 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Is physics a science?... |
|
Page 6 of 26 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 24, 25, 26 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| doug... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
You continually repeat and demonstrate your ignorance of science
and today you feel compelled to do so again below
The maths
[quote]Einstein came up with was not original. He interpreted the MMX result as
indicating that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether -
[/quote]
That is not what he was describing.
which is
[quote]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
[/quote]
Lorentz had made a proposal for one way to explain the results.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
You keep saying this as if repeating it would somehow make it
true. Maxwell's theory describes waves. That is what Einstein
was working with.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Since the MMX detects the wave nature of light, having a particulate
model is of no help for that.
[quote]
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.
Do you understand that now?
Well Do you see now?
We see that you are still following your prejudices and making[/quote]
statements based on your ignorance of science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh 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. 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.
[/quote]
You are assuming that science is wrong and that teaching it is a
bad thing. You also want to be able to tell science how it should
be so you get mad when it is not that way.
Many of his posts seem to be well honed techniques
[quote]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.
[/quote]
In your ccase, you are making stupid remarks and we are trying to
help you.
If that be the case then acknowledgement =
[quote]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]
The student's refusal to learn is the problem of the student. Take
you for example.
[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.
Mine too - as an outsider looking in.
[/quote]
Your perspective is an an uneducated person who wants science and
the universe to change to fit your prejudices. That is sad.
[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] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| maxwell... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 6:08 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
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.
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.
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]
Your knowledge of the history of biology appears to be as weak as your
demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
populations (not individuals).
PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
approach in theoretical physics. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 4:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"maxwell" <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f707f806-b8ba-40af-a244-83dac012979e at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 6:08 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
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.
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.
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
Your knowledge of the history of biology appears to be as weak as your
demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
populations (not individuals).
PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
approach in theoretical physics.
Physics explains a behavior by saying how it is caused by other known
behaviors. What makes the sky blue? Diffraction of light. What makes
light diffract? A change of speed of light in a medium. What makes light
change speed in a medium etc. At some stage in the chain of explanations we
must get to a fundamental that 'just is'.
[/quote]
Wrong, "We don't know YET!" is the proper answer. 'It just is' is
never an acceptable scientific answer. The problem with SR's
spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
properties, you just don't like it. And it not at all like your
stupid rail BS, the characteristics are vell well known and
demonstrable in other situations. For example,
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000022000003000318000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
And the other references given... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8678da1-fe67-490f-bd7f-7cb21f038018 at (no spam) r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 5:03 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"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?
A totally down right silly argument... This has NO! bearing on the
discussion herein!
[/quote]
Oh .. it has a great bearing on it .. it shows by analogy how silly aether
theory is. Aether is like the magical invisible rails for bullets to travel
on. I'm glad you can see what nonsensical ideas both are. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"maxwell" <spsi at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f707f806-b8ba-40af-a244-83dac012979e at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 31, 6:08 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
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.
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.
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
Your knowledge of the history of biology appears to be as weak as your
demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
populations (not individuals).
PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
approach in theoretical physics.
[/quote]
Physics explains a behavior by saying how it is caused by other known
behaviors. What makes the sky blue? Diffraction of light. What makes
light diffract? A change of speed of light in a medium. What makes light
change speed in a medium etc. At some stage in the chain of explanations we
must get to a fundamental that 'just is'. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:304e88f9-f59a-42bb-b414-b33ac2a7134d at (no spam) s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 1, 4:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"maxwell" <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f707f806-b8ba-40af-a244-83dac012979e at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 6:08 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
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.
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.
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
Your knowledge of the history of biology appears to be as weak as your
demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
populations (not individuals).
PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
approach in theoretical physics.
Physics explains a behavior by saying how it is caused by other known
behaviors. What makes the sky blue? Diffraction of light. What makes
light diffract? A change of speed of light in a medium. What makes
light
change speed in a medium etc. At some stage in the chain of explanations
we
must get to a fundamental that 'just is'.
Wrong, "We don't know YET!" is the proper answer. 'It just is' is
never an acceptable scientific answer.
[/quote]
Is there a reason why space has 3 dimensions and not 2 or 4 .. does
something force it to be that way? Does something force the shortest
distance between two points to be a straight line?
[quote]The problem with SR's
spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
properties, you just don't like it.
[/quote]
Funny.. I was going to say the same to you. The geometry of spacetime gives
light its speed. But you don't like it
[quote]And it not at all like your
stupid rail BS,
[/quote]
Its very much like it
[quote]the characteristics are vell well known and
demonstrable in other situations.
[/quote]
Nope. LET just assumes there is some aether medium involved, movement in
which has these effects (coincidentally) the same on all fields, and all
object, and all processes. That aether itself has never been detected.
Just like saying the invisible rails make the bullet fly along its path,
even though no rails have ever been detected .. but that those rails must
exist because bullets to fly along their path in the way they do, so there
MUST be something making it do that.
[quote]For example,
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000022000003000318000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
And the other references given...[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 10:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[...]
Bwahah.
Its' nice to see the "I don't understand how it can be any other way!"
argument put forth like it had merit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]Paul Stowe wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]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
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?
[/quote]
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 6:55 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
PaulStowewrote:
snip
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
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?
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
Vern
[/quote]
Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
or comprehension of same. I predict you'll get nowhere. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 6:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"PaulStowe" <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
On Nov 1, 4:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"maxwell" <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
Your knowledge of the history of biology appears to be as weak as your
demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
populations (not individuals).
PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
approach in theoretical physics.
Physics explains a behavior by saying how it is caused by other known
behaviors. What makes the sky blue? Diffraction of light. What makes
light diffract? A change of speed of light in a medium. What makes
light change speed in a medium etc. At some stage in the chain of
explanations we must get to a fundamental that 'just is'.
Wrong, "We don't know YET!" is the proper answer. 'It just is' is
never an acceptable scientific answer.
Is there a reason why space has 3 dimensions and not 2 or 4 ..
[/quote]
Yes, because our 'models' created the concepts... As you know
spacetime is modeled as 4 dimensional.
[quote]does something force it to be that way?
[/quote]
Force, no. But we think the model that best fits is a 3-D spacial
model.
[quote]Does something force the shortest distance between two points to be
a straight line?
[/quote]
In the GR model, is this statement true?
[quote]The problem with SR's
spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
properties, you just don't like it.
Funny.. I was going to say the same to you. The geometry of spacetime gives
light its speed.
[/quote]
GREAT! Explain that, in narrative words. In other words, explain
where c comes from in,
(ct)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
I want to know what the spacetime model says about the origin of
Einstein's two 'postulate'. Tel us what c is.
[quote]But you don't like it
[/quote]
What I don't like is lack of an explanation. If you 'can' provide the
explanation of where c gets its properties that are postulated I'll
agree we have two competing models, without that though, Ockham's
Razor cuts in favor of the one that does provide the explanatory
power.
[quote]And it not at all like your stupid rail BS,
Its very much like it
[/quote]
OK, fine, you think it is. Now provide us basis for, and a means of
testing, the idea. And by the way, bullets fired on Earth do not
follow straight lines...
[quote]the characteristics are vell well known and
demonstrable in other situations.
Nope. LET just assumes there is some aether medium involved, movement in
which has these effects (coincidentally) the same on all fields,
[/quote]
Yes, as all media behave...
[quote]and all objects,
[/quote]
Which are made up of, and held together by what?
[quote]and all processes. That aether itself has never been detected.
[/quote]
Yes, it has. Just look at Faraday's works. Maxwell explains this
very well, your denial not withstanding.
[quote]Just like saying the invisible rails make the bullet fly along its path,
even though no rails have ever been detected .. but that those rails must
exist because bullets to fly along their path in the way they do, so there
MUST be something making it do that.
[/quote]
I don't think you're as stupid as your example implies. Bullets are
influenced by windage and gravity and thus two bullets fired from
EXACTLY the same rifle in a rigid rig most likely will not impact the
same point at great distances.
[quote]For example,
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=...
And the other references given...[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 8:08 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PaulStowewrote:
On Nov 2, 6:55 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
PaulStowewrote:
snip
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
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?
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
Vern
Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
or comprehension of same.
I predict you'll get nowhere.
Doug inserts comments which he hopes will irritate. He never actually
engages in meaningful discussion. That is why my computer no longer
fetches his postings and they do not appear on my computer.
He is a troll so don't feed him.
--
John Kennaugh
[/quote]
I know... I do not respond to his nonsense... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 3:45 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
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.
[/quote]
Well, first of all, it's not absurd, since it is what is actually
measured.
The way it is taught these days is very similar to the way it is
presented in the Berkeley Series books, in particular the
electrodynamics book.
Remember that when Einstein was working on it, Maxwell's equations
were pretty new and not much was understood about the properties of
electrodynamics. Quite a lot happened in the 20th century to make
better sense if it.
[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.
Is it? I don't accept that it is.
[/quote]
It is! It's an experimental fact. Calorimeter segmentation in fixed
target and collider experiments is that fact embodied in design.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Nor are they. Notice that the definition of those units is done in the
local rest reference frame only.
[quote]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]
Nonsense. They are defined identically, locally, in all inertial
reference frames.
[quote]
By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
measurement.
[/quote]
To be fair, Einstein made no such definition. This definition was not
done until almost 15 years after Einstein's death. Please catch up on
your history.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
And Essen was both mistaken and misguided. His expertise
notwithstanding.
[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, that is not correct. If you define time to be frame-independent,
then what you learn is the that physical processes then take different
times in different reference frames, and then you have to CHOOSE which
reference frame should be the one that all of them are referenced to.
A particle that decays after a mean time of 4.8 microseconds in the
frame in which it is at rest then is OBSERVED to decay at 6.5
microseconds if it is moving in that frame. If you insist that time be
frame independent, then this means that in the frame that is moving
along with the particle (that is, the particle is at rest in that
frame), the particle is decaying after 6.5 microseconds. Then you are
left with the challenge of explaining why, if there is no discernible
difference between the circumstances of the decay in the two frames
other than their relative motion, why it decays after 4.8 microseconds
in one and after 6.5 microseconds in the other. And if there is no
discernible difference between the two frames, why was the first
chosen as the standard to tie the second one to? Moreover, you find
that if instead you reversed the referencing by setting up a clock in
the second frame by an identical procedure, then the particle would
live for 4.8 microseconds in the second frame and 6.5 microseconds in
the first frame. This is *experimentally verified*. Given this,
perhaps you can tell me how Essen would suggest getting out of that
observational box?
[quote]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.
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*. 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.
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.
--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 4:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"maxwell" <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:f707f806-b8ba-40af-a244-83dac012979e at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 6:08 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
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.
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.
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
Your knowledge of the history of biology appears to be as weak as your
demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
populations (not individuals).
PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
approach in theoretical physics.
Physics explains a behavior by saying how it is caused by other known
behaviors. What makes the sky blue? Diffraction of light. What makes
light diffract? A change of speed of light in a medium. What makes light
change speed in a medium etc. At some stage in the chain of explanations we
must get to a fundamental that 'just is'.
Wrong, "We don't know YET!" is the proper answer. 'It just is' is
never an acceptable scientific answer. The problem with SR's
spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
properties, you just don't like it.
[/quote]
No, you are the one who does not like it that spacetime has
a good explanation for lights properties. You want to push
that to the aether since you like things that go bump.
Real scientists abandoned that concept last century.
Are you still refusing to find out why?
And it not at all like your
[quote]stupid rail BS, the characteristics are vell well known and
demonstrable in other situations. For example,
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000022000003000318000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
And the other references given...
Which add nothing.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 12:45 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> 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'
[/quote]
Note that Darwin nor Mendel made neither of the latter statement.
I don't know where you are getting this mantra that "That's just how
nature is". I've told you repeatedly that the *structure* of spacetime
accounts for much of the stuff that you've been told "that's just the
way it is", but you've steadfastly ignored it. Not my problem at that
point.
[quote]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
[/quote]
Well, if someone who is not a Catholic says that Catholicism means
something other than what a priest says it means, then yes, there's an
issue.
[quote] Or the law is what police do.
[/quote]
Not quite, since there are also lawyers and judges involved. But if
you say that the law means something other than what lawyers, judges,
and police say it means, then yes, there is a problem.
[quote] It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior.
[/quote]
And that is nonsense. Science is *defined* by a methodology. That's
why it's called the scientific method.
[quote] Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period!
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Otherwise philosophy and
mathematics and industrial design would be included in science. Much
as you'd like it to be broader, so that it could be deemed more
inclusive (so that you could be arguably included), it's not the case.
[quote] 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...
[/quote]
Why?
[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. Understanding what
gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge.
[/quote]
That's right. Equations are expressions for statements that can be
said in words. If you don't know the conceptual basis behind the
equations and have gone equation-blind, thinking that the concepts ARE
the equations, then you simply need a better education in physics.
[quote] It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns.
[/quote]
First of all, I never said things were acausal. I said that *time-
ordered*, *deterministic* causality is not the only option. If you are
inclined to whine, "But the only kind of causality I even *recognize*
is the time-ordered, deterministic one," then I can't help the
limitations of your conceptual framework.
And no, randomness in some variables does NOT produce complete
nonrepeatability.
[quote] 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]
Sorry, but it is NOT the sole basis for those postulates and that's
precisely my point.
If the universe is structured with a hyperbolic spacetime geometry,
then those postulates follow directly from that structure, simply and
natively.
If the universe is structure with a Euclidean space and time geometry
(actually with independent space and time structures), THEN you need
an additional medium to generate a speed limit AND you need a
constraint on the dynamics of the medium to produce source
independence.
So there are TWO vying bases for those postulates, NOT one.
[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. 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.
[/quote]
Even if nature doesn't exhibit time ordered determinism everywhere?
[quote] 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] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 12:12 am
|
|