On May 16, 6:42Â*am, rbwinn wrote:
On May 15, 7:56Â*pm, PD wrote:



On May 15, 8:27Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:30Â*pm, PD wrote:

On May 15, 7:27Â*am, rbwinn wrote:

On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:

On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and mathematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that neither
the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics. Perhaps you
could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, and then select
out of that pool the ones you think are defied by having length be a
frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a frame-
dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that energy
conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This would be a
good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics are violated
by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations,
and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually shrinks relative
to the other.

Nice little fantasy. Would you like to cite where you read that, or
are you willing to acknowledge that there are pieces of your reality
you just make up as you go?

Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking.

See, this is the kind of nonsense that results when you make stuff up
as you go along.

Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here.
Scientists at one time maintained that no laws of science were
violated by the Ptolemaic system of astronomy because it could
accurately predict the positions of planets with its complicated
mathematics of epicycles.

Actually, no, it *post-dicted* those positions. It had very poor
predictive power. Those folks didn't even call themselves scientists
in that day and age. "Scientist" is a more recent term, and what they
practice (and in fact what they practice defines what science is) is
much different that what they practiced then. More emphasis on
experimental verification, more emphasis on prediction rather than
postdiction.

Tycho Brahe was not a scientist? Â*Kepler thought he was one. Â*That is
why he went to work for him so he could have access to his mathematics
and experimental data.

He was an observational astronomer and a very careful measurer. By the
modern definition of "science", he did not practice much in the way of
science. There were no *pre*dictions of observations, though there
were plenty of *post*dictions. It is in fact interesting to note the
difference between empirical rules (which is what Kepler's laws are)
and a physical theory (which is what Newton added). This distinction
is carefully drawn out in introductory science courses in the first
week, where the details of the scientific method are drawn out, and
these distinctions which really define science are made.

It doesn't surprise me that your eyebrows go up a little about this.
It's these subtleties that are important to those who have immersed
themselves in the subject and completely unimportant to casual
observers.

PD

Well, since Kepler was not a scientist, then neither was Einstein
because he did the same thing Kepler did. Â*He took experimental
results and derived Â*mathematical equations which described those
experimental results fairly closely.

But he did more, and this is what Kepler and Brahe did not: he
included specific *predictions* of things not yet seen or measured.
This is the essential ingredient of science that people in the 1300s,
1400s, 1500s had not yet incorporated into their methodology. That
ingredient was a novel thing in Galileo's day, and it didn't really
blossom until 1650 or so.

Â*As a matter of fact, Newton did
the same thing, so he was not a scientist either. Â*

Same comment here. Newton did some spectacular predictions.

In any event,
Kepler's equations for orbits of planets did not exactly agree with
experimental data. Â*Newton's equations for gravitation did not agree
exactly with experimental data.

They did at the time, within the available precision of their
experimental data.

Â*Those non-scientists had the
advantage of being able to say that maybe the experimental data was
not exact. Â*

No, they didn't have access to the precise data that showed suprises,
so they had no need to say anything of the kind. Bobby, this habit of
making stuff up as you go along has surely landed you in hot water in
the past.

But scientists of today say that their experiments are so
exact that they have proven Kepler and Newton wrong.

That's right. And that's where the fun starts. Because when nature
shows you that your model doesn't work as well as it looked a while
ago, it also gives you a handle on how to find a model that works
better. And this leads to the interesting part of physics. The
interesting part of physics is not saying, "OK we have that figured
out." The interesting part is figuring out the stuff that doesn't
quite work according to our understanding of things.

Â* Â* My opinion of scientists today is that they have an agenda,

Yes, I understand this is your opinion, though I have no idea what
agenda you think scientists have. I don't know what you think
scientists would gain by saying, "OK, all done here. All figured out.
Nothing left to do but sit around." I don't know what you think
scientists would gain by saying, "OK, we know this doesn't work, but
we want you to pretend it does anyway. And if you use the principles
to design useful things and they don't work, then pretend they work
anyway."

so if
you tell them, Hey, according to Einstein the marks left by lightning
on a railroad track will be closer together than the length of the
train, they will immediately close ranks to protect Einstein's theory
rather than actually thinking about what it means.

This is not quite what happens. What they do is check in experiment
whether or not it really happens that way. As it turns out,
*experiment* shows that, yes, nature really works that way. Given
that, then yes, it becomes time to really think about what that means,
because it often leads to other interesting ideas to check.

You, on the other hand, seem content to not bother looking at
experimental data and to instead worry about what it means and if it
conflicts with certain preconceived notions you hold about how nature
*ought* to work, then you become dissatisfied and say "That can't be
right." To hell with experimental data. Don't bother checking with
nature. Just go with what your intuition tells you. Thinking is free
and requires minimal effort.

Â*What they call
science today is more like a religion than a practical means of
solving problems. Â*Scientists believe in miracles like the length
contraction and have put all of their faith in those miracles.

No faith involved. Faith is believing in something for which you have
no evidence. However, in this case, the evidence has been gathered,
and yes, things really do work that way in nature. That's useful
information, because then you can build useful things that incorporate
those insights, and lo and behold, they work exactly as advertised.

You on the other hand stop at the point where it looks incredulous and
say, "Well, that can't be right. That'd be an outright miracle. I'm
not going to believe in miracles as a personal choice." To hell with
experimental evidence. To hell with checking whether it is a miracle
or just a surprising facet of reality. Surprise is a bad thing and
should be avoided if at all possible.

Â* Â* Â*The way to tell whether or not what they believe is true is
whether or not they keep it secret like witch doctors or if they are
open to discussion.

That's fine. But there comes a point where serving information to you
in the venue *you* want and in the manner *you* want is simply not
worthwhile. Some discussions require different media, different
venues, different modes of operation. People who are genuinely
interested in the results make accommodations to engage with those
more suitable formats.

You on the other hand make judgments based on convenience --- not only
on the content of the material but on whether it is dropped spoonful
by spoonful into your open beak in the nest you are accustomed to.
Well, Bobby, you're not a baby bird any more. It may be time to get
your ass out of the nest, start using your wings, and learn how to
hunt down food on your own.

PD

Â*They are definitely not open to discussion. Â*All
you