Author 
Message 
Hayek science forum addict
Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 85

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



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 SRian 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 nonphysicists 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 à 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

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:58 pm Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



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 SRian 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 nonphysicists 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

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



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 SRian 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 nonphysicists 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 worldlines 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

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:29 am Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



Julian Becker:
Quote:  Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesqueal.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 / spacetime  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

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:20 am Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:00:06 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
Quote:  In article <op.tbf8c9lzl7b2t7@julian2dcb6a7a.unimuenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:
Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesqueal.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 / spacetime  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

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:44 am Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



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

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:27 am Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



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.fuberlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891921.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

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



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.fuberlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891921.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

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



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@julian2dcb6a7a.unimuenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:
Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesqueal.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 / spacetime  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

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



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@julian2dcb6a7a.unimuenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:
Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesqueal.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 / spacetime  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

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:21 am Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



"Julian Becker" <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tbhc3ufxl7b2t7@julian2dcb6a7a.unimuenster.de...
Quote:  On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:00:06 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck
phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
In article <op.tbf8c9lzl7b2t7@julian2dcb6a7a.unimuenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:
Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesqueal.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 / spacetime  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

Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject:
Re: Scientific exorcism



Harry wrote:
Quote:  "Julian Becker" <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tbhc3ufxl7b2t7@julian2dcb6a7a.unimuenster.de...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:00:06 +0200, Phineas T Puddleduck
phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote:
In article <op.tbf8c9lzl7b2t7@julian2dcb6a7a.unimuenster.de>, Julian
Becker <becker.julian@gmail.com> wrote:
Bilge <dubious@radioactivex.lebesqueal.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 / spacetime  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 

Back to top 


Google


Back to top 



The time now is Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:38 pm  All times are GMT

