 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Is physics a science?... |
|
Page 5 of 26 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 24, 25, 26 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| doug... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 10:43 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
[some parts snipped for brevity]
No. In the analogy each of the modifications are identifiable and
testable. You can define what you mean by air. You can independently
test the interaction between air and the projectile.
Precisely. And you can independently test for the Higgs. The presence
of the Higgs has specific, testable implications that are *different*
than the particles just having mass. It's those implications that are
on the agenda to be tested at LHC (and at FNAL).
You understand this now?
I understand what you are *saying*.
And you doubt that it is happening with the Higgs?
I'd say talk when you have something to talk about...
[/quote]
So you were just babbling.
[quote]
Alchemy might be a better analogy where the Higgs field = The
philosopher's stone except that the philosopher's stone only had to
transmute one metal into another not transmute something with no mass to
something with mass - which would appear to require an entirely new
definition of mass.
Why would it require a new definition of mass? Are you under the
impression that mass is conserved? Wherever did you get that idea?
Well?
Mass/energy is conserved surely.
Energy is. Mass is not.
Then E != mc^2... and/or the dimensions of energy isn't mass speed
squared... Are you saying the current conservation laws aren't true?
OK let us apply your own criteria of acceptability to Maxwell/Lorentz's
aether. The general properties are that a field maps an altered state in
the aether (analogous to a stress pattern). This accounts for action at
a distance due for example to the interaction of the two 'stress'
patterns caused by charge.
Note it accounts for ONE interaction at a distance. Not several.
You see this?
No. Explain.
There are four exhibited interactions and they are all fundamentally
different. The coupling constants are different, the coupling charges
on fermions are all independent of each other, they have different
gauge symmetries, and their intermediate bosons are all dramatically
different beasts.
The effect of the Lorentz mechanism would have to appear in each of
them independently...
Why?
[/quote]
He just explained that. Read it.
[quote]
... and identically, ...
Yes, if the source is the same, who 'you' expect different outcomes?
... but because the structure of the
interactions are all different, the mechanism that makes this happen
would have to be different for each one, ...
Not really...
[/quote]
So just a random dismissal with no justification other than your
ignorance/prejudice.
[quote]
... all conspiring to just happen
to produce a similar effect. There is a paper from the mid-1970's that
explains this, but I can't remember the author off the top of my head.
As with any medium a 'stress' may propagate
at a characteristic speed which - from the measured properties of the
aether- permeability and permittivity - that speed can be determined as
c. When the theory is properly applied (by Lorentz) - taking into
account the action at a distance role of theaetherand that all
physical object (e.g. measurement apparatus) is held together by action
at a distance force - one concludes that the MMX was incapable of
detecting motion w.r.t theaether. This is constantly being
mis-represented as "it is impossible to detect theaether" The only
thing one cannot detect is ones *absolute* speed w.r.t theaether. There
are at least two testable predictions w.r.t theaetherhypothesis. The
first is that if you change the speed of the source there will be no
change in the measured speed of light because the speed of propagation
is controlled by theaether.
And notice that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
The second is that if you change your speed
there will be an immediate change in frequency due to Doppler. In other
words while you cannot measure your absolute speed w.r.t the aether you
can detect a change in speed relative to the aether.
And notice again that this is not a DISTINGUISHING prediction.
And you see these too?
I don't accept that. I don't accept that there is a physical explanation
consistent with SR with believable causality. I do not accept your
convoluted semantics trying to muddy the water.
It's not convoluted. It's really quite simple.
Predictions are of the following form:
Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X in
quantity Q.
Another model distinguishes itself by making a distinctive measurable
prediction:
Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X' in
quantity Q'.
or possibly just
Given circumstances C, you will observe measurable outcome X in
quantity Q'.
Ah, if only that were true... Model A says given circumstances C, but
model B says the very same thing but also extends to other
circumstances D, E, & F. Now other models also cover D, E, & F but
are not integrated.
[/quote]
You did not understand what PD said. Try again. Both models
will cover all choices.
[quote]
Then it is really easy to test which one is right.
1. Find or create a system where circumstances C prevail
2. Make the observation to see if X or X' is the outcome.
3. If X is the outcome, see if it is in quantity Q or Q'.
This is not convoluted semantics. This is PRECISELY how science works.
The result is unambiguous and you can tell right away which model is
favored.
That's back to what I told you earlier (and refernced Feynman's little
tale) about the recent dumbing down of standards... John doesn't have
to accept that any more than I do. Science isn't a social club or a
religion, majority doesn't always rule.
[/quote]
You do not like how science works but that will keep you
ignorant. You are not required to accept reality. You
are welcome to your delusions.
[quote]
What makes you think that Maxwell/Lorentza ether is in any way ruled
out? You believe in fields, in action at a distance force, energy
propagation, source independence and Doppler shift all explained by the
aether. On what basis can you label it "crackpot-stuff". AFAICS compared
to much which is accepted in modern physics it would seem totally sane.
If now you take SR which replaced it then that is purely a mathematical
model - an identical mathematical model. It *assumes* source
independence but makes no attempt to explain why speed should be
independent of motion of the source.
Yes it does. The structure of spacetime explains it.
It does not...
[/quote]
Sure it does. You just do not understand/like it. Your personal
prejudices do not constitute a requirement for the universe
or science.
[quote]
Space time is a mathematical construct. It does not have a physical
structure.
That's incorrect, according to physicists. You have DECLARED that your
DEFINITION of spacetime does not permit it to have physical structure.
Physicists on the other hand say that what it is that actually exists
in nature when you remove matter from that region in space and time is
what we *call* spacetime, and yes of course it has measurable physical
properties.
WHAT GIVE IT THOSE QUANTITIES? That's what John is talking about.
Your dancing around the issue not withstanding!
[/quote]
There is no dancing around. You do not like the answers so you
want to move the questions to an area you like better. However
your aether explains nothing more. You cannot explain the speed
of light. You hide by saying you have derived it from mu and
epsilon. It is rather that mu and epsilon come from the speed
of light. They are just units conversions.
[quote]
The rest is semantics. You are insisting that physicists are
mislabeling that thing that actually exists in nature, because the
label doesn't meet YOUR definition of "spacetime", which YOU insist
can have no physical properties by YOUR definition.
No, they just accept it as 'that's just the way it is...'!
[/quote]
See, you are just trying to bluster your prejudices to acceptance.
That is not going to happen.
[quote]
It is built assuming source independence you cannot turn
around and claim it is the cause.
!!!!!!? Why don't you stick with reality. Einstein ASSUMED source
independence from Maxwell's theory which says that the speed of light is
controlled by the aether so the sources movement cannot affect it.
Einstein interpreted the MMX, in terms of Maxwell's theory as showing
that for some reason an observer is always stationary w.r.t theaether.
He totally ignored the fact that light is particulate and that Maxwell's
wave inaethertheory was seriously compromised. He produced the same
maths as Lorentz.
The maths are based on the assumption of source independence and
observer independence. Those maths were taken by Minkowski who
reproduced them in diagrammatic form. And you are saying that that
diagram predicts source independence and observer independence? Doh!
The Minkowski structure DOES predict source and observer independence,
yes. Regardless of the circuitous path taken to arrive at it.
The problem is, for Minkowski's structure you NEED! the aether's
behavior. It is a result, not a cause. Tell us how you can get there
without finite c and source speed independence.
[/quote]
Minkowski's structure gives us a finite ca and source speed
independence.
[quote]
It was BUILT on that assumption. How can it possibly NOT predict source
and observer independence!
No sir. It was INFERRED from them.
He's right, you're wrong. You cannot even get Minkowski space WITHOUT
the behavior. Saying its inferred is circular...
[/quote]
No, you are also ignorant of logic.
[quote]
It is the deeper structure that
ACCOUNTS for those assumptions.
[/quote]
There is no deeper structure. You are just trying to divert
attention here.
[quote]This is what I'm telling you.
We INFER deeper structures that account for assumptions, and we make
that inference chronologically AFTER the assumptions are made. This
does not mean that the deeper structures follow FROM the assumptions.
Just the reverse -- the assumptions are explained because of the
inferred deeper structure.
Circular logic...
[/quote]
Which is what you are doing and trying to project on science.
[quote]
What you are saying is akin to saying that Newton's universal law of
gravity ASSUMES Kepler's laws and uses Kepler's laws as a conceptual
foundation. It does not. Newton's law of gravity EXPLAINS Kepler's
laws, even though it was discovered AFTER Kepler laid out his laws.
The above is a direct mathematical resultant, if A then B...
[/quote]
You are not being consistent in your reasoning.
[quote]
Unless Minkowski did his maths wrong it is bound to. It is completely
circular.
No it is not. It is INDUCTIVE.
Oh a new bit of semantics
Not at all. It is how science works. Frankly, I'm astonished you
didn't know this.
For John, PD is in love with inductive logic and tends to discount
superior qualities of deductive logic.
[/quote]
John does not know any science either and really, really wants
his prejudices to get accepted. That will not happen either.
He would, as you would be better served learning something
about the real world of science.
[quote]
This seems to be a place where you get consistently bogged down.
No it is a place where you and others live with the mathematical model
so long it seems 'real' to you and you cease to see it for what it is.
When
scientist figure out an explanation, what happens is that they notice
a regularity in the behavior of nature, and they inductively infer
*later* a basis for that regularity. It is not the case that the
observed regularity is the conceptual basis or underlying explanation
in the theory, it is the inductively inferred statements. Likewise, if
a model asserts a couple of unsupported postulates, and further
examination of the postulates allows you to *later infer* a conceptual
basis for the postulates, then it is not the postulates that remain
the conceptual explanation in the model, it is the later inferred
basis.
It translates to "If the original justification for the postulates is
acutely embarrassing and you wrap it up in sophisticated looking maths
you can claim those maths as the origin and avoid the embarrassment. The
second postulate is in effect saying every observer is stationary w.r.t
theaether- and empirical interpretation of the MMX.
Science works from back to front.
you like to re-write history.
I'm sorry, but this is how science works. See my comment above.
The history actually says otherwise, look at Whittaker's book...
I appreciate that it is a better way of presenting it to some
naive student than saying that Einstein's second postulate describes
what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would experience. I am not
a naive student and neither are you. Are you a lecturer in physics by
any chance?
You didn't answer?
Why is that relevant? Let's stick to the physics content.
John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you are
probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your[/quote]
personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
ignorant? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:43 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
Neither does it explain why the
speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails
totally to
explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes
instantly.
On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains the
former,
and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
Derived maybe. Explained no.
If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework then
this is an explanation.
There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source
changes its
speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in
both cases
that the change in frequency is due to a different wavelength
being
generated at the source so my change of speed has to affect the
past
Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part. There is no
implication that the observer has causally reached through time to
alter the source.
Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept that what
I do
cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on the
grounds of
causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out  )
If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my relationship
with the
light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1 year
previously. What is the physical nature of that change of
relationship?
A change in reference frame.
Here, let's take a classical example to make it more sensible to you.
Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun. It is going
to collide with a tree stump and leave a certain amount of energy in
the stump. We could, if we wish, use information from sensors attached
to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the stump and use
that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame dependent. In
one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
different than what it is in another reference frame. Gathering
information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate to THAT
reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference frame in
which I will gather measurements about the collision of the bullet and
the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's kinetic energy
before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to influence
the gun or the bullet in flight. Yet the kinetic energy is a frame-
dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with measurements taken
in the stump.
If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with CLASSICAL
mechanics.
You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact a physics
lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a standard
"put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by belittling
him when he has in fact made an intelligent comment. It is CRAP, and I
believe that you are intelligent enough to know it is CRAP which means
you are dishonest. For the sake of any student who has been put down in
this way I say the following.
If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is change my
VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY has changed
w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of reference" is a
mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in describing what
is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is introduced to
obscure.
It is not crap, it is not even relativistic physics. It is CLASSICAL
physics, which is the point I was trying to make to you.
A given physical process and set of events is something that takes
place in multiple reference frames at the same time. There is no need
for a single observer to change motion to move from one reference
frame to another. The principle of relativity is about a comparison of
those events as described in multiple reference frames at the same
time. This is a CLASSICAL physics concept.
As I said earlier, if you are having problem with classical physics,
let's straighten that out first before you further the confusion in
relativity.
Still crap. And you are intelligent enough to realise it.
[/quote]
Yes, we realize that your comments are all crap.
All the
[quote]CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a change in
speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some things are
frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent. Classical
Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
classical physics ARE frame dependent
The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to something and a
parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that parameter
will change.
[/quote]
You are putting in your prejudices here.
[quote]
That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR denies
that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time between
pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t the light
pulses.
[/quote]
See, you do not understand this at all.
[quote]
I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am changing from
one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always had, to
another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which it always
had. This means that the physical spacing between the light pulses has
an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that one FoR
can magically support a different physical reality than another FoR.
That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously exist.
A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate physical
reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a FoR can
do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it so long
you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy CANNOT have
an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that your speed
w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different interval. The
different interval is direct evidence that your real speed w.r.t the
light has changed.
You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that with what
is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
physical terms without mentioning frames which do not physically exist.
[/quote]
You are locked into wanting an explanation which fits your prejudices.
The universe does not care what you want.
[quote]
[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer from one
reference frame to another snipped]
WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.
[/quote]
You have been ignoring your errors for a long time.
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:18 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:13 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:43 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
Neither does it explain why the
speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails
explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes
instantly.
On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains
and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
Derived maybe. Explained no.
If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework then
this is an explanation.
There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source
changes its
speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in
both cases
that the change in frequency is due to a different
wavelength being
generated at the source so my change of speed has to
affect the past
Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part.
implication that the observer has causally reached through time to
alter the source.
Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept
that what I do
cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on the
grounds of
causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out )
If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my relationship
with the
light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1 year
previously. What is the physical nature of that change of
relationship?
A change in reference frame.
Here, let's take a classical example to make it more sensible to you.
Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun. It is going
to collide with a tree stump and leave a certain amount of energy in
the stump. We could, if we wish, use information from sensors attached
to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the stump and use
that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame dependent. In
one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
different than what it is in another reference frame. Gathering
information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate to THAT
reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference frame in
which I will gather measurements about the collision of the bullet and
the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's kinetic energy
before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to influence
the gun or the bullet in flight. Yet the kinetic energy is a frame-
dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with measurements taken
in the stump.
If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with CLASSICAL
mechanics.
You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact a physics
lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a standard
"put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by belittling
him when he has in fact made an intelligent comment. It is CRAP, and I
believe that you are intelligent enough to know it is CRAP which means
you are dishonest. For the sake of any student who has been put down in
this way I say the following.
If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is change my
VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY has changed
w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of reference" is a
mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in describing what
is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is introduced to
obscure.
It is not crap, it is not even relativistic physics. It is CLASSICAL
physics, which is the point I was trying to make to you.
A given physical process and set of events is something that takes
place in multiple reference frames at the same time. There is no need
for a single observer to change motion to move from one reference
frame to another. The principle of relativity is about a comparison of
those events as described in multiple reference frames at the same
time. This is a CLASSICAL physics concept.
As I said earlier, if you are having problem with classical physics,
let's straighten that out first before you further the confusion in
relativity.
Still crap. And you are intelligent enough to realise it. All the
CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a change in
speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some things are
frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent. Classical
Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
classical physics ARE frame dependent
The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to something and a
parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that parameter
will change.
Really? Explain that to electric and magnetic fields.
Got an answer for this one?
[/quote]
Einstein wrote in 1905:
" Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the
one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in
motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a
current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we
find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path
and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
case."
As a matter of interest how do you teach that these days? Einstein
pointed out it was absurd but I'm not sure I was taught any different 60
years later.
[quote]
Bzzzt. Try again.
You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
aren't."
Pffft.
Distance is not first order frame dependent.
And we discussed this too.
It is frame-dependent, period.
[/quote]
Is it? I don't accept that it is. According to Essen an expert on both
time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. Measurement
involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways. Einstein had the
fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
(s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
definition*.
By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
measurement. To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units. According to
Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
nature but has been made so *by definition*. With that definition length
and time are frame dependent. If *by definition* you make length and
time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
units are.
You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
[quote]Whether the dependency is *calculated*
using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
[/quote]
I'm not interested in what you *calculate*. I want to know the physical
process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
[quote]That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR denies
that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time between
pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t the light
pulses.
I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am changing from
one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always had, to
another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which it always
had. This means that the physical spacing between the light pulses has
an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that one FoR
can magically support a different physical reality than another FoR.
That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously exist.
A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate physical
reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a FoR can
do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it so long
you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy CANNOT have
an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that your speed
w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different interval. The
different interval is direct evidence that your real speed w.r.t the
light has changed.
You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that with what
is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
physical terms without mentioning frames which do not physically exist.
[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer from one
reference frame to another snipped]
WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.
--[/quote]
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
[/quote]
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
[quote]
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 6:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
[quote]Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
[/quote]
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
[quote]Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
[/quote]
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 7:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
[/quote]
Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. Now, if two concepts
existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
structure and processes' I'll take the later as being better 'science'
every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
Cardinals do Or the law is what police do. It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior. Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period! It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
[quote]And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions
[/quote]
That statement is an oxymoron...
[quote]... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
[/quote]
Ignorance is never a good foundation in science. Understanding what
gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge. It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
fractals aren't acausal.
[quote]I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
[/quote]
No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
sole basis for those postulates.
[quote]Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
[/quote]
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question. For example, I
do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
physical terms. Those simply point to current ignorance and
unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
science as given above. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:18 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:13 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:43 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Kennaugh
J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
Neither does it explain why the
speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails
explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes
instantly.
On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains
and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
Derived maybe. Explained no.
If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework
then
this is an explanation.
There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source
changes its
speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in
both cases
that the change in frequency is due to a different
wavelength being
generated at the source so my change of speed has to
affect the past
Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part.
implication that the observer has causally reached through
time to
alter the source.
Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept
that what I do
cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on the
grounds of
causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out )
If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my relationship
with the
light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1 year
previously. What is the physical nature of that change of
relationship?
A change in reference frame.
Here, let's take a classical example to make it more sensible
to you.
Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun. It
is going
to collide with a tree stump and leave a certain amount of
energy in
the stump. We could, if we wish, use information from sensors
attached
to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the stump
and use
that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame
dependent. In
one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
different than what it is in another reference frame. Gathering
information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate to
THAT
reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference
frame in
which I will gather measurements about the collision of the
bullet and
the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's
kinetic energy
before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to
influence
the gun or the bullet in flight. Yet the kinetic energy is a
frame-
dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with measurements
taken
in the stump.
If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with
CLASSICAL
mechanics.
You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact a
physics
lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a standard
"put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by
belittling
him when he has in fact made an intelligent comment. It is
CRAP, and I
believe that you are intelligent enough to know it is CRAP
which means
you are dishonest. For the sake of any student who has been put
down in
this way I say the following.
If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is change my
VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY has
changed
w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of reference" is a
mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in
describing what
is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is
introduced to
obscure.
It is not crap, it is not even relativistic physics. It is CLASSICAL
physics, which is the point I was trying to make to you.
A given physical process and set of events is something that takes
place in multiple reference frames at the same time. There is no
need
for a single observer to change motion to move from one reference
frame to another. The principle of relativity is about a
comparison of
those events as described in multiple reference frames at the same
time. This is a CLASSICAL physics concept.
As I said earlier, if you are having problem with classical physics,
let's straighten that out first before you further the confusion in
relativity.
Still crap. And you are intelligent enough to realise it. All the
CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a
change in
speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some
things are
frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent. Classical
Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
classical physics ARE frame dependent
The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to something
and a
parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that parameter
will change.
Really? Explain that to electric and magnetic fields.
Got an answer for this one?
Einstein wrote in 1905:
" Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the
one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in
motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a
current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we
find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path
and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case."
As a matter of interest how do you teach that these days? Einstein
pointed out it was absurd but I'm not sure I was taught any different 60
years later.
Bzzzt. Try again.
You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
aren't."
Pffft.
Distance is not first order frame dependent.
And we discussed this too.
It is frame-dependent, period.
Is it? I don't accept that it is.
[/quote]
Denying reality has no effect on reality.
According to Essen an expert on both
[quote]time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule.
[/quote]
Essen was an anti relativity crank.
Measurement
[quote]involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways. Einstein had the
fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
(s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
definition*.
[/quote]
Except, of course, this is wrong. Time and distance are what we
measure. This has been known for a long time.
[quote]
By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
measurement.
[/quote]
No, c is MEASURED to be a constant. Therefore you attempts to
change that have to fail.
To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
[quote]well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units.
[/quote]
Of course this statement is wrong.
According to
[quote]Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
[/quote]
Except that it represents reality. You seem to not like reality at all.
[quote]
Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
nature but has been made so *by definition*.
[/quote]
No, by MEASUREMENT.
With that definition length
[quote]and time are frame dependent.
[/quote]
Which is shown true by measurement.
If *by definition* you make length and
[quote]time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
units are.
[/quote]
Yes, the measurements are what we make and use.
[quote]
You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
[/quote]
We do not do this. We use our clocks and rulers.
[quote]
Whether the dependency is *calculated*
using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
I'm not interested in what you *calculate*.
[/quote]
Yes, we know you are not interested in reality.
I want to know the physical
[quote]process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
[/quote]
Yet they have been shown to be wrong by experiments so that is not
an explanation.
[quote]
That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR
denies
that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time
between
pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t the
light
pulses.
I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am changing
from
one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always
had, to
another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which it
always
had. This means that the physical spacing between the light pulses
has
an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that one FoR
can magically support a different physical reality than another FoR.
That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously exist.
A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate
physical
reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a FoR
can
do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it so
long
you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy CANNOT
have
an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that your
speed
w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different interval. The
different interval is direct evidence that your real speed w.r.t the
light has changed.
You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that with
what
is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
physical terms without mentioning frames which do not physically
exist.
[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer from
one
reference frame to another snipped]
WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:24 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3545
|
On Oct 31, 12:57 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]Paul Stowe wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. Now, if two concepts
existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
structure and processes' I'll take the later as being better 'science'
every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
Cardinals do Or the law is what police do. It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior. Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period! It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices.
And this is where you get into trouble. You demand the universe be
the way you want it to be. That is not going to happen.
If it were based
solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions
That statement is an oxymoron...
Which is paul saying he has no idea what that means. He just knows
that he does not like it.
... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
Ignorance is never a good foundation in science.
Yes, and see how it has led you astray and continues to make
you look stupid in public.
Understanding what
gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge. It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
fractals aren't acausal.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
sole basis for those postulates.
You have no explanation for c. You are moving the issue to saying
it is determined by your aether. You do not like it being set by
the geometry of space time but you are happy having to introduce
two new parameters to explain one thing. No one is going to
follow you into your ignorance.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question.
PD has shown himself to be far more intelligent and reasonable than
you are.
For example, I
do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
No, you are sayig that you do not like them. You want the universe
to change to fit your prejudices. It is not going to change.
That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
And you are wrong. The experiments tell us how the universe is, not
your prejudices.
I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
conform to our wishes.
Nonsense, you have just stated that you want the universe and science
to follow your prejudices.
Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
physical terms.
See, there is your ignorance of science again. You keep wanting it
to change to suit you.
Those simply point to current ignorance and
unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
science as given above.
Well, no. You continue to look uninformed and prejudiced in your
willing ignorance and prejudice. But that is not science and it
will keep you mired in crankdom.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Physics will be a science. Ask science what it knows in a million
years?
When we are at 100 million who can imagine then?
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 7:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. Now, if two concepts
existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
structure and processes' I'll take the later as being better 'science'
every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
Cardinals do Or the law is what police do. It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior. Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period! It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices.
[/quote]
And this is where you get into trouble. You demand the universe be
the way you want it to be. That is not going to happen.
If it were based
[quote]solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions
That statement is an oxymoron...
[/quote]
Which is paul saying he has no idea what that means. He just knows
that he does not like it.
[quote]
... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
Ignorance is never a good foundation in science.
[/quote]
Yes, and see how it has led you astray and continues to make
you look stupid in public.
Understanding what
[quote]gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge. It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
fractals aren't acausal.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
sole basis for those postulates.
[/quote]
You have no explanation for c. You are moving the issue to saying
it is determined by your aether. You do not like it being set by
the geometry of space time but you are happy having to introduce
two new parameters to explain one thing. No one is going to
follow you into your ignorance.
[quote]
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question.
[/quote]
PD has shown himself to be far more intelligent and reasonable than
you are.
For example, I
[quote]do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
[/quote]
No, you are sayig that you do not like them. You want the universe
to change to fit your prejudices. It is not going to change.
[quote]That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
[/quote]
And you are wrong. The experiments tell us how the universe is, not
your prejudices.
[quote]
I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
conform to our wishes.
[/quote]
Nonsense, you have just stated that you want the universe and science
to follow your prejudices.
Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
[quote]on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
physical terms.
[/quote]
See, there is your ignorance of science again. You keep wanting it
to change to suit you.
Those simply point to current ignorance and
[quote]unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
science as given above.
[/quote]
Well, no. You continue to look uninformed and prejudiced in your
willing ignorance and prejudice. But that is not science and it
will keep you mired in crankdom. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 5:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"John Kennaugh" <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0R8P8FFKLX7KFwcD at (no spam) kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
PD wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:54 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
Not in the least. Being a science and not merely a branch of mathematics
dealing with mathematical modelling the SCIENCE of biology considered it a
legitimate and vital part of SCIENCE to try and UNDERSTAND the physical
processes driving the model. They did not claim the model EXPLAINED what
was happening and certainly not that it was an adequate explanation.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have.
But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Not at all - they still consider it part of their SCIENCE to try and find
out why. A model which works is a reasonable starting point not an end to
itself. It was an empirical formula for black body radiation which helped
Planck come to his conclusion that light is quantized in the days when
physics was a science. The model was not 100% accurate but the fact that
it was as accurate as it was, was one clue.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates,
Mendel observed and came up with a set of laws to explain his
observations. Einstein did no new experiments. There was already an
explanation of the experiments whereas Mendel was original. The maths
Einstein came up with was not original. He interpreted the MMX result as
indicating that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is
what the second postulate is describing - and in so doing ignored three
things:
1/ That Lorentz had already shown mathematically that applied properly
Maxwell's theory showed that the MMX was incapable of detecting motion
w.r.t the aether
2/ That Maxwell's theory was seriously compromised because experiment
showed that light is particulate and therefore no longer a suitable basis
on which to build.
3/ That there was a simpler idea which fitted far better with the
particulate nature of light and required no aether and no need to decimate
our ideas regarding mechanics.
Mendel is a simple case of finding a law which fitted. Einstein is all
about choices of interpretation. I for one would certainly not hold up
Einstein as a good example of the way physics works. The lesson would seem
to be "ignore all the evidence and go with your hunch".
and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
One could have a theory where bullets fired from a gun travelled on rails,
as we know rail are required for trains. Of course, when others object that
there are no rails visible, you change the theory to say that of course, the
rails are invisible. And when others fail to detect the presence of any
rails, you change the theory so that the rails only appear under the bullet
as it travels and immediately disappear afterwards. Obviously the rail
theory of bullet flight is superior as otherwise how do we explain bullets
travelling in a straight line?
[/quote]
A totally down right silly argument... This has NO! bearing on the
discussion herein! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
[/quote]
Not in the least. Being a science and not merely a branch of mathematics
dealing with mathematical modelling the SCIENCE of biology considered it
a legitimate and vital part of SCIENCE to try and UNDERSTAND the
physical processes driving the model. They did not claim the model
EXPLAINED what was happening and certainly not that it was an adequate
explanation.
[quote]
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have.
[/quote]
[quote]But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
[/quote]
Not at all - they still consider it part of their SCIENCE to try and
find out why. A model which works is a reasonable starting point not an
end to itself. It was an empirical formula for black body radiation
which helped Planck come to his conclusion that light is quantized in
the days when physics was a science. The model was not 100% accurate but
the fact that it was as accurate as it was, was one clue.
[quote]
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates,
[/quote]
Mendel observed and came up with a set of laws to explain his
observations. Einstein did no new experiments. There was already an
explanation of the experiments whereas Mendel was original. The maths
Einstein came up with was not original. He interpreted the MMX result as
indicating that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is
what the second postulate is describing - and in so doing ignored three
things:
1/ That Lorentz had already shown mathematically that applied properly
Maxwell's theory showed that the MMX was incapable of detecting motion
w.r.t the aether
2/ That Maxwell's theory was seriously compromised because experiment
showed that light is particulate and therefore no longer a suitable
basis on which to build.
3/ That there was a simpler idea which fitted far better with the
particulate nature of light and required no aether and no need to
decimate our ideas regarding mechanics.
Mendel is a simple case of finding a law which fitted. Einstein is all
about choices of interpretation. I for one would certainly not hold up
Einstein as a good example of the way physics works. The lesson would
seem to be "ignore all the evidence and go with your hunch".
[quote]and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
[/quote]
Well Do you see now?
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 7:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. Now, if two concepts
existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
structure and processes' I'll take the later as being better 'science'
every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
Cardinals do Or the law is what police do. It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior. Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period! It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions
That statement is an oxymoron...
... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
Ignorance is never a good foundation in science. Understanding what
gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge. It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
fractals aren't acausal.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
sole basis for those postulates.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question.
[/quote]
I got a strong indication at one point that PD teaches/lectures in
physics. When asked he refused to answer but I think I hit the nail on
the head. Such a person's role is to present (sell) physics to students
not to question it. Many of his posts seem to be well honed techniques
of presentation which carefully avoid problems. Others are put-downs
intended for the more difficult student and intended to make a student
look small - as if he has made a really stupid remark - when in fact he
is thinking for himself. If that be the case then acknowledgement =
failure i.e. if he is forced to admit to his students that the subject
he is teaching is fundamentally flawed he can't do his job.
[quote]For example, I
do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
[/quote]
Mine too - as an outsider looking in.
[quote]
I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
physical terms. Those simply point to current ignorance and
unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
science as given above.
[/quote]
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0R8P8FFKLX7KFwcD at (no spam) kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
Not in the least. Being a science and not merely a branch of mathematics
dealing with mathematical modelling the SCIENCE of biology considered it a
legitimate and vital part of SCIENCE to try and UNDERSTAND the physical
processes driving the model. They did not claim the model EXPLAINED what
was happening and certainly not that it was an adequate explanation.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have.
But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Not at all - they still consider it part of their SCIENCE to try and find
out why. A model which works is a reasonable starting point not an end to
itself. It was an empirical formula for black body radiation which helped
Planck come to his conclusion that light is quantized in the days when
physics was a science. The model was not 100% accurate but the fact that
it was as accurate as it was, was one clue.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates,
Mendel observed and came up with a set of laws to explain his
observations. Einstein did no new experiments. There was already an
explanation of the experiments whereas Mendel was original. The maths
Einstein came up with was not original. He interpreted the MMX result as
indicating that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is
what the second postulate is describing - and in so doing ignored three
things:
1/ That Lorentz had already shown mathematically that applied properly
Maxwell's theory showed that the MMX was incapable of detecting motion
w.r.t the aether
2/ That Maxwell's theory was seriously compromised because experiment
showed that light is particulate and therefore no longer a suitable basis
on which to build.
3/ That there was a simpler idea which fitted far better with the
particulate nature of light and required no aether and no need to decimate
our ideas regarding mechanics.
Mendel is a simple case of finding a law which fitted. Einstein is all
about choices of interpretation. I for one would certainly not hold up
Einstein as a good example of the way physics works. The lesson would seem
to be "ignore all the evidence and go with your hunch".
and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
[/quote]
One could have a theory where bullets fired from a gun travelled on rails,
as we know rail are required for trains. Of course, when others object that
there are no rails visible, you change the theory to say that of course, the
rails are invisible. And when others fail to detect the presence of any
rails, you change the theory so that the rails only appear under the bullet
as it travels and immediately disappear afterwards. Obviously the rail
theory of bullet flight is superior as otherwise how do we explain bullets
travelling in a straight line? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Kennaugh" <JKNG at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5BiMYqFzNX7KFwcV at (no spam) kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
[quote]Paul Stowe wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science
does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of
what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical
messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches
and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes
grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. Now, if two concepts
existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
structure and processes' I'll take the later as being better 'science'
every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
Cardinals do Or the law is what police do. It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior. Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period! It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions
That statement is an oxymoron...
... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
Ignorance is never a good foundation in science. Understanding what
gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge. It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
fractals aren't acausal.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
sole basis for those postulates.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but
not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell
you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can
aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware
of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation
of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the
moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You
would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question.
I got a strong indication at one point that PD teaches/lectures in
physics. When asked he refused to answer but I think I hit the nail on the
head. Such a person's role is to present (sell) physics to students not to
question it. Many of his posts seem to be well honed techniques of
presentation which carefully avoid problems. Others are put-downs intended
for the more difficult student and intended to make a student look small -
as if he has made a really stupid remark - when in fact he is thinking for
himself. If that be the case then acknowledgement = failure i.e. if he is
forced to admit to his students that the subject he is teaching is
fundamentally flawed he can't do his job.
[/quote]
It sounds very much that you are a failed student (most likely of physics or
math) who, rather than admit your failure, decided that it is all the fault
of the teachers, and even further, that is it the failure of a century of
science. How truly pathetic that is, that you cannot own up to your own
failures and try to get past them and learn from them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote:
[...]
[quote]
Mine too - as an outsider looking in.
[/quote]
As an outsider you have no fucking business dicking around with a subject
you refuse to learn. Name one technical field that reacts kindly to ignorant
and arrogant amateurs who think their ignorance is a form of wisdom.
One, please. We'll go from there.
[...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:22 am
|
|