FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Scientific exorcism
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2 [27 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Hayek
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Igor wrote:

Quote:
Julian Becker wrote:

Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific
exorcism, in order to get rid of some *vicious
circles* possessing good ol' SR?


The only vicious circles about SR are harbored in
the minds of certain individuals who have never
understood it in the first place. SR makes perfect
sense once you understand it.

There must be an SR-ian conspiracy, they removed the
ALbro Swift chapters from mathpages.

Luckily, I quoted some very important remarks by Albro
Swift.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/albro/albro16.htm
"
To put this in more familiar terms, Einstein would
say to all the people who claim that special
relativity is adequate to "handle" the twins
paradox: We can say that the twin who followed
the unaccelerated worldline will have aged the
most, but if we are asked which twin had the
unaccelerated worldline we can only answer: the
one who aged the most! Accelerometers can't
rescue us from this circle, because the
Equivalence Principle implies that the lapse of
proper time along a given worldline cannot be
inferred from the locally "felt" accelerations.
For example, both twins could spend the entire
interval from A to B experiencing 1g of local
acceleration, and yet the lapses of proper time
could be vastly different.

Thus, as soon as the Equivalence Principle is
adopted, it's clear that special relativity is
epistemologically unsatisfactory, and can only be
salvaged by a suitable theory of gravitation
(e.g., general relativity), within which SR may
serve as a useful approximate simplification in
appropriate limiting cases. However, we can only
assess the appropiateness of SR in a given
circumstance by evaluating it in the context of
GR. In other words, SR can serve as a set of
convenient computational recipes for technicians
who don't want or need to understand what they are
doing, but from an epistemological standpoint
there is only one modern theory of relativity, and
that is GENERAL relativity. Special relativity had
already been discarded as a viable theory of
knowledge by 1911. I think it's also worth
mentioning that when ordinary non-physicists ask
about relativity, they aren't hoping to become
technicians or computational experts, they are
asking from a broad philosophical and
epistemological standpoint, i.e.,
they are curious to know, in broad terms, the
basis of relativity as a theory of knowledge.

From this perspective, the custom of telling such
people that special relativity is "the answer" to
the twin's paradox is particularly unfortunate.
(I say this in spite of the undeniable fact that
most people who worry about the twins paradox have
actually failed to understand special relativity,
and aren't even close to the level of
comprehension on which the actual inadequacy of
special relativity appears. On the other hand,
most of the people who DON'T worry about the twins
paradox are equally far from understanding the
real issues involved.)
"

Uwe Hayek.


--
L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.
Back to top
Igor
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 315

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Hayek wrote:
Quote:
Igor wrote:

Julian Becker wrote:

Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific
exorcism, in order to get rid of some *vicious
circles* possessing good ol' SR?


The only vicious circles about SR are harbored in
the minds of certain individuals who have never
understood it in the first place. SR makes perfect
sense once you understand it.

There must be an SR-ian conspiracy, they removed the
ALbro Swift chapters from mathpages.

Luckily, I quoted some very important remarks by Albro
Swift.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/albro/albro16.htm
"
To put this in more familiar terms, Einstein would
say to all the people who claim that special
relativity is adequate to "handle" the twins
paradox: We can say that the twin who followed
the unaccelerated worldline will have aged the
most, but if we are asked which twin had the
unaccelerated worldline we can only answer: the
one who aged the most! Accelerometers can't
rescue us from this circle, because the
Equivalence Principle implies that the lapse of
proper time along a given worldline cannot be
inferred from the locally "felt" accelerations.
For example, both twins could spend the entire
interval from A to B experiencing 1g of local
acceleration, and yet the lapses of proper time
could be vastly different.

Thus, as soon as the Equivalence Principle is
adopted, it's clear that special relativity is
epistemologically unsatisfactory, and can only be
salvaged by a suitable theory of gravitation
(e.g., general relativity), within which SR may
serve as a useful approximate simplification in
appropriate limiting cases. However, we can only
assess the appropiateness of SR in a given
circumstance by evaluating it in the context of
GR. In other words, SR can serve as a set of
convenient computational recipes for technicians
who don't want or need to understand what they are
doing, but from an epistemological standpoint
there is only one modern theory of relativity, and
that is GENERAL relativity. Special relativity had
already been discarded as a viable theory of
knowledge by 1911. I think it's also worth
mentioning that when ordinary non-physicists ask
about relativity, they aren't hoping to become
technicians or computational experts, they are
asking from a broad philosophical and
epistemological standpoint, i.e.,
they are curious to know, in broad terms, the
basis of relativity as a theory of knowledge.

From this perspective, the custom of telling such
people that special relativity is "the answer" to
the twin's paradox is particularly unfortunate.
(I say this in spite of the undeniable fact that
most people who worry about the twins paradox have
actually failed to understand special relativity,
and aren't even close to the level of
comprehension on which the actual inadequacy of
special relativity appears. On the other hand,
most of the people who DON'T worry about the twins
paradox are equally far from understanding the
real issues involved.)
"

But the twins paradox is explained by SR quite well in that both twins
agree who has aged more and who has aged less by comparing the lengths
of their wordlines. All this other relativistic gobbletygook is
completely unecessary and goes nowhere.
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Igor wrote:
Quote:
Hayek wrote:
Igor wrote:

Julian Becker wrote:

Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific
exorcism, in order to get rid of some *vicious
circles* possessing good ol' SR?


The only vicious circles about SR are harbored in
the minds of certain individuals who have never
understood it in the first place. SR makes perfect
sense once you understand it.

There must be an SR-ian conspiracy, they removed the
ALbro Swift chapters from mathpages.

Luckily, I quoted some very important remarks by Albro
Swift.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/albro/albro16.htm
"
To put this in more familiar terms, Einstein would
say to all the people who claim that special
relativity is adequate to "handle" the twins
paradox: We can say that the twin who followed
the unaccelerated worldline will have aged the
most, but if we are asked which twin had the
unaccelerated worldline we can only answer: the
one who aged the most! Accelerometers can't
rescue us from this circle, because the
Equivalence Principle implies that the lapse of
proper time along a given worldline cannot be
inferred from the locally "felt" accelerations.
For example, both twins could spend the entire
interval from A to B experiencing 1g of local
acceleration, and yet the lapses of proper time
could be vastly different.

Thus, as soon as the Equivalence Principle is
adopted, it's clear that special relativity is
epistemologically unsatisfactory, and can only be
salvaged by a suitable theory of gravitation
(e.g., general relativity), within which SR may
serve as a useful approximate simplification in
appropriate limiting cases. However, we can only
assess the appropiateness of SR in a given
circumstance by evaluating it in the context of
GR. In other words, SR can serve as a set of
convenient computational recipes for technicians
who don't want or need to understand what they are
doing, but from an epistemological standpoint
there is only one modern theory of relativity, and
that is GENERAL relativity. Special relativity had
already been discarded as a viable theory of
knowledge by 1911. I think it's also worth
mentioning that when ordinary non-physicists ask
about relativity, they aren't hoping to become
technicians or computational experts, they are
asking from a broad philosophical and
epistemological standpoint, i.e.,
they are curious to know, in broad terms, the
basis of relativity as a theory of knowledge.

From this perspective, the custom of telling such
people that special relativity is "the answer" to
the twin's paradox is particularly unfortunate.
(I say this in spite of the undeniable fact that
most people who worry about the twins paradox have
actually failed to understand special relativity,
and aren't even close to the level of
comprehension on which the actual inadequacy of
special relativity appears. On the other hand,
most of the people who DON'T worry about the twins
paradox are equally far from understanding the
real issues involved.)
"

But the twins paradox is explained by SR quite well in that both twins
agree who has aged more and who has aged less by comparing the lengths
of their wordlines. All this other relativistic gobbletygook is
completely unecessary and goes nowhere.

Why would the twins be comparing world-lines when
they have had four eyes continuously watching
two clocks. Wouldn't the time be better spent with
a bottle of champange ?

Sue...
Back to top
Bilge
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:29 am    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Julian Becker:
Quote:
Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
Julian Becker:
Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific exorcism, in
order to get rid of some *vicious circles* possessing good ol' SR?

Name one and demonstrate the circularity. I give odds of a trillion
to 1 that the circularity is due to your failure to distinguish between
what is presumed and what is derived.

Well, tell me at which point Einstein introduces
the concept of space and or time / space-time - either as axiom or as a
conclusion of his 2 postulates.

That didn't answer my question.

Quote:
At least from his 1905 paper this isn't clear (to me).
(see "Religion vs. SR" thread by eleaticus)
Back to top
Julian Becker
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:20 am    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:00:06 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:

Quote:
In article <op.tbf8c9lzl7b2t7@julian-2dcb6a7a.uni-muenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:

Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
Julian Becker:
Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific exorcism, in
order to get rid of some *vicious circles* possessing good ol' SR?

Name one and demonstrate the circularity. I give odds of a trillion
to 1 that the circularity is due to your failure to distinguish between
what is presumed and what is derived.

Well, tell me at which point Einstein introduces
the concept of space and or time / space-time - either as axiom or as a
conclusion of his 2 postulates.

At least from his 1905 paper this isn't clear (to me).
(see "Religion vs. SR" thread by eleaticus)

Julian
Minkowski introduced spacetime
[...]

so Einstein didn't?

Of course you could introduce Minkowski spacetime per definition
and then draw some confusing conclusions out of it. But Einstein
didn't. And you didn't tell me why then he is allowed to define
coordinate systems (even physical ones). I've never seen physical
coordinate systems out of space.
But what he did is: he said that it be one in "which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good", i.e. in which the Newtonian
axioms hold good. So when Einstein later finds that time is not
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process.
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:44 am    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Julian Becker aka m**********r wrote:

Quote:
But what he did is: he said that it be one in "which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good", i.e. in which the Newtonian
axioms hold good. So when Einstein later finds that time is not
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process.

Umm, you don't understand what you are saying. Einstein didn't say what
you attribute him to have said. The above is the product of your
cretinoid brain. If you quote, quote correctly, ShitForBrains
Back to top
Julian Becker
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:27 am    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:44:15 +0200, dda1 <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

Julian Becker aka m**********r wrote:

But what he did is: he said that it be one in "which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good", i.e. in which the Newtonian
axioms hold good. So when Einstein later finds that time is not
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process.

Umm, you don't understand what you are saying. Einstein didn't say what
you attribute him to have said. The above is the product of your
cretinoid brain. If you quote, quote correctly, ShitForBrains

have a look at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Kinematical part, 1, first sentence. OR if you'd like to stick to
the original (e.g. at http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891-921.pdf),
it sais:
"Es liege ein Koordinatensystem vor, in welchem die Newtonschen mechanischen Gleichungen gelten."
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Julian Becker wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 07:44:15 +0200, dda1 <rangeravenger@yahoo.com> wrote:


Julian Becker aka m**********r wrote:

But what he did is: he said that it be one in "which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good", i.e. in which the Newtonian
axioms hold good. So when Einstein later finds that time is not
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process.

Umm, you don't understand what you are saying. Einstein didn't say what
you attribute him to have said. The above is the product of your
cretinoid brain. If you quote, quote correctly, ShitForBrains

have a look at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Kinematical part, 1, first sentence. OR if you'd like to stick to
the original (e.g. at http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891-921.pdf),
it sais:
"Es liege ein Koordinatensystem vor, in welchem die Newtonschen mechanischen Gleichungen gelten."


No persistent idiot , the error is attributting Einstein what follows:

"So when Einstein later finds that time is not
Quote:
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process. "
Back to top
Igor
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 315

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Julian Becker wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:00:06 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:

In article <op.tbf8c9lzl7b2t7@julian-2dcb6a7a.uni-muenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:

Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
Julian Becker:
Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific exorcism, in
order to get rid of some *vicious circles* possessing good ol' SR?

Name one and demonstrate the circularity. I give odds of a trillion
to 1 that the circularity is due to your failure to distinguish between
what is presumed and what is derived.

Well, tell me at which point Einstein introduces
the concept of space and or time / space-time - either as axiom or as a
conclusion of his 2 postulates.

At least from his 1905 paper this isn't clear (to me).
(see "Religion vs. SR" thread by eleaticus)

Julian
Minkowski introduced spacetime
[...]
so Einstein didn't?

Of course you could introduce Minkowski spacetime per definition
and then draw some confusing conclusions out of it. But Einstein
didn't. And you didn't tell me why then he is allowed to define
coordinate systems (even physical ones). I've never seen physical
coordinate systems out of space.

I have no idea what you are saying here. A coordinate system is a
mathematical abstraction. There is never anything physical about it.
You're free to define it anyway you wish, providing you have enough
independent coordinates to describe it.


Quote:
But what he did is: he said that it be one in "which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good", i.e. in which the Newtonian
axioms hold good. So when Einstein later finds that time is not
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process.

And you're saying that Newtonian physics is not valid under appropriate
conditions in relativity? Boy, have you got a lot to learn.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Julian Becker wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:00:06 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:

In article <op.tbf8c9lzl7b2t7@julian-2dcb6a7a.uni-muenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:

Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
Julian Becker:
Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific exorcism, in
order to get rid of some *vicious circles* possessing good ol' SR?

Name one and demonstrate the circularity. I give odds of a trillion
to 1 that the circularity is due to your failure to distinguish between
what is presumed and what is derived.

Well, tell me at which point Einstein introduces
the concept of space and or time / space-time - either as axiom or as a
conclusion of his 2 postulates.

At least from his 1905 paper this isn't clear (to me).
(see "Religion vs. SR" thread by eleaticus)

Julian
Minkowski introduced spacetime
[...]
so Einstein didn't?

Of course you could introduce Minkowski spacetime per definition
and then draw some confusing conclusions out of it. But Einstein
didn't. And you didn't tell me why then he is allowed to define
coordinate systems (even physical ones). I've never seen physical
coordinate systems out of space.
But what he did is: he said that it be one in "which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good", i.e. in which the Newtonian
axioms hold good.

That would be a mistaken inference. Several comments:
1. The equations of Newtonian mechanics are descriptions of *dynamics*
that replicate observation. They are not derived from the Newtonian
Axioms.
2. The purpose of this statement was define (without using the term)
what an "inertial reference frame" is. This definition works equally
well for Euclidean coordinates and Minkowski coordinates and assumes
neither.
3. Newtonian mechanics (written as F=dp/dt and forces occuring as
interaction pairs) *do* hold in either Euclidean or Minkowski
coordinates and do not require the assumption of one or the other.
4. The Newtonian Axioms about absolute space and time do have
implications, but not on the equations of Newtonian mechanics. Those
implications are what was corrected by special relativity.

PD

Quote:
So when Einstein later finds that time is not
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process.
Back to top
Harry
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1010

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:21 am    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

"Julian Becker" <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tbhc3ufxl7b2t7@julian-2dcb6a7a.uni-muenster.de...
Quote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:00:06 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck
phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:

In article <op.tbf8c9lzl7b2t7@julian-2dcb6a7a.uni-muenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:

Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
Julian Becker:
Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific exorcism, in
order to get rid of some *vicious circles* possessing good ol' SR?

Name one and demonstrate the circularity. I give odds of a trillion
to 1 that the circularity is due to your failure to distinguish
between
what is presumed and what is derived.

Well, tell me at which point Einstein introduces
the concept of space and or time / space-time - either as axiom or as
a
conclusion of his 2 postulates.

At least from his 1905 paper this isn't clear (to me).
(see "Religion vs. SR" thread by eleaticus)

Julian
Minkowski introduced spacetime
[...]
so Einstein didn't?

Of course you could introduce Minkowski spacetime per definition
and then draw some confusing conclusions out of it. But Einstein
didn't. And you didn't tell me why then he is allowed to define
coordinate systems (even physical ones). I've never seen physical
coordinate systems out of space.
But what he did is: he said that it be one in "which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good", i.e. in which the Newtonian
axioms hold good. So when Einstein later finds that time is not
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process.

Obviously it was just to define inertial frames operationally. A footnote in
the English translation reads: "i.e. to the first approximation. "

Harald
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientific exorcism Reply with quote

Harry wrote:
Quote:
"Julian Becker" <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tbhc3ufxl7b2t7@julian-2dcb6a7a.uni-muenster.de...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:00:06 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck
phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:

In article <op.tbf8c9lzl7b2t7@julian-2dcb6a7a.uni-muenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:

Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
Julian Becker:
Don't you think, we need some sort of scientific exorcism, in
order to get rid of some *vicious circles* possessing good ol' SR?

Name one and demonstrate the circularity. I give odds of a trillion
to 1 that the circularity is due to your failure to distinguish
between
what is presumed and what is derived.

Well, tell me at which point Einstein introduces
the concept of space and or time / space-time - either as axiom or as
a
conclusion of his 2 postulates.

At least from his 1905 paper this isn't clear (to me).
(see "Religion vs. SR" thread by eleaticus)

Julian
Minkowski introduced spacetime
[...]
so Einstein didn't?

Of course you could introduce Minkowski spacetime per definition
and then draw some confusing conclusions out of it. But Einstein
didn't. And you didn't tell me why then he is allowed to define
coordinate systems (even physical ones). I've never seen physical
coordinate systems out of space.
But what he did is: he said that it be one in "which the equations
of Newtonian mechanics hold good", i.e. in which the Newtonian
axioms hold good. So when Einstein later finds that time is not
absolute this only shows, that Newtonian Axioms have been
inconsikistenly applied in his thought process.

Obviously it was just to define inertial frames operationally. A footnote in
the English translation reads: "i.e. to the first approximation. "

Harald

Looks like you are not such a bad guy Smile
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2 [27 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:53 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Scientific calculator - clear breach of GPL Dave (from the UK) Symbolic 12 Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:18 pm
No new posts A scientific approach to proving whether man landed on th... polaris431@gmail.com Math 235 Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:35 pm
No new posts New high precision scientific calculator alpertron@hotmail.com Math 13 Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:26 pm
No new posts Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method forumfan99@gmail.com Chem 9 Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:19 pm
No new posts Scientific Success: What's Love Got to Do With It? Dr. Jai Maharaj Math 0 Mon May 29, 2006 12:03 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1629s ][ Queries: 16 (0.1339s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]