(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...
(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany:
What is wrong or right with this characterization?:
Relativity is a measurement theory.

What's wrong with that statement is that relativity is _not_ a
measurement theory.

Well, I can't say just yet because I don't know what it means. It's
just that I've never heard or read the phrase "measurement theory."
But recently it's being used on this NG like it's common knowledge.
Certainly every good physical theory has some measurement content, so
it can't be as simple as that. What does the phrase mean to you?
Patrick

I think it's a theory of measurement. Before Relativity the
measurement units of length, time, mass and energy where
separate.
SR made length = c*time and mass*c^2 = energy.
GR made length = (G/c^2)*mass.

Imo, The Theory of Relativity is a theory relating
these physical units. What else did it do?

Regards Ken S. Tucker

Patrick Reany wrote:

What is wrong or right with this characterization?:

Relativity is a measurement theory.



The basis of physics is about measuring things. Relativityprovides a
theory of how to translate one observer's measurements
into another's.

It provides falsifiable predictions about how those measurements
are related.

Science isn't about explaining things. It's about understanding how
to correlate the results of different experiments. If it weren't,
it would be philosophy, which is the kind of mental masturbation
that you seem to think science is.

John Anderson

John Anderson wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:

What is wrong or right with this characterization?:

Relativity is a measurement theory.



The basis of physics is about measuring things.

Are you saying that all physical theories are "measurement" theories?
If so, then why bother to stick the adjective "measurement" in front
of "theory"?

Relativityprovides a
theory of how to translate one observer's measurements
into another's.

Yes it does.


It provides falsifiable predictions about how those measurements
are related.

We are way off topic with this comment.


Science isn't about explaining things.

And I never said it was. Science is about the invention of theories
that work to predict the behavior of the physical realm. (That's a
characterization, not a deinfition.)

It's about understanding how
to correlate the results of different experiments. If it weren't,
it would be philosophy, which is the kind of mental masturbation
that you seem to think science is.

John Anderson

Why don't you explain precisely what you mean by that claim?

How about something a bit more useful? Why don't you simply define
what a "measurement theory" is in physics?

John, is it your contention that physics has abolsutely no need of any
philosophy whatsoever?

Patrick

"John Anderson" wrote in message
...
Science isn't about explaining things.
That may be your definition, but to the rest of the world science is the
understanding of Nature.


It's about understanding how
to correlate the results of different experiments. If it weren't,
it would be philosophy, which is the kind of mental masturbation
that you seem to think science is.

John Anderson
So Ph.D. cannot be a science degree, then?
Androcles

Androcles wrote:

"John Anderson" wrote in message
...
Science isn't about explaining things.
That may be your definition, but to the rest of the world science is the
understanding of Nature.

It's about understanding how
to correlate the results of different experiments. If it weren't,
it would be philosophy, which is the kind of mental masturbation
that you seem to think science is.

John Anderson
So Ph.D. cannot be a science degree, then?


Science isn't about explaining the ultimate causes of what we observein
nature.

It is about formulating theories that explain how to correlate the results
of different experiments into something that can be tested by other
experiments.

The Ph in Ph.D. has come along way since the middle ages where your
belief system seems to be entrenched.

John Anderson

John Anderson wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:
[snip]

How about something a bit more useful? Why don't you simply define
what a "measurement theory" is in physics?


Because "measurement theory" is your terminology, not mine.
I know what a theory in physics means. I don't know what a
"measurement theory" means.

"measurement theory" is not my terminology; it is Bilge's.

Patrick

Patrick Reany:
John Anderson wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:
[snip]

How about something a bit more useful? Why don't you simply define
what a "measurement theory" is in physics?


Because "measurement theory" is your terminology, not mine.
I know what a theory in physics means. I don't know what a
"measurement theory" means.

"measurement theory" is not my terminology; it is Bilge's.


That's news to me. You started the thread with:

What is wrong or right with this characterization?:

Relativity is a measurement theory.

That makes it your terminology. I simply interpreted it as
meaning a theory about measurements and answered the question you
asked. If you didn't expect any answers based upon what you asked,
why did you ask the question in the first place?

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany:
John Anderson wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany wrote:
[snip]

How about something a bit more useful? Why don't you simply define
what a "measurement theory" is in physics?


Because "measurement theory" is your terminology, not mine.
I know what a theory in physics means. I don't know what a
"measurement theory" means.

"measurement theory" is not my terminology; it is Bilge's.


That's news to me. You started the thread with:

What is wrong or right with this characterization?:

Relativity is a measurement theory.

That makes it your terminology.

A more rational basis to assign "ownership" to a term or phrase is to
grant it to the person who introduced it to the newsgroup. To my
knowledge Bilge did. I didn't know what it meant, so I started this
thread to get some input from others. Simple. I don't think that
there's anything deceptive about my first post. Maybe you should
control your urge to jump to unwarranted conclusions. What difference
does it make anyway?


I simply interpreted it as
meaning a theory about measurements and answered the question you
asked. If you didn't expect any answers based upon what you asked,
why did you ask the question in the first place?

Oh, but I am interested in the answers. In fact, your revelation that
you don't know what it means is very interesting to me. I had never
heard of it in physics prior to Bilge's use of it. I was hoping that
at least Bilge would comment on its meaning. I asked a physicist I
work for what it means to him and he didn't know in physics, though he
said there is a meaning in statistics.

However, if Bilge wants to stipulate a meaning for it, that's fine.

Patrick

Patrick Reany:
(Bilge):
Patrick Reany:
John Anderson :
Patrick Reany wrote:
[snip]

How about something a bit more useful? Why don't you simply define
what a "measurement theory" is in physics?


Because "measurement theory" is your terminology, not mine.
I know what a theory in physics means. I don't know what a
"measurement theory" means.

"measurement theory" is not my terminology; it is Bilge's.


That's news to me. You started the thread with:

What is wrong or right with this characterization?:

Relativity is a measurement theory.

That makes it your terminology.

A more rational basis to assign "ownership" to a term or phrase is to
grant it to the person who introduced it to the newsgroup. To my
knowledge Bilge did.

Give a reference showing that.

I didn't know what it meant, so I started this
thread to get some input from others. Simple. I don't think that
there's anything deceptive about my first post. Maybe you should
control your urge to jump to unwarranted conclusions. What difference
does it make anyway?

It wouldn't except for your tendency to insist on a formal definition
for any combinations of two or more words. I took "measurement theory"
to mean a theory about measurement. Special relativity is not a theory
about measurements.

I simply interpreted it as
meaning a theory about measurements and answered the question you
asked. If you didn't expect any answers based upon what you asked,
why did you ask the question in the first place?

Oh, but I am interested in the answers. In fact, your revelation that
you don't know what it means is very interesting to me.

I don't know what you think it means. I took the expression at
face value based upon knowing what a measurement is and what a
theory is. If you have some special definition that requires a
treatise to explain formally describe all of the nnuances that
make "measurent theory" different from a theory about measurement,
then you should have specified all of those things.

I had never heard of it in physics prior to Bilge's use of it.

Excuse me. I have to string words together to form sentences
which sometimes just use simple english in which "theory" is
noun and "measurement" is an adjective that modifies "theory".

I was hoping that at least Bilge would comment on its meaning.

Then apparently you didn't read the paragraph to which you
directed this comment.

I asked a physicist I work for what it means to him and he didn't
know in physics, though he said there is a meaning in statistics.

You and pmb find more ways to read some hidden meaning into
simple english than most other people on this newsgroup.

However, if Bilge wants to stipulate a meaning for it, that's fine.

What was wrong with the on in the post to which you replying?

(Bilge) wrote

You and pmb find more ways to read some hidden meaning into
simple english than most other people on this newsgroup.

More trolling huh bilge. And with such a load of manure. There is no
hidden meaning in

Total Energy, not free-particle energy (relativisitc mass*c^2) is time
component of K^u = P^u + qA^2 and not P^u.

The Lorentz force is F = q[E+vxB] where the covariant form is f^u =
qF^uv U_v

Relativistic mass is conserved in nuclear fission

Total energy = Kinetic Energy + Rest Energy + Potential Energy

The magntiude of sum of the 4-momentum of two charged particles in a
magnetic field is not a meaningful quantity - Read Ohanian for once
and learn!

The only hidden meaning is that you're terrible at the basics and/or
are too much of a weasle to remain quite rather than when you figure
out that you screwed up and have to attempt to save yourself from the
embarassment of admitting your mistakes.

Even when all the detailed proof is given to you you're pathologically
incapable of admitting your mistakes.