(Bilge) wrote in message ...
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 thought I made it quite clear that I've never before heard the
phrase in physics, so as far I'm concerned its meaning is open for
definition. Though it's not obvious to me how the term should be
defined.


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".

But the result is ambiguous to me, though it seems to mean something
quite clear and unambiguous to you.


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.

Give a reference showing that. ;-)

I don't remember you arguing with Tom Roberts when he stated that
terms in SR need to be precisely defined.


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?

You could have reproduced it here. Anyway, you seem to want to define
a "measurent theory" as a "theory about measurement." My only problem
with that definition is that it's vague. One could argue -- though I
wouldn't since I'm not the argumentative type -- that since every
physical theory, as opposed to theories generally, is required to be
empirically testable and tested, so that every physical theory is in
that sense a theory of measurement, since it predicts measured values.
Every physical theory will have at least one operational definition of
how a measurement will be made; in that sense alone it seems
reasonable to claim that SR is a theory about measurement.

On the other hand, one could argue that a measurement theory is any
theory that denies either absolute space or absolute time, requiring a
theory of why those kinds of measurements are not absolute. In that
case, SR would be a measurement theory. Or, maybe a measurement theory
is any theory that explains why we won't get the expected measured
values due to some effect that has to be explained. An example might
be a theory that explains why the measured number of solar neutrinos
is 1/3 of that predicted. In other words, a measurement theory would
be any theory that explains away any measurement anomoly.

Your post on the sixth says this: "What's wrong with that statement is
that relativity is _not_ a measurement theory." Perhaps we could get
to your meaning of "measurement theory" if you'd 1) tell us why you
think relativity is not a theory about measurement, and 2) give some
examples of theories you think are theories about measurement.

Patrick

Patrick Reany:
(Bilge) wrote:
Patrick Reany:
(Bilge):
Patrick Reany:
"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 thought I made it quite clear that I've never before heard the
phrase in physics, so as far I'm concerned its meaning is open for
definition. Though it's not obvious to me how the term should be
defined.

What's wrong with a measurement theory being defined as a
theory of measurement so as to make the name commensurate
with its description?

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".

But the result is ambiguous to me, though it seems to mean something
quite clear and unambiguous to you.

Is the meaning of every sentence ambiguous to you just because the
combinations of nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. hasn't been defined
as a single concept? If so, you might consider learning to write in
chinese or japanese so that you can work with entire concepts expressed
in the form of a pictogram.

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.

Give a reference showing that. ;-)

How about the example above or rest of your post below, in which
you need to had to really put in some effort to overlook the obvious?

I don't remember you arguing with Tom Roberts when he stated that
terms in SR need to be precisely defined.

(1) "measurement theory" is not a term which is relevant to anything
but a description of an ontology,

(2) there is nothing wrong with insisting on rigor where rigor
is required. There is something wrong on insisting that
the casual use of english be abandoned in favor of strict
construction determined by committee. Tom hasn't suggested
that as far I can tell. You seem to have corporate culture
ingrained into you such that you don't feel comfortable
unless you have a policy statement based on the results
from a focus group whose focus was to insure no one had to
think in order to figure anything out.

[...]
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?

You could have reproduced it here. Anyway, you seem to want to define
a "measurent theory" as a "theory about measurement." My only problem
with that definition is that it's vague. One could argue -- though I
wouldn't since I'm not the argumentative type -- that since every
physical theory, as opposed to theories generally, is required to be
empirically testable and tested, so that every physical theory is in
that sense a theory of measurement, since it predicts measured values.
Every physical theory will have at least one operational definition of
how a measurement will be made; in that sense alone it seems
reasonable to claim that SR is a theory about measurement.

I don't think one could argue that with the intention of
clarifying anything.

On the other hand, one could argue that a measurement theory is any
theory that denies either absolute space or absolute time, requiring a
theory of why those kinds of measurements are not absolute.

I don't think one could argue that without laughing about the person who
would take it seriously. You are reading more into two words than is
there. In anycase, special relativity is a theory about the geometry of
spacetime and the invariants connected with that geometry. It can hardley
be called a theory of measurement, since it isn't even a theory about
relative motion or the objects that inhabit spacetime, except as far
as some of the consequences which follow from the theory.

What's wrong with simply assuming that "measurement theory" is a theory
about measurements and the instruments with which one performs those
measurements?


In that case, SR would be a measurement theory. Or, maybe a measurement
theory is any theory that explains why we won't get the expected measured
values due to some effect that has to be explained.

If you want proof, that you find more ways to see hidden meanings
in two words than most other people on this newsgroup, just look
at what you've managed to come up with for "measurement theory".

An example might
be a theory that explains why the measured number of solar neutrinos
is 1/3 of that predicted. In other words, a measurement theory would
be any theory that explains away any measurement anomoly.

Anyone can twist a definition and play on semantics, but in this case,
sure, someone could invent such a theory, but then it wouldn't be a theory
about neutrinos and it would essentiall be pointless for anything but
explaining the number of neutrinos we observe compared with the number
predicted by a model which describes neutrinos. While it's useful to
understand why you detect or don't detect them, such a theory isn't about
neutrinos. While you might be chomping at the bit to say "neutrino
oscillations", neutrino oscillations are a fundamental aspect of the
neutrinos and how that contributes to observing them here on earth is only
peripheral to the theory. The theory isn't based upon measurements made at
a specific place in the universe.

Your post on the sixth says this: "What's wrong with that statement is
that relativity is _not_ a measurement theory." Perhaps we could get
to your meaning of "measurement theory" if you'd 1) tell us why you
think relativity is not a theory about measurement, and 2) give some
examples of theories you think are theories about measurement.

I seriously doubt it. There is a point at which I think someone
is being contrary for the sake of being contrary, for the simple
reason that no one could possibly manage to come up with so many
ridiculous objections without putting some effort into reading
between the lines to overlook the obvious on purpose. (In this case,
two words). Congratulations.

(Bilge) wrote [stuff]

So what does a person need to do to get you to place them into their killfile bilge?

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

What's wrong with simply assuming

don't you mean "defining"

that "measurement theory" is a theory
about measurements and the instruments with which one performs those
measurements?


There's nothing wrong with it except it's still ambiguous to me. In
particular, it seems that SR would be a measurement theory, by that
definition. Couldn't SR be characterized as a theory about making
"relativistic" measurements, i.e., measurements when velocities are
close to the speed of light, and accounting for "relativistic" effects
on the measuring instruments themselves, such as length contraction?

I asked you before for an example of a theory you think is a
"measurement theory" by your definition and you declined, giving the
lame excuse that I'm just argumentative. If you have some example of a
theory you think is a "measurement theory" by your definition then
present it now.

Patrick

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

What's wrong with simply assuming

don't you mean "defining"

that "measurement theory" is a theory
about measurements and the instruments with which one performs those
measurements?


There's nothing wrong with it except it's still ambiguous to me. In
particular, it seems that SR would be a measurement theory, by that
definition. Couldn't SR be characterized as a theory about making
"relativistic" measurements, i.e., measurements when velocities are
close to the speed of light, and accounting for "relativistic" effects
on the measuring instruments themselves, such as length contraction?

Not unless you misunderstand special relativity, which has nothing
to do with relative motion.

I asked you before for an example of a theory you think is a
"measurement theory" by your definition and you declined, giving the
lame excuse that I'm just argumentative. If you have some example of a
theory you think is a "measurement theory" by your definition then
present it now.

LET is a measurement theory.

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

What's wrong with simply assuming

don't you mean "defining"

that "measurement theory" is a theory
about measurements and the instruments with which one performs those
measurements?


There's nothing wrong with it except it's still ambiguous to me. In
particular, it seems that SR would be a measurement theory, by that
definition. Couldn't SR be characterized as a theory about making
"relativistic" measurements, i.e., measurements when velocities are
close to the speed of light, and accounting for "relativistic" effects
on the measuring instruments themselves, such as length contraction?

Not unless you misunderstand special relativity, which has nothing
to do with relative motion.

OK, Bilge, tell me why SR has NOTHING at all to do with relative motion.

Patrick

Patrick, Bilge is not going to answer your question about relativity and
relative motion. You will get a non-responsive answer such as, "Look it
up or buy a book.
I am not going to bother answering your question because you will say
the answer is just a 'free creation of the human mind' ". Bilge, like
others on this NG, don't like to be pinned down. Good luck.

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

What's wrong with simply assuming

don't you mean "defining"

that "measurement theory" is a theory
about measurements and the instruments with which one performs those
measurements?


There's nothing wrong with it except it's still ambiguous to me. In
particular, it seems that SR would be a measurement theory, by that
definition. Couldn't SR be characterized as a theory about making
"relativistic" measurements, i.e., measurements when velocities are
close to the speed of light, and accounting for "relativistic" effects
on the measuring instruments themselves, such as length contraction?

Not unless you misunderstand special relativity, which has nothing
to do with relative motion.

OK, Bilge, tell me why SR has NOTHING at all to do with relative motion.

(1) it's a theory of spacetime

(2) it's a theory about invariance

(3) Do you consider the derivation of the relations:

x' = x cos(A) - y sin(A)
y' = y cos(A) + x sin(A)

to originate from a theory of relative motion or from geometry? If
those are purely geometric relations, then why would you consider
the the relations:

t' = t cosh(A) - x sinh(A)
x' = x cosh(A) - t sinh(A)

to be any different?

Technically speaking, one would not use relative motion to
find the transformations as they may be derived strictly
from geometry, just as the rotation group can.

(4) Since special relativity is a theory of spacetime rather than
relative motion, one has motivation to consider aany possible
physics to which the so-called improper lorentz transforms apply.
These are discrete transforms like refections which cannot be
performed by any continuous coordinate transform and so cannot
have anything to do with any relative motion, but has a great
deal to do with the physics in quantum mechanics and for defining
the possible forms of a potential which are lorentz covariant.

Daniel Weston:
Patrick, Bilge is not going to answer your question about relativity and
relative motion. You will get a non-responsive answer such as, "Look it
up or buy a book.

Not unless responsive answers have no discernible effect on
illogical and repetious questions as in your case. Since you
do not show any sentient response to responsive answers, you've
demonstrated that it's futile to provide you with a responsive
answer.

I am not going to bother answering your question because you will say
the answer is just a 'free creation of the human mind' ".

Is it or is not true that you have frequently used that as objection
to the answers you've been given?

Bilge, like others on this NG, don't like to be pinned down. Good luck.

If by "pinned down", you mean trapped into a semantics arguement,
you're right. If you mean "pinned down" as in pinned down to a definite
answer to a question about physics, you're being blatantly dishonest.

Bilge, the term "free creation of the human mind" can be used
appropriately and inappropriately. Most of the time your use of the
phrase is inappropriate. I figured that you would want to know. I
really think that eventually you will get it.
If you live that long.