment, see http://sheol.org/throopw/dingle-paradox01.html
The interesting thing is (and the reason for that web page in the first
point) is that not only was Dingle incorrect that there couldn't be an
objective reality if SR's experimental predictions were accurate, the
objective alternative he himself proposed predicted the very things he
was complaining about.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
GLOBARR
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> In our reality, there appears to be `things.' There
> appears to be things that act, and things that are acted
> upon. These things appear to be independent of us, and are
> not controlled by our personal thoughts or personal wishes.
> Thus, science is concerned with these `things,' and in how
> they are controlled; or: how things act, and how things
> react, when acted upon.
Reany wrote:
O'Barr, if "OUR reality" (a thing which you have yet to define)
is so unproblematic, then why do you believe in a physical
ether that I do *not* believe in?
O'Barr comments:
You said I did not define reality. There are many ways
to define words and concepts. I most certainly did define what
our reality is by defining of what it consists. And this most
certainly is a definition! Not only did I define of what it
consists, but I then included how science was connected to it,
and even included the purpose of science.
Now why you do not believe in the ether is your problem,
not mine! Why be so difficult? You certainly must have a
problem to take such obvious things and make so much out of
nothing!!!!!
Reany wrote:
If only you wouldn't reify these appearances, you wouldn't be
so confused. I believe only in ordinary visible objects and
observable events -- all the rest is scientific chimera!
O'Barr comments:
I am confused? You seem to be taking the attitude that if
you cannot define something, then it can't exist! Now no one
can be that dumb! You seem to be taking the attitude that if
something doesn't hit you on your head and knock you out, then
it does not exist! How can anyone be that dumb! If all you do
is just believe in `visible' objects, then you do not believe
in millions of existing stars, and zillions of existing germs.
Why you do not even believe in atoms! Yes, this might simplify
your life, but what rot!
No matter how hard it might be to `see' the ether, its
effects are everywhere! And the very fact that it is not seen
is the perfect proof that it is the carrier of light!!!!!
To me, you would have to have some kind of a sick agenda in
order not to know and understand the need for and the existence
of the ether! It is, in fact, the most well proved physical
theory that has ever existed!
And without the ether, you have nothing but Voodoo! You
have nothing but mystery. You have, in reality, nothing! You
have no power to physically explain one single thing! No
physical causes. No physical effects! You have nothing!
And so who is confused? It is clear that the ether approach is
scientifically superior, and we will soon all accept it. And
when do, we will all laugh at what you say you believe, because
it really is silly and impossible!
Thanks!!!!!!!!!
Patrick Reany
L Hoffman wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Patrick Reany wrote:
> >
> > Please define for us "the positivist." Thanks.
>
> I consider positivism to mean the philosophy which asserts that only that
> which can be measured is real.
Oh, God!!!! Not the term "real" yet again! What is "real"? By the definition of
"positivism" you gave I'd say that I know of *no* positivists at all!
> Here's how Webster defines it:
>
> "positivism, n. [...] 2. dogmatism, 3. a system of philosophy that
> is based solely on the positive data of sense experience [...] based solely
> on positive, observable, scientific facts and their relations to each
> other and to natural law: IT REJECTS SPECULATION ON OR SEARCH FOR ULTIMATE
> ORIGINS."
You must have a different Websters dictionary than I do. "positivism" a synonym
for "dogmatism"? Ridiculous! Be wary of definitions of any philosophical label!
> Here's what philosopher Charles Peirce said about it:
>
> "[Positivism assumes] Life upon the globe is a phase, quite accidental,
> tending as far as we know to no permanent end, of no sort of use, except
> in producing a pleasant titillation now and then on the nerves of this or
> that wayfarer on this weary and purposeless journey- which like a
> treadmill starts nowhere and goes nowhere, and whose machinery produces
> nothing at all. There is no good in life but its occasional
> pleasures; these are mostly delusive, and as likely as not will soon
> utterly pass away."
This last characterization is completely non-epistemological. Thus I have no
use for it in this context. Please, try to keep your definitions focused on
areas of scientific relevance. Thanks.
Here's my definition of "positivism" in the context of scientific epistemology
: "Positivism" is the belief that positive or certain knowledge comes from the
predictive range (of measurements) of scientific theories and not from
theoretical models per se; that is, scientific theoretical models need have no
connection to ontological "reality," regardless of how that term is defined.
This is a moderate's view of positivism, and I hold to it. But an extreme view
of positivism goes beyond this moderate view to also prohibit the use of any
nonobservables, which I find ridiculous extremism. One can use nonobservables
as chimera without claiming that they have any connection to "reality." In fact
any concept of "material continuum" I know of must be considered a chimera! Yet
it is a useful concept in physics and engineering.
Patrick
Paul Stowe
writes:
>
>
>L Hoffman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Patrick Reany wrote:
>> >
>> > Please define for us "the positivist." Thanks.
>>
>> I consider positivism to mean the philosophy which asserts that
>> only that which can be measured is real.
>
> Oh, God!!!! Not the term "real" yet again! What is "real"? By the
> definition of "positivism" you gave I'd say that I know of *no*
> positivists at all!
You (Patrick) are an incessant semmantical bickerer... This is why I
and others resort to dictonary definitions. Soon, you'll few that are
willing to waste their time with you, specifically BECAUSE of this.
Here's the common usage definitions of real...
real(1) (re l, rel) adj. [[OFr < ML realis < L res, thing < IE base
*rei-, property, thing > Sans rai, wealth, property]]
1 existing or happening as or in fact; actual, true, etc.;
not merely seeming, pretended, imagined, fictitious,
nominal, or ostensible
2 a) authentic; genuine
b) not pretended; sincere
3 designating wages or income as measured by purchasing power
4 Law of or relating to permanent, immovable things [real
property]
5 Math. designating or of the part of a complex number that
is not imaginary
6 Optics of or relating to an image made by the actual
meeting of light rays at a point
7 Philos. existing objectively; actual (not merely possible
or ideal), or essential, absolute, ultimate (not relative,
derivative, etc.)
n. anything that actually exists, or reality in general: with the
adv. [Colloq.] very SYN. TRUE for real [Slang] real or really
real(2) (re l; Sp r e al ) n. , pl. re als or Sp. re al es (-a les)
[[Sp & Port, lit., royal < L regalis: see REGAL]] a former monetary
unit and silver coin of Spain and its possessions
real(3) (re al ) n. sing. of REIS
-------------------- Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia
Clearly, Hoffman meant "existing or happening as or in fact; actual,
true, etc.; not merely seeming, pretended, imagined, fictitious,
nominal, or ostensible"...
>> Here's how Webster defines it:
>>
>> "positivism, n. [...] 2. dogmatism, 3. a system of philosophy that
>> is based solely on the positive data of sense experience [...]
>> based solely on positive, observable, scientific facts and their
>> relations to each other and to natural law: IT REJECTS SPECULATION
>> ON OR SEARCH FOR ULTIMATE ORIGINS."
>
> You must have a different Websters dictionary than I do. "positivism"
> a synonym for "dogmatism"? Ridiculous! Be wary of definitions of any
> philosophical label!
Well's here's another dictionary definition...
positivism (paz tiv iz m) n. [[Fr positivisme < positif ]]
1 the quality or state of being positive; certainty; assurance
2 overconfidence or dogmatism
3 a system of philosophy basing knowledge solely on data of
sense experience; esp., a system of philosophy, originated
by Auguste Comte, based solely on observable, scientific
facts and their relations to each other: it rejects
speculation about or search for ultimate origins
positivist n. , adj. positivistic adj.
------------------- Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia
Well golly gee, guess what, we find dogmatism in that definition also.
That's because dogma is defined as:
dogma (dog m , dag -) n. , pl. -mas or -ma ta (-m t ) [[L, an
opinion, that which one believes (in LL(Ec), a decree, order) < Gr,
opinion, judgment < dokein , to seem: see DECENT]]
1 a doctrine; tenet; belief
2 doctrines, tenets, or beliefs, collectively
3 a positive, arrogant assertion of opinion
4 Theol. a doctrine or body of doctrines formally and
authoritatively affirmed SYN. DOCTRINE
--------------------- Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia
As guess what, positivism IS a belief system!
Don't waste bandwith...
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany
Bjerknes wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> I agree with your philosophy of science. However, I often find you
> using it politically.
Please give me an example of what you mean.
> Mathematics is as anthropomorphic as any other
> belief system.
Yes. It is a human invention, being an extension of our ability to count by
forming arbitrary subsets of the whole universe.
> Simply asserting that such a thing as anthropomorphism
> exists is self-defeating, because it presuppose that which it denies.
That went over my head.
> Everything we do is anthropomorphic, including
> conceptualizing "anthropomorphism". To state that a belief in aether is
> not science because we do not directly observe the aether, but
> hypothesize it a posteriori, and then to further state that SR is real
> science, because it accomplsihes exactly the same thing, is politics.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I have stated often that I don't believe that
an ether is necessarily an "unscientific belief." I have NEVER, NEVER said
that SR is "real" anything, except perhaps "real cool." I hate the term
"real" used at all in science, except when it is used in some context that
is completely uncontroversial.
> Conversely, it would be politics to deny SR, while accomplishing the
> same thing with a hypothetical rest aether. The aether is no more or
> less "superfluous" than is "space-time".
That's hard for me to say since you're speaking rather generally here. The
"superfluousness" of a physical concept is related to the theory that uses
or doesn't use it, not at all to so-called "reality," whatever the heck it
is! The mechanical ether of Maxwell is superfluous to the STR, which has
nothing at all to say about whether there is or isn't an ether.
Instrumentalism is the supreme *nonpolitical* philosophy of them all, I
think. It is "reality" neutral!
> [snip] We have never observed space-time, flat, curved or otherwise.
> Space-time is a metaphysical conceptualization, not an observation.
I agree that it's a conceptualization, but I'm not sure if I want to say
that it is a "metaphysical conceptualization." But I agree because the
statement fits my "moderate positivist" philosophy. I never claim positive
knowledge of invisible spacetime. Spacetime is a useful conceptualization.
But why is this such a point of controversy on this NG. Who says otherwise?
Positive knowledge in physics to me personally is restricted to ordinary
visible objects and observable events. I never infer the "truth" of a
successful theory.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> Reany wrote:
> If only you wouldn't reify these appearances, you wouldn't be
> so confused. I believe only in ordinary visible objects and
> observable events -- all the rest is scientific chimera!
A hyperbole, O'Barr.
> O'Barr comments:
> I am confused? You seem to be taking the attitude that if
> you cannot define something, then it can't exist!
No, but it's hard to say anything rational about it. (Reminds me of the
argument over the term "quality" in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance.)
> Now no one
> can be that dumb!
I can!
> You seem to be taking the attitude that if
> something doesn't hit you on your head and knock you out, then
> it does not exist! How can anyone be that dumb! If all you do
> is just believe in `visible' objects, then you do not believe
> in millions of existing stars, and zillions of existing germs.
> Why you do not even believe in atoms! Yes, this might simplify
> your life, but what rot!
Ahh, but microbes are not as invisible as your ether. (The microscope
has made the microbe "ordinary.") But don't get me wrong. I can believe
in anything I want, visible or not. I choose not to believe in your
notion of an ether. That's my choice. The difference between me and you,
O'Barr, is that I grant you the right to believe in your ether, but you
do NOT grant me the right to not believe in your ether.
> To me, you would have to have some kind of a sick agenda in
> order not to know and understand the need for and the existence
> of the ether!
The sickest: It's called Parsimony.
> It is, in fact, the most well proved physical
> theory that has ever existed!
Wow, you mean it's finally replaced "what goes up must come down"?
Patrick
Simon Clark 2000
pst...@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe) wrote:
: You (Patrick) are an incessant semmantical bickerer... This is why I
: and others resort to dictonary definitions.
This may come as a surprise to you, but dictionaries are not usually
written by physicists.
[snip an bunch of dictionary definitions]
: Well golly gee, guess what, we find dogmatism in that definition also.
:
: That's because dogma is defined as:
:
: dogma (dog m , da[[][]]. , pl. -[[][]] -ma ta (-m t ) [[L, an
: opinion, that whi[[][]] believes [[][]](Ec), a decree, order) < Gr,
: opinion, judgment[[][]]ein , to s[[][]]ee DECENT]]
: [[][]] [[][]]
: 1 a doctri[[][]]net; belie[[][]]
: [[][]] [[][]]
: 2 doctrine[[][]]ets, or be[[][]] collectively
: [[][]] [[][]]
: 3 a positi[[][]]rogant ass[[][]] of opinion
: [[][]] [[][]]
: 4 Theol. a[[][]]ine or bod[[][]]octrines formally and
: authorit[[][]]y affirmed[[][]] DOCTRINE
My karma ran over your dogma!
[snip lengthy bandwidth wasting quote]
: Don't waste bandwith...
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin
hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
- hypocrite adjective
--
Simon Clark 2000 - Urban Crime-Fighter
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/ IQC: 41011046
Patrick Reany
Paul Stowe wrote:
> Don't waste bandwith...
I keeping with your request for me not to waste bandwidth, I offer this
short rebuttle:
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Jackie & Barry wrote:
> Patrick Reany wrote:
>
> > Please define for us "the positivist." Thanks.
>
> Isn't a positivist one who espouses a positivist philosophy?
I could have said that. Please tell me that's NOT your notion of a
definition.
> Doesn't positivism reject speculation?
They do not, as far as I'm aware.
> Didn't positivism originate in the 18th century, with some Frenchman,
> whose name escapes me?
Auguste Comte (1788--1857), perhaps.
> One of his pronouncements was that it was pointless to speculate about
> the structure of the stars, since they were too far away for us ever to
> know.
Even (natural) philosophy has to keep up with the times. Who's to say
positively how Comte would regard the scientific treatment of stars today?
This is a really unfair criticism of him.
> Since then we have since discovered ways to examine the structures of
> bodies that are much further away than the stars that he could see - no
> thanks to him.
No thanks not to him.
> Positivism seems to be a sterile philosophy, it always follows, it never
> leads.
What? Name me a philosophy that leads, then.
> Not so long ago, one of them there positivists posted a message
> suggesting that it is now was late in the day for science, since most of
> the good stuff had already been discovered, we were now merely filling
> in gaps.
Not so long ago, one of them there anti-positivists posted a message
suggesting that it is now was late in the day for science, since most of
the good stuff had already been discovered, we were now merely filling
in gaps.
Who cares about a particular individual's belief of any large group of
philosophical believers? It means nothing in terms of the quality of the
philosophical belief system itself. This is surely a fallacious argument.
It's pretty naive to believe that these philosophical labels thrown around
this NG --- that have been around for hundreds of years --- are simple to
define unambiguously. Many of them have many definitions because later
usurpers of the term retool the term for their own purposes. I am leery of
them all.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> O'Barr comments:
> Now beside all these very cute but scientifically worthless
> comments of Reany, he has also changed the title to his post
> (as he often seems to do.) I guess he hopes that others might
> not be able to follow these posts of his so that they cannot
> see just how silly he is!
Just the opposite! As a good editor I know the value of a good title to
grab the attention of a possible reader.
O'Barr, you didn't stay on topic as far as I'm concerned, so I changed
the title of the post to reflect this change. I don't believe that it's
even right to keep a thread title just for the sake of doing so. I don't
give a damn if you defined "reality" somewhere in this NG at some time
before, if you didn't define "reality" or contribute directly to that
focus YOU WERE OFF TOPIC in this thread. If the topic goes off thread
title then the title should be changed. Otherwise, posters who have
stopped viewing (or never started to view) a thread will not know that
there's been a topic shift that they might be interested in. I guess
this concept it too deep for you, or you're just too fastidious to bend
to reason. The simplest solution to this "problem" is to try to stay on
topic as long as there's something more to say. Frankly, O'Barr, I
thought your reply to my post was completely extraneous to the topic,
and amounted to no more than another boring restatement of your mantra:
Ether is God.
> O'Barr comments:
> In science, we do not have the right to choose! The choice
> is forced upon us by the results of our experiments, and by the
> power of logic.
Inductive or deductive logic? Are you really so naive to believe that
human physical theories force only one interpretation on science ALL the
time? Science is a mere human invention and servant of humankind. But to
you it is god and master. Your fascist science.
Tough break yet again, O'Barr. Since you chose to *not* deal with the
topic in the thread title you *insisted* on using, I had to change it to
something that ACTUALLY DEALS with the content of your post.
Patrick
Paul Stowe
writes:
Ummm, was that I have nothing to say but argue of word definitions?
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
writes:
>: You (Patrick) are an incessant semmantical bickerer... This is why
I
>: and others resort to dictonary definitions.
>
>written by physicists.
>
>[snip an bunch of dictionary definitions]
>
>: also.
>:
>: That's because dogma is defined as:
>:
>: opinion, that whi[[][]] believes [[][]](Ec), a decree, order) < Gr,
>: opinion, judgment[[][]]ein , to s[[][]]ee DECENT]]
>: [[][]] [[][]]
>: 1 a doctri[[][]]net; belie[[][]]
>: [[][]] [[][]]
>: 2 doctrine[[][]]ets, or be[[][]] collectively
>: [[][]] [[][]]
>: 3 a positi[[][]]rogant ass[[][]] of opinion
>: [[][]] [[][]]
>: 4 Theol. a[[][]]ine or bod[[][]]octrines formally and
>: authorit[[][]]y affirmed[[][]] DOCTRINE
>
>My karma ran over your dogma!
Your karma is your problem.
>[snip lengthy bandwidth wasting quote]
>
>: Don't waste bandwith...
>
> Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
> Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin
> hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from
> hypokrinesthai Date: 13th century: a person who puts on a false
> appearance of virtue or religion - hypocrite adjective
Even Jesus lost his temper, but I won't consider that this made him a
hypocrite, only human...
Paul Stowe
GLOBARR
In <397A28B6...@xroads.com>
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
I have listed, out of context, six out of seven comments
made by Reany. They deserve no comment!
Reany said (1):
GLOBARR's post is rated D for dogmatic.
Reany said (2):
A hyperbole, O'Barr.
Reany said (3):
No, but it's hard to say anything rational about it. (Reminds
me of the argument over the term "quality" in Zen and the Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance.)
Reany said (4):
I can!
Reany said (5):
The sickest: It's called Parsimony.
Reany said (6):
Wow, you mean it's finally replaced "what goes up must come
down"?
O'Barr comments:
Now beside all these very cute but scientifically worthless
comments of Reany, he has also changed the title to his post
(as he often seems to do.) I guess he hopes that others might
not be able to follow these posts of his so that they cannot
see just how silly he is!
The new titled by Reany:
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Certainly this
title meets with the content Reany adds to them!
O'Barr wrote:
> You seem to be taking the attitude that if
> something doesn't hit you on your head and knock you out,
> then it does not exist! How can anyone be that dumb! If all
> you do is just believe in `visible' objects, then you do not
> believe in millions of existing stars, and zillions of
> existing germs. Why you do not even believe in atoms! Yes,
> this might simplify your life, but what rot!
Reany wrote:
Ahh, but microbes are not as invisible as your ether. (The
microscope has made the microbe "ordinary.") But don't get me
wrong. I can believe in anything I want, visible or not.
O'Barr comments:
This is not what you said! You said things had to be
visible before you would believe!
Reany wrote:
I choose not to believe in your notion of an ether. That's my
choice.
O'Barr comments:
In science, we do not have the right to choose! The choice
is forced upon us by the results of our experiments, and by the
power of logic. Any person who now lives upon this earth, and
chooses to believe in SR, is being non-scientific! All
existing evidence that exists, or has ever existed, fully and
completely supports LET, in the area it applies! And your SR
FAQ does not make this clear!
Reany wrote:
The difference between me and you, O'Barr, is that I grant you
the right to believe in your ether, but you do NOT grant me the
right to not believe in your ether.
O'Barr comments:
And you totally misunderstand the situation! It has nothing
to do with me, personally or otherwise! The science requires
us to accept the ether as being superior to SR! The Science we
presently have is doing this to you, not me!!!!!!
O'Barr wrote:
> To me, you would have to have some kind of a sick agenda in
> order not to know and understand the need for and the
> existence of the ether!
>
> It is, in fact, the most well proved physical
> theory that has ever existed!
Crgre Jvyyneq
23:51:23 GMT]
>
>This may come as a surprise to you, but dictionaries are not
>usually written by physicists.
>
>
so much depends on a red dictionary
usually written by physicists
by the white chickens
--
Peter Willard http://www.drizzle.com/~petew
``The fact that inhumanity is coupled with so much stupidity
makes one feel almost optimistic in a dangerous way.'' -Erich
Hecke
Harold Ensle
Harold Marcus <hma...@oberlein.com> wrote in message
news:3979ed4d....@news.gte.net...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Harold Ensle wrote:
> >Yes. H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof
> >that showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem
> >to understand it.
>
> L Hoffman wrote:
> >Would you care to summarize Dingle's proof? I haven't seen it yet.
>
> You almost certainly HAVE seen it already. It's the same "proof"
> that every crackpot puts forward. In a nutshell, Dingle considers
> two systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x't' with a relative
> velocity of v, and then very elaborately and clumsily constructs
> the partial derivative of t' with respect to t, and the partial
> derivative of t with respect to t'. He notes that these partials
> are equal, and declares this to be logically inconsistent. Sad.
>
> His "proof" consisted of the observation that from the temporal
> component of the Lorentz transformation t' = (t-vx)/g and it's
> inverse t = (t'+vx')/g where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) we have the partials
> Dt'/Dt = Dt/Dt' = 1/g. Like many freshman calculus students,
> Dingle imagined Dx/Dy must be the algebraic inverse of Dy/Dx, so
> he concluded this was a contradiction for any g other than 1 (i.e.,
> any v other than 0), and therefore the Lorentz transformations are
> logically inconsistent (which of course would invalidate Lorentz's
> theory as well as Einstein's - not to mention elementary calculus,
> linear algebra, arithmetic, and rational thought in general).
> Needless to say, Dingle's argument is trivially specious.
No this is not Dingle's argument at all. This is simply a lie. I see below
that you have some familiarity with the Dingle/McCrea arguments, but
where you pulled out this ridiculous crap is hard to imagine.
His argument was not erroneous in relation to any aspect of the math.
He made no claim that the Lorentz transformations were logically
inconsistent (I think you are confusing Dingle's argument with
someone else's) The only argument against it is whether he was
allowed to attach certain values to the physical objects in question.
This is a far cry from your excesses above.
> The more interesting question is what happened to Dingle.
> For most of his life he wrote approvingly about relativity,
> including a text on special relativity in which he carefully
> explained the relativity of simultaneity, and so on. But then
> in his later years he embarked on a passionate anti-relativity
> crusade, and apparently could never grasp the relativity of
> simultaneity. The obvious question is, how could he explain
> a concept for years, and then later demonstrate a complete
> inability (or refusal) to grasp that same concept?
[a rather long discussion indicating that Dingle's argument against
SR was based on a philosophical position......]
I do not think this is even close to Dingle's motivations. I do not
know where you got this information, but it is so inaccurate I would
consider it as mere propaganda being employed for reasons that
I can't even imagine.
It is true that Dingle started out as a strong proponent of SR and
wrote a text relating to the subject. However, in the early
30's a minor schism developed in SR which involved Dingle (and
some others actually) concerning what SR predicted for the twin
scenario. Dingle's group claimed that *SR predicted* that when the
travelling twin returned from his trip, his age would be the same
as the stay-at-home. The reason was simple. The time seen by each
observer for the other was only how they viewed it. It had no
real consequence in changing the physical state of something. It
was like perspective. You might view a wall at an angle and it looks
shorter, but the wall isn't actually shorter. This view was also
appreciated because it avoided the contradiction of the twin paradox
(of which the physicists of the time were well aware). Now not
long after this an interesting thing occurred. An experiment was finally
done that demonstrated that time dilation was, in fact, altering the
physical aging of an object (that object being called a mesotron at the
time, a muon that was entering the Earth's atmosphere at relativistic
speed and lasting a lot longer than it should classically). After this event
any claim that SR predicted equal aging on recombination of inertial
frames after acceleration was dropped. However, Dingle was still not
satisfied, because, instead of resolving the issue, the experimental
evidence actually made it worse. Why? Because now the twin
paradox was unresolved! Now what virtually everyone who
reads Dingle's papers fails to realize is that his argument is simply
the twin paradox in different guise. He wanted to make a more
concise argument avoiding the ramifications of a round trip
with the necessary accelerations etc. So around 1960 he came up
with a simple argument using essentially only two extended objects in
constant relative motion. He then assigned two points(*) to each of
these objects like so:
N* B* ------>v
A* H*
where N and B on one object (at rest relative to each other)
are moving in respect to A and H on another object (thus A and H
are at rest relative to each other.
There are three events of interest: First when point B is
colocated with point A. At this event we will set our times
to 0 thus (the first event):
N* B* t'=0
A* t=0 H*
The second event is of course when point B is colocated with H:
N* B* t'=t1'
A* H* t=t1
The third event is when N is colocated with A thus:
N* t'=t2' B*
A* t=t2 H*
Now so far all we have done is set up a scenario. Nothing
about a theory has yet been described. At this point I
will explain it in a different way from Dingle as to make it
more clear. First let us use the Lorentz transformation to find
t1' in relation to t1. B* travels from A* to H* and thus in
the AH frame B* has aged slower by t1'=t1/g
(g=gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) Not only is this statement
mathematically correct, it is verified by experiment
virtually every day. (Dingle has yet to err.) NOW let's
find t2 in relation to t2'. Note here that by SR we can
view A* as travelling from B* to N* by -v thus we find that
in the NB frame A* has aged slower by t2=t2'/g. Here is
where Dingle has sneaked in the reciprocity which
nonetheless is allowed by SR, so again Dingle has yet
to err. So far there appears to be no problem, but now
assume that we have a clock on each object (AH and NB) and
we want to compare the rates of these clocks. We are
comparing the rates of just two clocks, no more, and they
must correspond by only one ratio, otherwise it would be
contradictory. You must think about this and understand it.
You cannot have two different ratios between the same two
clocks at the same time. This would be a *physical*
impossibility. Now we can use the above information to
obtain this ratio quite easily.
By AH's view: AH clock rate/NB clock rate=t1/t1'=t1*g/t1=g.
By NB's view: AH clock rate/NB clock rate=t2/t2'=t2/(t2*g)=1/g.
Depending on which events one uses, a different ratio is
obtained which is physically impossible, therefore the theory
allowing it must be false.
The genius of Dingle's argument is that he shows that while
it might be okay for AH and NB to have a different view of
the passage of time, he has demonstrated that the reciprocity
in the SR case forces a different view of a quantity that
physically cannot be different.
This corresponds to the reciprocity in the twin paradox
where SR requires both the stay-at-home and the travelling
twin to be younger on reunion than the other which is a
physical impossibility.
In Dingle's argument there is no acceleration (the
usual SRist excuse for the twin paradox) and it
addresses the problem at its most fundamental level.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.HPX.4.21.00072...@orion.U.Arizona.EDU...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Harold Ensle wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Here's the quote from Dingle:
> > >
> > > "Anyone who cares to examine the literature from 1920 to the present
day
> > > [1972] can see the gradual growth of dogmatic acceptance of the theory
and
> > > contempt for its critics, right up to the extreme form exhibited
today..."
> >
> > Yes. H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof
that
> > showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem to
> > understand it.
> >
>
> Thanks, Ellis! Would you care to summarize Dingle's proof? I haven't
> seen it yet.
>
Check out my reply to Harold Marcus in this same thread. It contains the
proof.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:39791F...@attglobal.net...
> L Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Harold Ensle wrote:
> > >
> > > > > L Hoffman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here's the quote from Dingle:
> > > >
> > > > "Anyone who cares to examine the literature from 1920 to the present
day
> > > > [1972] can see the gradual growth of dogmatic acceptance of the
theory and
> > > > contempt for its critics, right up to the extreme form exhibited
today..."
> > >
> > > Yes. H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof
that
> > > showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem to
> > > understand it.
> > >
> > > Herbert Dingle was a true hero.
> >
> > Thanks, Ellis! Would you care to summarize Dingle's proof? I haven't
> > seen it yet.
>
> The ball's in your court, Harold.
>
> John Anderson
See my reply to Harold Marcus and understand it if you can.
John M: Did you see that serve by Ensle?....it had to be over 115 mph.
Martina: Yes. Its hard to see how Anderson can return it. He's going to have
a rough day.
John M: Ha! Knowing his usual escapades he will probably argue every call.
Martina: Like you used to do?
John M: Hey...only when I was right!
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:9642...@sheol.org...
> ::: Harold Ensle
> ::: H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof
> ::: that showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't
> ::: seem to understand it.
>
> :: L Hoffman
>
> : hma...@oberlein.com (Harold Marcus)
> : You almost certainly HAVE seen it already. It's the same "proof" that
> : every crackpot puts forward. In a nutshell, Dingle considers two
> : systems of inertial coordinates x,t and x't' with a relative velocity
> : of v, and then very elaborately and clumsily constructs the partial
> : derivative of t' with respect to t, and the partial derivative of t
> : with respect to t'. He notes that these partials are equal, and
> : declares this to be logically inconsistent.
> : he had never grasped the simple objective model of special relativity.
> : In fact, he had spent much of his life trying to convince himself and
> : [.. additional interesting comments omitted ..]
>
> For an outline of Dingle's argument framed by Dingle as as a specific
> experiment, see http://sheol.org/throopw/dingle-paradox01.html
>
> The interesting thing is (and the reason for that web page in the first
> point) is that not only was Dingle incorrect that there couldn't be an
> objective reality if SR's experimental predictions were accurate, the
> objective alternative he himself proposed predicted the very things he
> was complaining about.
Which alternative are you refering to? If I remember correctly, he really
didn't embrace any solution to the problem, though he thought that
certain classical theories were not excluded at that time. His point was
very simple and true. The theory of relativity is self-contradictory and
therefore false. He did not feel obligated beyond this point, which is
fine as the disproof of SR is of some significance.
BTW check my reply to Harold Marcus and see if we agree on all
the background facts of the matter.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
> >
> > Yes. H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof
that
> > showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem to
> > understand it.
> >
>
> You keep posting things here that purport to disprove
> SR and they're all crap. They just show that you don't
> understand SR.
>
No they don't, nor do you. If you understood it, you would
never accept it as it is hopelessly flawed. You really need
to study these things more closely.
H.Ellis Ensle
L Hoffman
> L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote in message
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Harold Ensle wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Ellis! Would you care to summarize Dingle's proof? I haven't
> > seen it yet.
> >
>
> Check out my reply to Harold Marcus in this same thread. It contains the
> proof.
>
> H.Ellis Ensle
Thanks! Is this available in one of his books for further study?
Harold Marcus
> and it's inverse t = (t'+vx')/g where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2) we have
> the partials Dt'/Dt = Dt/Dt' = 1/g. Like many freshman calculus
> students, Dingle imagined Dx/Dy must be the algebraic inverse of
> Dy/Dx, so he concluded this was a contradiction for any g other
> than 1 (i.e., any v other than 0), and therefore the Lorentz
Harold Ensle wrote:
>No this is not Dingle's argument at all.
Yes it is.
Harold Ensle wrote:
>This is simply a lie.
No it isn't.
Harold Ensle wrote:
>His argument was not erroneous in relation to any aspect of the
>math.
Yes it was.
Harold Ensle wrote:
>He made no claim that the Lorentz transformations were logically
>inconsistent
Yes he did.
Harold Ensle wrote:
>(I think you are confusing Dingle's argument with someone else's)
No I'm not.
Harold Ensle wrote:
>The only argument against it is whether he was allowed to attach
>certain values to the physical objects in question.
No it isn't.
Harold Ensle wrote:
>[snip Ensle's literal rehersal of Dingle's erroneous argument,
>confirming that Dingle's argument was precisely as I described.]
Since Harold is having trouble grasping this, let me elaborate.
Dingle essentially computes two ratios, to which he assigns the
labels
A's clock rate / N's clock rate
and
N's clock rate / A's clock rate
He claims these both equal 1/g (which is trivially true), and also
that they are the algebraic reciprocals of each other (which is
trivially false). If that were true, we would have the contradiction
1/g = g for g not equal to 1, thereby invalidating not only special
relativity but also Lorentz's theory, elementary calculus, linear
algebra, arithmetic, and rational thought.
To understand the simple math error that led Dingle to this idiotic
conclusion, examine the way Dingle arrives at these two ratios. He
evaluates two different partial derivatives, one giving the derivative
of A's time with respect to B's time along B's worldline, and another
giving the derivative of B's time with respect to A's time along A's
worldline. This is nothing but the partial derivatives of the
temporal component of the Lorentz transformation t' = (t-vx)/g and
it's inverse t = (t'+vx')/g where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). Obviously we
have the partials Dt'/Dt = Dt/Dt' = 1/g. These are the two "ratios"
that Dingle constructs (awkwardly). If, like Dingle and Ensle, we
erroneously believe that the partials Dx/Dy and Dy/Dx are the
algebraic reciprocals of each other, we can invert one of Dingle's
ratios and arrive at the (false) contradiction Dt'/Dt = 1/g = g.
This is Dingle's argument, in its entirety. Sad.
Gardner S Trask III
>: That's because dogma is defined as:
>:
>: dogma (dog m , da[[][]]. , pl. -[[][]] -ma ta (-m t ) [[L, an
>: opinion, that whi[[][]] believes [[][]](Ec), a decree, order) < Gr,
>: opinion, judgment[[][]]ein , to s[[][]]ee DECENT]]
>: [[][]] [[][]]
>: 1 a doctri[[][]]net; belie[[][]]
>: [[][]] [[][]]
>: 2 doctrine[[][]]ets, or be[[][]] collectively
>: [[][]] [[][]]
>: 3 a positi[[][]]rogant ass[[][]] of opinion
>: [[][]] [[][]]
>: 4 Theol. a[[][]]ine or bod[[][]]octrines formally and
>: authorit[[][]]y affirmed[[][]] DOCTRINE
>
Someone is getting too uppity. I only lend the keys for the Traskmobile
to a select few. Kibo, of course, has his own set on a keyring with the
mascot from "Post Deconstructionism Land". Tom knows where I hide the
spare along with my adult-check ID in the little magnetic box, and a
couple others have borroewed it for 'good and rightous' causes. But not
this poster.
Be careful pal, The Traskmobile also has 4 reverse gears.
Gard "Hey Froggy, if all is forgiven, how come you won't talk to me?"
Trask
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>> O'Barr comments:
>> In our reality, there appears to be `things.' There
>> appears to be things that act, and things that are acted upon.
>> These things appear to be independent of us, and are not
>> controlled by our personal thoughts or personal wishes. Thus,
>> science is concerned with these `things,' and in how they are
>> controlled; or: how things act, and how things react, when
>> acted upon.
>
>O'Barr, if "OUR reality" (a thing which you have yet to define) is so
>unproblematic, then why do you believe in a physical ether that I do
>*not* believe in? If only you wouldn't reify these appearances, you
>wouldn't be so confused. I believe only in ordinary visible objects and
>observable events -- all the rest is scientific chimera!
Then do you consider dark matter which is invisibe is a scientific
chirmera?
Ken Seto
Jackie & Barry
Patrick Reany wrote:
> Barry wrote:
> > Isn't a positivist one who espouses a positivist philosophy?
> I could have said that. Please tell me that's NOT your notion of a
> definition.
Of course not, I was "depersonalizing" the definition.
> > Doesn't positivism reject speculation?
> They do not, as far as I'm aware.
Well my post was written off the cuff, without consulting any texts etc.
Since you've questioned what I wrote, I've quickly looked up the word
"positivism", in Webster's.
It says, in part:
... based solely on observable scientific facts and their relations to
each other; it rejects speculation about, or search for, ultimate
origins"
There are also sub references to dogmatism.
Positivists don't question what they already "know".
Positivists don't like others to question the "truth" of what they, the
positivists, already "know".
Positivists don't ask questions that go much beyond what they already
"know".
Positivists say that questions that go much beyond what they already
"know" have no meaning.
Just read this ng, and study them.
> > Didn't positivism originate in the 18th century, with some Frenchman,
> > whose name escapes me?
> Auguste Comte (1788--1857), perhaps.
That's who Webster's suggests is responsible.
> > One of his pronouncements was that it was pointless to speculate about
> > the structure of the stars, since they were too far away for us ever to
> > know.
> Even (natural) philosophy has to keep up with the times. Who's to say
> positively how Comte would regard the scientific treatment of stars today?
> This is a really unfair criticism of him.
That wasn't a criticism, it was a statement of fact.
> > Since then we have since discovered ways to examine the structures of
> > bodies that are much further away than the stars that he could see - no
> > thanks to him.
> No thanks not to him.
Yes indeed, he's irrelevant isn't he?
> > Positivism seems to be a sterile philosophy, it always follows, it never
> > leads.
> What? Name me a philosophy that leads, then.
Platonism?
Plato warned us, long ago, that those who searched beyond the darkness
would not be believed by those who remained behind, in the dark, in
their shadow world ( the positivists?).
You have to wait for them to die.
> > Not so long ago, one of them there positivists posted a message
> > suggesting that it is now was late in the day for science, since most of
> > the good stuff had already been discovered, we were now merely filling
> > in gaps.
> Who cares about a particular individual's belief of any large group of
> philosophical believers? It means nothing in terms of the quality of the
> philosophical belief system itself. This is surely a fallacious argument.
I was suggesting, by example, that positivism, by its very nature,
discourages looking far beyond what we already think we know. It
discourages speculation.
Hence positivists tend to have a knee jerk reaction to alternative
ideas, since they are not yet "proven".
> It's pretty naive to believe that these philosophical labels thrown around
> this NG --- that have been around for hundreds of years --- are simple to
> define unambiguously. Many of them have many definitions because later
> usurpers of the term retool the term for their own purposes. I am leery of
> them all.
Of course, we all have our own unique interpretation for every word. I
can only say what the word means to me.
During the last six decades, my experience has been that positivists
defend their current belief systems with more vigour than they expend in
searching out alternatives.
Witness, for example, Chris Hillman - who states that the hot, dense,
early Universe is a *fact*.
Barry
Patrick Reany
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> [snip] >I believe only in ordinary visible objects and
> >observable events -- all the rest is scientific chimera!
>
> Then do you consider dark matter which is invisibe is a scientific
> chirmera?
>
You do, of course, recognize my hyperbole term "chimera." I'm an
instrumentalist. I don't want science pontificating to me how to map
theoretical ontology into "reality." I'll decide what's real, thank you,
Science. Science is in the phenomena game not the reality game. (Science
today is not a real success, rather it's a phenomenal success.)
So I believe in microbes and electrons and neutrinos, but that's my own
decision. It's not that I don't believe in nonordinary, invisible things,
it's just that I don't want Science to force a particular belief on me or on
scientists, which would take away their freedom to be effectively creative
in making theoretical models. I'm no different than anyone else. My personal
ontological beliefs are strongly consistent with those physical theories I
prefer the most. The beliefs I form on the basis of scientific models, I
make within my own natural philosophy. And you do it the same way. And as a
result we have to take personal responsibility for the natural philosophies
we claim to hold to.
As for dark matter, I don't think science knows enough about it yet for me
to judge it yet. But I do believe that material continuums are useful
theoretical models even thought they are chimera.
Patrick
Simon Clark 2000
pst...@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe) wrote:
: Even Jesus lost his temper, but I won't consider that this made him a
: hypocrite, only human...
Wow! You guys normally just compare yourselves to Galileo and Einstein! Have
a bazillion crackpot points!
I should also point out that since Jesus was a bit like King Arthur it
proves that Jesus is imaginary too! It also means that you are effectively
comparing yourself to King Arthur as well! Have another bazillion crackpot
points!
If you are going to compare yourself to someone, you could at lest pick
someone cool. Like Mr T!
--
Simon Clark 2000 - Urban Crime-Fighter and Mr T Fan!
Paul Stowe
writes:
>
>In article <8ldmdg$qcf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> pst...@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe) wrote:
>
>: Even Jesus lost his temper, but I won't consider that this made him
a
>: hypocrite, only human...
>
> Wow! You guys normally just compare yourselves to Galileo and
> Einstein! Have a bazillion crackpot points!
>
> I should also point out that since Jesus was a bit like King
> Arthur it proves that Jesus is imaginary too! It also means that
> you are effectively comparing yourself to King Arthur as well!
> Have another bazillion crackpot points!
>
> If you are going to compare yourself to someone, you could at lest
> pick someone cool. Like Mr T!
Yeah, as expected, you totally missed the point. I could have said
"Even ... (fill in the blank with any person in history)" the point WAS
NOT a comparision to any single individual (I simply picked him as
being considered the most pious), but that any human being can be
goaded into behaving opposite to the 'normal' manner.
I have come up with a mental picture of you as very similar to the
character Will Hunting" in the movie "Good Will Hunting"
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany
Jackie & Barry wrote:
> [snip]
> Since you've questioned what I wrote, I've quickly looked up the word
> "positivism", in Webster's.
>
> It says, in part:
>
> ... based solely on observable scientific facts and their relations to
> each other; it rejects speculation about, or search for, ultimate
> origins"
>
> There are also sub references to dogmatism.
I wouldn't have it any other way.
> Positivists don't question what they already "know".
So who the hell does -- frivolously??
> Positivists don't like others to question the "truth" of what they, the
> positivists, already "know".
>
> Positivists don't ask questions that go much beyond what they already
> "know".
>
> Positivists say that questions that go much beyond what they already
> "know" have no meaning.
>
> Just read this ng, and study them.
I find this the trait common in the etherists myself. Actually, by the
definition of "positivist" you just gave I have to declare again that I do not
know of any positivists!
> > > Didn't positivism originate in the 18th century, with some Frenchman,
> > > whose name escapes me?
>
> > Auguste Comte (1788--1857), perhaps.
>
> That's who Webster's suggests is responsible.
Positivism has been modified many times by many people since Comte. I hate most
dictionary definitions of philosophical terms. You should get out of
dictionaries and read some philosophy of science books before you spout off here
on the philosophy of physics.
> > > One of his pronouncements was that it was pointless to speculate about
> > > the structure of the stars, since they were too far away for us ever to
> > > know.
>
> > Even (natural) philosophy has to keep up with the times. Who's to say
> > positively how Comte would regard the scientific treatment of stars today?
> > This is a really unfair criticism of him.
>
> That wasn't a criticism, it was a statement of fact.
Just who do you think you're fooling around here? You've obviously had easy
competition before.
> > > Since then we have since discovered ways to examine the structures of
> > > bodies that are much further away than the stars that he could see - no
> > > thanks to him.
>
> > No thanks not to him.
>
> Yes indeed, he's irrelevant isn't he?
I could care less! I'm *not* a follower of Comte's primitive philosophy and I
don't know anyone who is, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. The reason
Comte is irrelevant today is that nobody today I know or know of follows Comte!
Your entire argument is completely pointless. You've constructed a straw man to
topple over.
Comte was fighting a battle over the minds of scientist of his day to bring in a
new paradigm, shifting explanations away from the supernatural to the natural
for scientific explanation. I believe that his methodology was very extreme,
though, and that is apparently the judgment of history as well. Thus Comte is to
be credited for starting a paradigm shift, which was later taken over by more
moderate philosopher-scientists. Comte seems to have had no appreciation for
scientific theory per se, which is the stronghold of modern science. Scientific
theory today, though not the ultimate arbiter of Truth, is however the ultimate
organizer of empirical data and physical concepts.
> > > Positivism seems to be a sterile philosophy, it always follows, it never
> > > leads.
>
> > What? Name me a philosophy that leads, then.
>
> Platonism?
>
> Plato warned us, long ago, that those who searched beyond the darkness
> would not be believed by those who remained behind, in the dark, in
> their shadow world ( the positivists?).
>
> You have to wait for them to die.
Yes, so much more pleasant than murder. Platonism is your personal philosophical
redoubt? Ha! (You should read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.)
> > > Not so long ago, one of them there positivists posted a message
> > > suggesting that it is now was late in the day for science, since most of
> > > the good stuff had already been discovered, we were now merely filling
> > > in gaps.
>
>
> > Who cares about a particular individual's belief of any large group of
> > philosophical believers? It means nothing in terms of the quality of the
> > philosophical belief system itself. This is surely a fallacious argument.
>
> I was suggesting, by example, that positivism, by its very nature,
> discourages looking far beyond what we already think we know. It
> discourages speculation.
Today's theoretical physicists are the most "speculating" group of physicists
history has ever known. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
> Hence positivists tend to have a knee jerk reaction to alternative
> ideas, since they are not yet "proven".
Maybe so, if I could ever find a "positivist." But I can't! So you have an awful
lot to say about a nonexistent group of philosopher-physicists. Sciolism at work
here.
> > It's pretty naive to believe that these philosophical labels thrown around
> > this NG --- that have been around for hundreds of years --- are simple to
> > define unambiguously. Many of them have many definitions because later
> > usurpers of the term retool the term for their own purposes. I am leery of
> > them all.
>
> Of course, we all have our own unique interpretation for every word. I
> can only say what the word means to me.
>
> During the last six decades, my experience has been that positivists
> defend their current belief systems with more vigour than they expend in
> searching out alternatives.
Prove it! Give examples. Bring your evidence into open court here, sir.
> Witness, for example, Chris Hillman - who states that the hot, dense,
> early Universe is a *fact*.
>
> Barry
My God, can't you see how ridiculous your arguments are. If Chris Hillman is
even talking (speculating) about the early universe (an ultimate origin) then by
your definition of a "positivist" he most certainly is NOT a positivist. Would
you please stop your fallacious, inconsistent, and ad hominem arguments. And do
some real homework on the philosophy of science. Platonism -- Ha!!
In any case, this is NOT an example of "defend their current belief systems with
more vigor than they expend in
searching out alternatives." At some point a human being is going to make a
commitment to some theory, so what? Your example proves nothing.
BTW, this NG is not sci.physics.TaHellWithTheWayPhysicsIsDoneTheseDays. So you
might find a more appropriate NG to post your sourgrapes complaints on.
Patrick
Simon Clark 2000
pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe) wrote:
: In <8lf50m$1ti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Simon Clark 2000 <cla...@my-deja.com>
: writes:
: >
: >In article <8ldmdg$qcf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
: > pst...@ix.netcom.com (Paul Stowe) wrote:
: >
: >: Even Jesus lost his temper, but I won't consider that this made him
: >: a hypocrite, only human...
: >
: > Wow! You guys normally just compare yourselves to Galileo and
: > Einstein! Have a bazillion crackpot points!
: >
: > I should also point out that since Jesus was a bit like King
: > Arthur it proves that Jesus is imaginary too! It also means that
: > you are effectively comparing yourself to King Arthur as well!
: > Have another bazillion crackpot points!
: >
: > If you are going to compare yourself to someone, you could at lest
: > pick someone cool. Like Mr T!
:
: Yeah, as expected, you totally missed the point. I could have said
: "Even ... (fill in the blank with any person in history)" the point WAS
: NOT a comparision to any single individual (I simply picked him as
: being considered the most pious), but that any human being can be
: goaded into behaving opposite to the 'normal' manner.
YHBT YHL HAND!
: I have come up with a mental picture of you as very similar to the
: character Will Hunting" in the movie "Good Will Hunting"
Matt Damon plays Will Hunting, a boy genius who was
severely abused as a child and has been in trouble
with the law ever since.
Exactly WHAT are you implying??? I have NEVER been in trouble with the law,
and was not abused as a child! Retract your claims or I shall contact my
lawyer and notify the Internet Police forthwith.
--
Simon Clark 2000 - Urban Crime-Fighter
orton
>
>
>Daniel Weston wrote:
>
>> To Patrick:
>>
>> Patrick said that reality was personal! ! ! !
>>
>> He therefore thinks that reality is subjective not objective !
>
>Correct. But it still hinges on a definition of "reality" and I
know of no
>generally accepted definition of "reality" in the halls of
science. Science
>has taken another path -- an epistemological path. It searches
for
>verifiable knowledge about measurements and the theories that
account for
>them. This is not what constitutes anybody's definition
of "reality" that I
>would think. It leaves out too much. (It certainly wouldn't be
acceptable to
>me.) Our realities must include our subjective experiences in
my opinion.
>But they are not fair game for science, except in the realm of
psychology,
>but even then psychology can't deal with "experiences" per se,
only claims
>about experiences. And I don't consider claims about an
experience to be the
>same thing as the experience itself.
>
>But even that doesn't get to the heart of the matter: Human
science cannot
>prove that human theories are TRUE. What else need I say? What
does it mean
>to say that something is *real* if it can't be verified as also
being TRUE?
>So it doesn't even solve the problem of defining "reality" by
leaving out
>all notions of subjective experience in its definition.
>
>> If Patrick thinks that reality is subjective what for heavens
sake is he
>> doing at this NG? The scientists here are looking for
reality that is
>> objective and verifiable.
>
>Is that your definition of "reality"? Please define "objective."
>
>> Once reality becomes personal then science becomes anarchy.
>
>Reality is personal; science is epistemological. No anarchy.
But even the
>objectivity of science comes out of the conventions it invents
for the doing
>of science. How can absolute truth come from arbitrary
definitions and
>conventions? I believe that the list of possible definitions
of "reality" I
>presented in my last post contains examples of how the
term "reality" is
>used in reasonable ways, and they don't all agree, and they
don't all amount
>to a description of what science does.
>
>Reality is part subjective and part objective, and it's
possible that the
>two subsets are not well-defined. In between anarchy and
dogmatism is a
>conventional and arbitrary view of the attainment of
certifiable *knowledge*
>(i.e., scientific knowledge) called *Science*. (Think about
where the rules
>for doing science come from.)
>
>Objective -- 1) that which is founded on measurement,
> especially in a repeatable way,
> 2) observer independent.
>
>> Patrick---did you really mean what you said???
>>
>> Daniel Weston
>
>Yes, I really meant it. To help illustrate my point, I invite
everyone on
>this NG that thinks that science is about "reality" to argue
out a
>definition of "reality" among themselves suitable for science
to use in a
>meaningful way. Good luck! I'll be very interested in
this "little"
>argument!! I think you'll find that it's a lot easier to use
the term
>"reality" than to define it rigorously, and this is the cause
of the
>confusion about it.
>
>Alternatively, I invite anyone to reply to this post with their
own
>definition of "reality".
>
>cheers,
>
>Patrick
>
>
>
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News
Number 495 July 20, 2000 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR TAU NEUTRINOS will be reported
tomorrow in a seminar at Fermilab. While the existence of
neutrinos
associated with the tau lepton was not in doubt, actually
observing
the particle interact had not occurred until now. This rounds
out the
program of experimental sightings of the truly fundamental
building
blocks prescribed by the standard model of particle physics.
This
official alphabet consists of six quarks known as up, down,
strange,
charm, top, and bottom and six leptons electron, electron
neutrino,
muon, muon neutrino, tau, and tau neutrino. All matter,
according to
the theory, should be made up from these most basic of
constituents.
Other particles, such as the anti-matter counterparts of the
quarks and
leptons, the force-carrying bosons (e.g., photons, gluons,
etc.), and
the Higgs boson (which confers mass upon some of the other
particles) also appear in the theory. (Still other candidates,
such as
the "supersymmetric" particles, are not part of, but are
expected to be
compatible with, the standard model.) The evidence for the tau
neutrino is slim but impressive: five scattering events are being
exhibited at the seminar by Fermilab physicist Byron Lundgren,
leader of Experiment 872, the Direct Observation of Nu Tau (or
DONUT) collaboration (http://fn872.fnal.gov/). Their experiment
proceeds in the following manner. Fermilab's 800-GeV proton beam
(the highest beam energy in the world) was steered onto a
tungsten
target, where some of the prodigious incoming energy is turned
into
new particles. Some of these quickly decay into taus and tau
neutrinos. Next comes an obstacle course of magnets (meant to
deflect charged particles away) and shielding material (meant to
absorb most of the other particles except for rarely interacting
neutrinos). Beyond this lies a sequence of emulsion targets in
which
the neutrinos can interact, leaving a characteristic signature.
Evidence for a tau neutrino in the emulsion is the creation of a
tau
lepton, which itself quickly decays (after traveling about 1 mm)
into
other particles. The E872 physicists estimate that about 10^14
tau
neutrinos entered the emulsion, of which perhaps 100 interacted
therein. It is a carefully analyzed handful of such events that
is now
being presented to the public in evidence. The tau neutrino is
the
third neutrino type to be detected. The detection of the
electron
neutrino by Clyde Cowan and Frederick Reines garnered Reines the
1995 Nobel Prize for physics (Cowan had died some years before).
For discovering the muon neutrino, Leon Lederman, Melvin
Schwartz, and Jack Steinberger won the Nobel Prize in 1988.
if a nickle coin has three holes in it how many sides does it have?
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm
_the third side of every coin always gave me the edge, (orton).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Joe Manfre
>In <8lf50m$1ti$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Simon Clark 2000 <cla...@my-deja.com>
>writes:
>> I should also point out that since Jesus was a bit like King
>> Arthur it proves that Jesus is imaginary too! It also means that
>> you are effectively comparing yourself to King Arthur as well!
>> Have another bazillion crackpot points!
>>
>> If you are going to compare yourself to someone, you could at lest
>> pick someone cool. Like Mr T!
>
>Yeah, as expected, you totally missed the point. I could have said
>"Even ... (fill in the blank with any person in history)" the point WAS
>NOT a comparision to any single individual (I simply picked him as
>being considered the most pious), but that any human being can be
>goaded into behaving opposite to the 'normal' manner.
>
>I have come up with a mental picture of you as very similar to the
>character Will Hunting" in the movie "Good Will Hunting"
Wasn't that Matt Damon?
I've never thought of his hair as being all *that* gay...
I think you should probably think of our little Usenet friend
as looking more like this:
http://home.flash.net/~manfre/photos/simonclark.jpg
JM
--
Joe Manfre, Hyattsville, Maryland. http://manfre-land.com
"It had become a little too uncomfortable for them sitting on
all that classified data once they had been explicitly fingered."
-- Carol Paliwoda, regarding "those bastards"
Simon Clark
> Someone is getting too uppity. I only lend the keys for the
> Traskmobile to a select few.
Who needs keys when you can hot-wire the Traskmobile? I'm sorry
about the bullet holes and the fire damage, but the the Internet
Superhighway Patrol (ISP) don't give up easily.
--
Simon Clark 2000 - Urban Crime-Fighter
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/clarksj/ IQC: 41011046
Simon Clark
>I've never thought of his hair as being all *that* gay...
>I think you should probably think of our little Usenet friend
>as looking more like this:
>
>
> http://home.flash.net/~manfre/photos/simonclark.jpg
Nice try, but I don't have a moustache.
Crgre Jvyyneq
16:03:37 GMT]
>It also means that you are effectively
>comparing yourself to King Arthur as well! Have another
>bazillion crackpot points!
>
But "Geez, us" IS...WAS King Arthur!!!
>If you are going to compare yourself to someone, you could at
>lest pick someone cool. Like Mr T!
>
MSITER T IS TOATALLY COOOL!!!
Wayne Throop
: His point was very simple and true. The theory of relativity is
: self-contradictory and therefore false.
But after literally years of making this claim,
Ensle has yet to point out any such self-contradiction.
Pointing out (as Dingle did) that SR predicts that clock N has a higher
reading than clock A, and H has a higher reading than clocok B, when
these clocks are compared when they meet, does not actually constitute
pointing out a contradiction. Because that outcome is not contradictory.
As is obvious, and demonstrated on the indicated web page.
See http://sheol.org/throopw/dingle-paradox01.html ,
or the original material per Dingle's letter to the editor
in Nature, 216,119 (1967)
Look at Dingle's presentation for yourself.
There simply is not any contradiction there. It is never the case
that any two given clocks are predicted to have opposite ratio of readings.
Which, of course, isn't surprising, since proper time is invariant in SR,
and clocks always indicate elapsed proper time in SR. There is simply no
possibility for self-contradiction in clock reading in SR.
: If I remember correctly, he really
: didn't embrace any solution to the problem, though he thought that
: certain classical theories were not excluded at that time.
If you insist on "certain classical theories not excluded" instead of
"SR bad, LET good", fine. Nevertheless, it remains factual and accurate
to say that those "certain classical theories not excluded" predict
the exact same clock readings SR predicts for N, A, H and B, given
the phsical experiment Dingle described.
There is simply no possible controversy over that fact;
you can check it for yourself. Just set the clocks as Dingle says
they were set, calculate their readings with "certain classical theories
not excluded", and there you are.
The fact that Ensle is apparently innumerate doesn't change these facts.
Wayne Throop
: Depending on which events one uses, a different ratio is obtained
: which is physically impossible, therefore the theory allowing it must
: be false.
What seems to have escaped Ensle's attention is, that at those two different
events, two completely different pairs of clocks are compared. It is
rather obviously possible, physically, for two pairs of clocks to
have inverse ratios of readings.
And, as is pointed out at http://sheol.org/throopw/dingle-paradox01.html
the physical situation Dingle uses to "disprove" SR would also "disprove"
any prefered-frame theory which had clocks slow down with velocity
relative to the absolute frame.
Jackie & Barry
Patrick Reany wrote:
> Just who do you think you're fooling around here? You've obviously had easy
> competition before.
Fooling?
Competition?
Please "compete" with someone else.
Barry
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>
>
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>
>As for dark matter, I don't think science knows enough about it yet for me
>to judge it yet. But I do believe that material continuums are useful
>theoretical models even thought they are chimera.
Without dark matter most of GR predictions will not agree with
observations. So my question is why do you believe in SR/GR so much
and yet you reject ether totally?
Ken Seto
Quinn Inuit
spelling out:
>Yeah, as expected, you totally missed the point.
It wasn't worth hitting. Your posts, on the other hand, are fun
to thwack. Send more, thanks, bye.
> I could have said
>"Even ... (fill in the blank with any person in history)"
Bob Hope!
>the point WAS
>NOT a comparision to any single individual (I simply picked him
as
>being considered the most pious),
The Church of Bob Hope!
>but that any human being can be
>goaded into behaving opposite to the 'normal' manner.
Yep. In fact, I don't even need to be goaded.
>I have come up with a mental picture of you as very similar to
the
>character Will Hunting" in the movie "Good Will Hunting"
Actually, I think he looks more like Mr. T. as B.A. Barracus.
Now I've got the A-Team theme song stuck in your head. Don't I
suck?
-Q.I.
--
Half of being a frat rat is good hair and working the party.
-AJJ
Harold Ensle
> >[snip Ensle's literal rehersal of Dingle's erroneous argument,
> >confirming that Dingle's argument was precisely as I described.]
You obviously do not understand it.
> Since Harold is having trouble grasping this, let me elaborate.
Hardly. It is you that do not understand it.
> Dingle essentially computes two ratios, to which he assigns the
> labels
>
> A's clock rate / N's clock rate
> and
> N's clock rate / A's clock rate
Right here you stupid moron! He calculated the SAME ratio
from two different frames of reference!!! You can't even understand
this. Did you even read it? or do you have some kind of
comprehension difficulty.
> He claims these both equal 1/g (which is trivially true), and also
> that they are the algebraic reciprocals of each other (which is
> trivially false).
He claims that if a=b/c then ac=b which is trivially true. I can't even
believe your utter ignorance of basic algebra.
>If that were true, we would have the contradiction
> 1/g = g for g not equal to 1, thereby invalidating not only special
> relativity but also Lorentz's theory, elementary calculus, linear
> algebra, arithmetic, and rational thought.
This is complete crap. Why can't you understand this simple
argument?? You must have some kind of strange mental handicap.
> To understand the simple math error that led Dingle to this idiotic
> conclusion, examine the way Dingle arrives at these two ratios. He
> evaluates two different partial derivatives,
First they aren't partial derivatives...duh. Plus no non-trivial calculus
is employed since the velocity is constant. Any high school student
could understand it. Why can't you???
>one giving the derivative
> of A's time with respect to B's time along B's worldline, and another
> giving the derivative of B's time with respect to A's time along A's
> worldline. This is nothing but the partial derivatives of the
> temporal component of the Lorentz transformation t' = (t-vx)/g and
> it's inverse t = (t'+vx')/g where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). Obviously we
> have the partials Dt'/Dt = Dt/Dt' = 1/g. These are the two "ratios"
> that Dingle constructs (awkwardly). If, like Dingle and Ensle, we
> erroneously believe that the partials Dx/Dy and Dy/Dx are the
> algebraic reciprocals of each other,
Dingle (nor I) even claim this. This is a lie. If anyone looks
at argument they will not find the symbol 'D' at all. You are making
this up. If you want to argue, use the math as it is written, don't
make up some absurd garbage, claim that I wrote it (when I didn't),
and then say it is wrong.
>we can invert one of Dingle's
> ratios and arrive at the (false) contradiction Dt'/Dt = 1/g = g.
> This is Dingle's argument, in its entirety. Sad.
This is your incredible miscomprehension of his argument.
Truly sad.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
> : "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Depending on which events one uses, a different ratio is obtained
> : which is physically impossible, therefore the theory allowing it must
> : be false.
>
> What seems to have escaped Ensle's attention is, that at those two
different
> events, two completely different pairs of clocks are compared. It is
> rather obviously possible, physically, for two pairs of clocks to
> have inverse ratios of readings.
Dingle determines the *same* ratio from *two different* frames of reference.
If you don't realize this then clearly you have not even begun to
understand his argument.
> And, as is pointed out at http://sheol.org/throopw/dingle-paradox01.html
> the physical situation Dingle uses to "disprove" SR would also "disprove"
> any prefered-frame theory which had clocks slow down with velocity
> relative to the absolute frame.
This is a laugh. It is the reciprocity that gives Dingle two different
ratios. It
is therefore trivial that a preferred frame theory would yield no
contradiction.
It is obvious from this that you did not even read my post where I finally
explained it quite well. It is unfortunate as I actually thought that you
might be able to understand it.
H.Ellis Ensle
michael holmes
>
>[snip lengthy bandwidth wasting quote]
>
>: Don't waste bandwith...
Hey, look!!11! I'm wasting bandwidth!!!11!
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Tee-hee
Mike
GLOBARR
In <397A7CF...@xroads.com>
Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> wrote:
Ref: A multitude of titles! One was:
Re: In science, we do not have the right to choose
<397A28B6...@xroads.com>
<20000722231343...@ng-fo1.aol.com>
> . . .
O'Barr, you didn't stay on topic as far as I'm concerned, so I
changed the title of the post to reflect this change. I don't
believe that it's even right to keep a thread title just for the
sake of doing so. I don't give a damn if you defined "reality"
somewhere in this NG at some time before, if you didn't define
"reality" or contribute directly to that focus YOU WERE OFF
TOPIC in this thread.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
I did define reality, yet you said, and still say, I didn't.
But I see that you did not post what I had said so that others
could judge for themselves. You also once said that you were
concerned if this was done, and now you say you are not
concerned. I guess you are just having a bad day!
Reany wrote:
If the topic goes off thread title then the title should be
changed. Otherwise, posters who have stopped viewing (or never
started to view) a thread will not know that there's been a
topic shift that they might be interested in. I guess this
concept it too deep for you, or you're just too fastidious to
bend to reason. The simplest solution to this "problem" is to
try to stay on topic as long as there's something more to say.
Frankly, O'Barr, I thought your reply to my post was completely
extraneous to the topic, and amounted to no more than another
boring restatement of your mantra: Ether is God.
O'Barr comments:
The ether theory is superior to SR. Of this, no sane person
can doubt. The ether theory has the exact same math as SR.
Thus its predictions are just as perfect, just as exact, just as
complete as SR. The ether is just as proved as SR. It is thus
the most well proved physical theory that has ever existed!
Therefore, on a math level, LET is fully equal to SR. But
LET has the power to explain. It can even explain SR. LET,
being a physical theory, limits the math, and it is limited
exactly as the evidence requires. In the ether, you never have
any fundamental breaks in symmetry, as constantly occurs in SR.
In the ether, there is never any real back-in-time, no
paradoxes, real or imagined. In the ether, you have simple
vector additions of velocity. The physics is simple Newtonian
physics, and it is in simple 3-D space and simple and
independent 1-D time.
And why end the discussion at this point? The ether is
physically doable. Nothing is physically doable in SR. It is
physically impossible to have 4-D spacetime continuums. It is
physically impossible to have back-in-time. It is physically
impossible to have math (geometry) in control of physical
effects. SR is simply impossible! It is nothing but Voodoo,
and those who try to believe in SR are Voodoo doctors!
> O'Barr comments:
> In science, we do not have the right to choose! The choice
> is forced upon us by the results of our experiments, and by
> the power of logic.
Reany wrote:
Inductive or deductive logic? Are you really so naive to
believe that human physical theories force only one
interpretation on science ALL the time? Science is a mere human
invention and servant of humankind. But to you it is god and
master. Your fascist science.
O'Barr comments:
I do believe that science is very restrictive. That is why
the best science in one country should be identical to any other
country: We do not get to choose our science! It seems as if
things are not going your way, and so now you want to allow
science to bend! But science will not bend, and the ether will
become fully accepted over SR.
Reany wrote:
Tough break yet again, O'Barr. Since you chose to *not* deal
with the topic in the thread title you *insisted* on using, I
had to change it to something that ACTUALLY DEALS with the
content of your post.
O'Barr comments:
I guess to satisfy you, we will need 5 or 6 titles all
simultaneously. But one thing is for sure, you are a beaten
man. You cannot change the fact that the ether concept is
superior to SR, and for this reason, all you can do is run and
hide. You will not and you cannot debate the fact that the
ether is superior! What a sorry state to be in! And it is all
because you worship SR! Why can you not say that there are
areas where you can see benefits in the ether? Several SR
experts have now agreed to such! Are you that blinded by your
religion that you cannot???? Shame on you!!!!!!!!
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to imporve the SR FAQ)
Harold Ensle
H.Dingle,"The case against special relativity",Nature 216,119 (1967)
H.Ellis Ensle
>
Wayne Throop
: Dingle determines the *same* ratio from *two different* frames of
: reference. If you don't realize this then clearly you have not even
: begun to understand his argument.
No, he doesn't. As hma...@oberlein.com pointed out,
the ratios he determiend are formally dtau/dt for constant xi,
and dt/dtau for constant x. This is NOT the same ratio in two systems.
If you don't realize this,
then you need to take calculus 101, and pay attention this time.
:: the physical situation Dingle uses to "disprove" SR would also
:: "disprove" any prefered-frame theory which had clocks slow down with
:: velocity relative to the absolute frame.
: This is a laugh.
It sure is. Dingle's error is genuinely, LAUGHABLY bad.
: It is the reciprocity that gives Dingle two different ratios.
But you get the two ratios without the reciprocity, as I showed
quite clearly. See http://sheol.org/throopw/dingle-paradox01.html
See? No reciprocity whatsoever. We simply set the clocks
as Dingle says they were set, then calculate their readings,
presuming one clock slows down because of its absolute velocity,
and the other does not because it is at absolute rest.
If you don't realize this, quite clearly you really need some
remedial high-school algebra.
: It is obvious from this that you did not even read my post where I
: finally explained it quite well.
Is it really too much to ask you for a message ID, or other reference by
which I can check whether I have already read this alleged "explanation"
or not, and point out your errors if I haven't already?
Or, lacking that, simply point out which step
of the absolute-frame calculation I got wrong, and why.
Be specific.
Harold Marcus
>> one giving the derivative of A's time with respect to B's time
>> along B's worldline, and another giving the derivative of B's
>> time with respect to A's time along A's worldline. This is
>> nothing but the partial derivatives of the temporal component
>> of the Lorentz transformation t' = (t-vx)/g and it's inverse
>> t = (t'+vx')/g where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2). Obviously we have the
>> partials Dt'/Dt = Dt/Dt' = 1/g. These are the two "ratios" that
>> Dingle constructs (awkwardly). If, like Dingle and Ensle, we
>> erroneously believe that the partials Dx/Dy and Dy/Dx are the
>
>Dingle (nor I) even claim this. This is a lie. If anyone looks
>at argument they will not find the symbol 'D' at all. You are making
>this up. If you want to argue, use the math as it is written, don't
>make up some absurd garbage, claim that I wrote it (when I didn't),
>and then say it is wrong.
You and Dingle have both claimed that partial derivatives can be
algebraically inverted, although I'm sure neither of you understood
what you were saying. Dingle's argument is presented on the web page
at http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle3.html. Here's the
significant part:
Herbert Dingle wrote:
>[described A and B as clocks in uniform relative motion, and defines
>a=sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).]
>Shortly however we reach a contradiction. Between events E0 and E1,
>A advances by t1 and B by t'1 = a t1. Therefore:
>
> rate of A t1 1
> --------- = ---- = --- (3)
> rate of B a t1 a
>
>However between events E0 and E2, B advances by t'2 and A by
>t2 = a t'2. Then:
>
> rate of A a t'2
> --------- = ----- = a (4)
> rate of B t'2
>
>Equations (3) and (4) are contradictory; one result is the reciprocal
>of the other.
Do you see? Events E0 and E1 are on a worldline at rest with respect
to B's frame of reference, so equation (3) is nothing but the partial
derivative of t = (t+vx)/a with respect to t', which can be written
as Dt/Dt', and which does indeed equal 1/a. This is his equation (3),
which he writes in English as "rate of A / rate of B".
Then he considers the relative clock rates between events E0 and
E2, which are on a worldline at rest with respect to A's frame of
reference. The ratio that Dingle derives and presents as equation
(4) is precisely the reciprocal of the partial derivative of t' =
(t-vx)/a with respect to t, which can be written as 1/[Dt'/Dt],
and which does indeed equal a. Unfortunately, Dingle conflates
1/[Dt'/Dt] with Dt/Dt' in writing equation (4) as "rate of A / rate
of B". But as every high school calculus student knows, Dx/Dy is
not generally the algebraic reciprocal of Dy/Dx.
Dingle's elaborate scenario involving four different worldlines,
two different frames of reference, and three "events" is just a
clumsey and needlessly laborious way of evaluating the partials of
the Lorentz transformation. The problem is, Dingle then algebraically
inverts one of these partials, and claims a contradiction. If his
argument was valid, then obviously the Lorentz transform and its
inverse would be logically inconsistent, but so would every other
function of more than one variable, and all of mathematics would
come crumbling down. Special relativity would be the LEAST of our
worries. Fortunately, none of these dire consequences have come
to pass, because Dingle is just trivially mistaken. His analysis
of the Lorentz transformation would get him flunked out of any
high school calculus class.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> Correct. But it still hinges on a definition of "reality" and I know of no
>>> generally accepted definition of "reality" in the halls of science.
>>
>> the assumptions used by Bell to prove his famous inequality, are
>> generally accepted notions of classical realism.
>
> False. A "notion of classical realism" is *not* a definition of "reality."
> Define "reality" that most physicists agree on!
I have a nice, well agreed definition of classical realism. In this
concept, reality is defined by the realistic theory.
The thesis that reality is theory-dependent is something I think most
physicicst will agree.
> And connect that meaning to the person-in-the-street's definition of
> "reality"
That's unproblematic too. The person-in-the-street can understand
very well that different theories (atomic theory, old theory of
elementary particles, quark theory) have different descriptions of
reality (consists of atoms, elementary particle, quarks).
> because that IS what Daniel Weston expects to be the case, if I'm
> not mistaken! I don't think that Daniel is interested in a pluralism
> of theory-dependent notions of TRUE REALITIES. Neither am I.
Who cares? That's your problem. Or you want to understand some
generally accepted points about "reality" in science, or you are not
interested.
If you are more interested in common things about reality in different
physical theories, I have given you the answer too: there is agreement
about classical realism. That means, there are classical realistic
theories, and in all these classical realistic theories reality has
some common properties - the properties of classical realism. These
are well-defined and agreed upon.
There is nothing comparable (AFAIK) for "quantum realism".
> Is there a precisely defined boundary between classical realism and
> nonclassical realism?
Yes, most physicists accept the EPR criterion of reality as such a
boundary (IMHO).
>> It is better to use the prefix "classical" here, because many
>> mainstream scientists reject classical realism but prefer to think of
>> themself as realists. Their notion of realism is, indeed, quite
>> undefined.
> I know. That is blatantly contradictory. I asked for a definition
> and even you haven't given one.
So what? If there is none for non-classical realism, that's not my
problem. I defend classical realism. If my competitors are confused
about realism, that's not my problem.
> I challenge any scientist that believes that science discovers
> reality as truth to present a definition of "reality" and "truth."
I define reality accepting classical realism, and truth as
correspondence with reality.
I believe that science sometimes allows to discover truths, sometimes
fails, and unfortunately we have no criterion of truth, thus, even if
we have found some truth, we are unable to prove that it is truth.
> Most people on this NG who defend that science deals with "reality" assume that
> reality is uniquely determinable
Oh, who are these strange guys?
>> Instead, classical realism is a well-defined and generally accepted
>> concept.
> So, well-define it for us
----------
Assume we have an experiment described by observables X with
the observable probability distribution rho_X(X,x)dX. It depends
on a set of control parameters x which describe the
experimental setup (the decisions of experimenters).
A theory is realistic if it describes such probability distributions
based on a notion of reality -- a space Lambda (reality) with
probability distribution rho_lambda(lambda)dlambda -- and a
realistic explanation -- a function X(x,lambda) -- so that for a
test function f
int f(X)rho_X(X,x)dX=int f(X(x,lambda))rho(lambda) dlambda
----------
> and show its relevance to what Daniel Weston wants!
I don't know Daniel Weston. You have asked for a definition, I have
given one.
>> That's simple. The statements about reality are themself part of the
>> theory. If the theory is true, they really, objectively describe
>> reality.
>
> Wonderful circular logic.
Its not very deep, quite simple, tautological, but in no way circular.
Statements about truth values of statements of a theory should not be
part of the theory, but can be only part of some different metatheory.
> Look everyone and observe just why Science had given up on the
> hopeless quest for ultimate truth.
You mingle two things: search for truth (without such search there is
no science) and search for a criterion of truth, which allows some
ultimate statements about truth (given up).
> Schmelzer, I doubt that you speak for many physicists. Not a single
> one I ever known or know.
Fell free to ask others. I'm speaking for myself. My position about
classical realism is not mainstream - I accept classical realism, the
mainstream rejects classical realism. But I see no reason to suspect
that we disagree about the definition of classical realism.
> I've discussed the philosophy of physics for 25 years now with
> physicists and you don't represent any of them on the subject of
> realism in science.
But you seem to have no idea about Popper's philosophy, it seems?
> And though I suppose that most of those physicists believe in an
> independent physical reality, not one of them, if I pinned them down
> to it, would claim that science can tell us what that reality is.
Of course - science makes only hypotheses about reality.
> Who could prove such a thing?
Nobody, scientific theories are hypotheses, and cannot be proven.
> For most physicists just mentioning the phrase "quantum mechanics"
> is enough to drain them of any energy to defend "realism" in
> physics,
The QM problems may be solved without rejecting classical realism.
> but my arguments against realism in physics are much deeper than QM
> and do not in any way depend on it. No one can prove that Eddington
> was wrong in his belief of "selective subjectivism." My arguments
> against realism in physics are just as effective in classical
> physics. How can reality be contingent upon human instrumentation?
> On arbitrary definitions, models, choices of units? Who could prove
> such things?
So, your arguments are in no way new, but very very old stuff. Nobody
can prove such things, and nobody cares, because proving scientific
theories has been given up long ago.
> If the theory *defines* "reality" and there are different theories
> of "objective" reality then you are never going to connect with what
> Daniel Weston is after. Or me either for that matter. If reality
> isn't unique,
You mingle it again. Reality is unique. Our theories about reality
are different, but only some of them - which do not contradict each
other - may be true. Simplifying the issue we can say only one of
them is true.
But, even if we don't know which theory is true, most of them (AFAIU)
have a unique reality. So, whatever theory among them is true,
reality is unique.
> Physical theories are merely instruments for mental convenience and empirical
> prediction with no PROVABLE connection to metaphysical reality. Prove that ANY
> THEORY at all in physics IS TRUE.
I don't even claim this.
>>> Reality is personal;
>> No. Personal is your choice to prefer a particular theory as the
>> IYO best guess about truth.
> No. Definitely not! I am not interested at all in the "truth" of any
> physical theory, since it's a completely superfluous and specious
> notion in science! The only truth I need in science is in the
> reporting of experimentalists in the collection of their data.
Who cares what you need in science? Take what you need, that's your
choice. Feel free to ignore whatever you like. Reality and science
do not care.
> Schmelzer, I find your characterizations of my beliefs disingenuous.
It doesn't require much ingenuity to characterize them as personal ;-)
> You already know that I'm an instrumentalist, completely
> uninterested in ineffable "true theories."
So what? BTW, as a pragmatical instrumentalist I would prefer to have
a true theory, simply because it seldom fails in its predictions.
> As far as I'm concerned Schmelzer lost the debate already because he
> did not define "reality" commonly accepted by most physicists today,
> which is what I requested. In fact, Schmelzer supports my thesis by
> saying that, "Their [most "realist" scientists's] notion of realism
> is, indeed, quite undefined."
The notion of classical realism I defend is well-defined, about the
notions of realism of people who reject classical realism I don't care
much.
> Theories have NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH TRUTH because no one can
> prove the truth of any theory at all!
Nonsense. They are attempts to find truth.
I have no proof that my car will drive. Therefore, cares have nothing
to do with driving?
> I will give my definition of a *stipulated* "objective reality" in
> *physics*: "Objective reality" is the intersection of all physical
> theories accepted by the majority of physicists at any given
> instant.
Horrible. Its preferable to have no definition at all instead of
this.
> Daniel, Your case has been "defended" by the self-proclaimed
> scientific **anarchist**, Ilja Schmelzer, who does *not* define
> "reality,"
I do.
> admits that it's undefined by most self-proclaimed "realist"
> scientists,
I don't.
> and contends that whatever reality is, it's pluralistic and
> dependent on the current beliefs of physicists through their
> theories.
I don't.
> Don't you find that ironic?!
No, only frustrating that you misinterpret my posting.
> Ilja, My guess is that Daniel isn't much happier with your
> explanation than he was with mine.
I don't care about Daniel's happiness.
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> , http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
> just not on line, right?
Sorry, but discussions about "is-relativity-true" are clearly on-topic
here.
> Yes there's plenty of diversity of opinion *expressed* but only on
> two main subjects: "reality in science" and "ether vs SR", both of
> which amount to saying "SR is FALSE"! But neither of these are of
> much practical use to high school or undergraduate physics students,
> who get the very short end of the deal because of all the noise
> here.
If they are unable to use kill-files, its their problem.
> And they are represented completely out of proportion in relation to
> the broad purpose for this NG.
You seem to have no idea about the broad purpose for this NG.
(It was to remove exactly these discussions away from sci.physics)
> Why do you suppose that the relativity interests were kicked out of
> sci.physics and "politely" asked not to be included by cross posting
> to it (as I recall it)? Well, it's happened again IMO.
No. To post "ether vs. relativity" is on-topic here, no crossposting.
> I don't see why you say "dogma of relativity."
The reasonable guess is that the poster doesn't believe into
relativity.
> What do you expect on sci.physics.relativity???
If you don't know, read the charta.
> This is not sci.physics.is-relativity-true!!
In some sense, it is. In which group a claim "relativity is false" is
on-topic, if not in sci.physics.relativity?
Joe Fischer
: Patrick Reany <re...@xroads.com> writes:
: > just not on line, right?
:
: Sorry, but discussions about "is-relativity-true" are clearly
: on-topic here.
Right, but trying to sell ether theory as true is not,
that becomes a problem that confuses the layman reader if any
people who are selling ether post from college computers or
use college names as the posters organization.
: > Yes there's plenty of diversity of opinion *expressed* but only on
: > two main subjects: "reality in science" and "ether vs SR", both of
: > which amount to saying "SR is FALSE"! But neither of these are of
: > much practical use to high school or undergraduate physics students,
: > who get the very short end of the deal because of all the noise
: > here.
:
: If they are unable to use kill-files, its their problem.
There is a bigger problem, and it is that ether theories
are known to be unworkable, and all models that require a medium
to interact to cause freefall are known to be unworkable.
Learning LET for comparison with SR is useful to
teach theoretical comparison of models, but surely educators
must have assumed that anybody with an IQ over 20 would
realize that the comparison is just an exercise, and would
not give any credence to ether theory of any kind.
: > And they are represented completely out of proportion in relation to
: > the broad purpose for this NG.
:
: You seem to have no idea about the broad purpose for this NG.
: (It was to remove exactly these discussions away from sci.physics)
Which is the mosty obscene reaon I can think of.
: > Why do you suppose that the relativity interests were kicked out of
: > sci.physics and "politely" asked not to be included by cross posting
: > to it (as I recall it)? Well, it's happened again IMO.
:
: No. To post "ether vs. relativity" is on-topic here, no crossposting.
Ether theory articles should be identified in the
subject line (by either the word "ether" or "stupid").
: > I don't see why you say "dogma of relativity."
:
: The reasonable guess is that the poster doesn't believe into
: relativity.
You personally have been very knowledgeable, and
polite, but others have not, and I see no reason to not
respond in kind.
What could possibly be the objective of a person
entering a forum where most participants want to discuss
relativity, and post articles selling books on ether and
autistic dynamics.
It is like a Chevy salesman going into a Ford
sales room and trying to talk the occupants into buying
Chevy (or vice versa).
: > What do you expect on sci.physics.relativity???
:
: If you don't know, read the charta.
Do you mean the etherists don't have a home,
and want charity welfare in this group instead of
starting their own?
: > This is not sci.physics.is-relativity-true!!
:
: In some sense, it is. In which group a claim "relativity is false" is
: on-topic, if not in sci.physics.relativity?
In which group would "see how stupid I am" be on topic?
You start one, and I will post there. :-)
Joe Fischer
--
3
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Dingle determines the *same* ratio from *two different* frames of reference.
> If you don't realize this then clearly you have not even begun to
> understand his argument.
>
SR agrees with that. It's called mutual time dilation.
There's nothing physically wrong with that in SR because
two observers disagree about the events they ought to
compare their clocks at. That's called relativity of
simultaneity.
Understanding mutual time dilation involves more than
comparing clock rates. It involves understanding how
two observers would do that when they don't agree about
which events are simultaneous.
Stop trying to pretend that you understand SR when you
obviously don't. Your arguments and Dingle's are based
on a very limited understanding of the theory.
You're still full of shit.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> <and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:39791F...@attglobal.net...
> > Harold Ensle wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. H.Dingle really saw what was going on. He also had a simple proof
> that
> > > showed that SR was impossible. For some reason SRists can't seem to
> > > understand it.
> > >
> >
> > They do understand it. They understand why it's wrong.
> > You keep posting things here that purport to disprove
> > SR and they're all crap. They just show that you don't
> > understand SR.
> >
> No they don't, nor do you. If you understood it, you would
> never accept it as it is hopelessly flawed. You really need
> to study these things more closely.
>
Dingle shows that two inertial observers in SR ought to agree
on mutual time dilation. SR agrees with that. Dingle concludes
that this is impossible. It is, if you can actually measure
the relative rates of the observer's clocks using the same events.
You can do this in Galilean relativity. You can't in SR because, in SR,
the observers disagree about which events to compare elapsed
clock readings at. You want to compare readings
at simultaneous events. But in SR, the two observers disagree
about which events are simultaneous. It's called
relativity of simultaneity.
You and Dingle are attacking an SR that doesn't exist.
Namely one that has a time scaling factor but absolute
simultaneity.
I suggest that you go and understand something about
SR. You've been claiming that you understand it
for years, but your objections to it have nothing to
do with the real theory.
John Anderson
Harold Ensle
Not generally, but if they are constant....Dx/Dy *does* equal Dy/Dx,
So what's your point? Dingle was correct. The problem is you bring in
a lot of unecessary complications here with which you end up only
confusing yourself. I would suggest you read my version of Dingle's
argument very carefully.
H.Ellis Ensle
Harold Ensle
> : "Harold Ensle" <hen...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Dingle determines the *same* ratio from *two different* frames of
> : reference. If you don't realize this then clearly you have not even
> : begun to understand his argument.
>
> the ratios he determiend are formally dtau/dt for constant xi,
> and dt/dtau for constant x. This is NOT the same ratio in two systems.
Well..apparently you are claiming here that the ratio he says must be the
same
does not have to be the same after all. That's like saying, since SR allows
contradiction
SR is not disproven by contradiction. I see your problem here. You do not
see that the ratio has to be the same for both observers.
> If you don't realize this,
> then you need to take calculus 101, and pay attention this time.
Why do both of you keep bringing up calculus? There is no calculus
in this problem. It is all just algebra. You need to take high school
algebra, and pay attention this time.
> :: the physical situation Dingle uses to "disprove" SR would also
> :: "disprove" any prefered-frame theory which had clocks slow down with
> :: velocity relative to the absolute frame.
>
> : This is a laugh.
>
> It sure is. Dingle's error is genuinely, LAUGHABLY bad.
>
> : It is the reciprocity that gives Dingle two different ratios.
>
> But you get the two ratios without the reciprocity, as I showed
> quite clearly.
What??????Maybe if you do the problem wrong.
See http://sheol.org/throopw/dingle-paradox01.html
>
> See? No reciprocity whatsoever. We simply set the clocks
> as Dingle says they were set, then calculate their readings,
> presuming one clock slows down because of its absolute velocity,
> and the other does not because it is at absolute rest.
>
> If you don't realize this, quite clearly you really need some
> remedial high-school algebra.
>
> : It is obvious from this that you did not even read my post where I
> : finally explained it quite well.
>
> Is it really too much to ask you for a message ID, or other reference by
> which I can check whether I have already read this alleged "explanation"
> or not, and point out your errors if I haven't already?
>
> Or, lacking that, simply point out which step
> of the absolute-frame calculation I got wrong, and why.
> Be specific.
>
OK. Simply assume that AH is at rest then t1'=t1/gamma. Now NB cannot
assume itself to be at rest (no reciprocity) so to determine the ratio you
would
have to solve the above equation to get the proper relation hence:
t2=t2'*gamma,
thus it is trivial that:
rate of A/B by AH's view is t1'/t1=t1/(t1*gamma)=1/gamma
rate of A/B by BN's view is t2'/t2=t2'/(t2'*gamma)=1/gamma
no problem
H.Ellis Ensle