"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message ...
"Alex Green" wrote in message m...

Scientific
theory is an ever more accurate approximation to the rules existing in
the world revealed by measurement and observation.

It is an unwarranted assumption on your part that there are rules
existing in the world.


It would be an unwarranted assumption if patterns derived by maths did
not match the patterns found in measurements. Although, perhaps, I
should have made it clear that by 'world' I meant the place inferred
from observation and the observation of the values on measuring
instruments.

Best Wishes

Alex Green

"Alex Green" wrote in message m...
"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message ...
"Alex Green" wrote in message m...

Scientific
theory is an ever more accurate approximation to the rules existing in
the world revealed by measurement and observation.

It is an unwarranted assumption on your part that there are rules
existing in the world.


It would be an unwarranted assumption if patterns derived by maths did
not match the patterns found in measurements. Although, perhaps, I
should have made it clear that by 'world' I meant the place inferred
from observation and the observation of the values on measuring
instruments.

Are you suggesting that there must be some kind of 'Official Cosmic Rule
Book' by which things actually work?

Martin Hogbin

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:23:27 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:


"Alex Green" wrote in message m...
"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message ...
"Alex Green" wrote in message m...

Scientific
theory is an ever more accurate approximation to the rules existing in
the world revealed by measurement and observation.

It is an unwarranted assumption on your part that there are rules
existing in the world.


It would be an unwarranted assumption if patterns derived by maths did
not match the patterns found in measurements. Although, perhaps, I
should have made it clear that by 'world' I meant the place inferred
from observation and the observation of the values on measuring
instruments.

Are you suggesting that there must be some kind of 'Official Cosmic Rule
Book' by which things actually work?

Observations says it does seem that way... Which, of course, brings up
many 'unwanted' questions for science Like, who or what set those
rules?

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:23:27 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:


Are you suggesting that there must be some kind of 'Official Cosmic Rule
Book' by which things actually work?

Observations says it does seem that way... Which, of course, brings up
many 'unwanted' questions for science Like, who or what set those
rules?

I disagree. Observation allows us to invent rules which work quite well.
That is all.

Martin Hogbin

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:29:22 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:23:27 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:


Are you suggesting that there must be some kind of 'Official Cosmic Rule
Book' by which things actually work?

Observations says it does seem that way... Which, of course, brings up
many 'unwanted' questions for science Like, who or what set those
rules?

I disagree. Observation allows us to invent rules which work quite well.
That is all.

You cannot invent that which isn't already defined... The mathematical
forms are defined for us, we find them. Consider it the Cosmic Easter Egg
Hunt Example, I can 'invent'

F = ma^2

Or

F = km^4/r^2

But they don't match the nature we observe. We can't change these rules
to make the above work. Thus my comment above...

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:29:22 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:

I disagree. Observation allows us to invent rules which work quite well.
That is all.

You cannot invent that which isn't already defined... The mathematical
forms are defined for us, we find them.

That is also a matter of opinion. Personally, I believe that all
of mathematics (even the integers) is a product of the human
mind. But that is another question.

Consider it the Cosmic Easter Egg
Hunt Example, I can 'invent'

F = ma^2

Or

F = km^4/r^2

But they don't match the nature we observe.

Agreed.

We can't change these rules
to make the above work. Thus my comment above...

I do not understand your point here.

Martin Hogbin

In article ,
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 19:29:22 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:23:27 +0000 (UTC), "Martin Hogbin"
wrote:


Are you suggesting that there must be some kind of 'Official Cosmic Rule
Book' by which things actually work?

Observations says it does seem that way... Which, of course, brings up
many 'unwanted' questions for science Like, who or what set those
rules?

I disagree. Observation allows us to invent rules which work quite well.
That is all.

You cannot invent that which isn't already defined... The mathematical
forms are defined for us, we find them. Consider it the Cosmic Easter Egg
Hunt Example, I can 'invent'

F = ma^2

Or

F = km^4/r^2

But they don't match the nature we observe. We can't change these rules
to make the above work. Thus my comment above...

Why not? Do you have a standard for force that's independent of the
acceleration it will impart to a massive object?

The above relations may not make for a simple dynamics, but with a
suitable redefinition of either F or m, or both, why not? E.g. Hooke's
law becomes F = k^2 x^2. Or, depending on what you want to do with m,
perhaps F = k^2/m x^2.

--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!"

Alex Green writes
Now, attacking relativity because you don't like the twin paradox or
time dilation or can't see why the speed of light is constant is where
lack of humility comes in. Nobel prize winning physicists are the
intellectual equivalent of olympic gold medallists but much more
selected. Even your university physics/maths professor is a regional
champ. If you believe that all of these people could have considered
time dilation and the twin paradox over a whole century and all got it
wrong then humility should suggest to you that the fault could be with
yourself.

I do not accept your analogy. Athletic prowess is easily measured
'rightness' is not. A better analogy would be with the catholic Church
(or any church).

How many priests do you think there are who don't believe in god? None.
Why? Because they wouldn't get to become priests if they didn't believe
in god.

How many professional physicists are there who don't accept relativity.
None (or very few). Why? Because they wouldn't get the job if they
didn't because the catechism of relativity equates anyone who does not
accept relativity as being someone who does not understand relativity
and someone "incapable of understanding" a principle theory of modern
physics has no prospect of a career in physics. It is therefore a self
fulfilling prophesy. If I was to rewrite what you wrote you may see what
I mean:

Now, attacking the idea of god because you don't like the idea that he
created disease and that he allows people to die horribly is where
lack of humility comes in. Cardinals are the intellectual equivalent of
Olympic gold medallists but much more selected. Even your average bishop
is a regional champ. If you believe that all of these people could have
considered the paradoxes of disease and death for 2000 years and all got
it wrong then humility should suggest to you that the fault could be
with yourself.

Whether you are talking religion or science, then at the end of the day
it is what convinces you.

I am sceptical of relativity because in essence it is based on an
unjustified belief which goes back 300 years. A belief in source
independence, or the more fashionable term invariance. For the first 200
years the belief was sustained by another belief, that of the ether. The
speed of light cannot be affected by the speed of the source because its
speed is constant w.r.t the ether. Einstein accepted that belief from
his predecessors and built it into his theory despite the fact that the
source of that belief, belief in the ether had been put in question by
MMX. While it was fashionable to deny belief in the ether Einstein
followed fashion but eventually admitted that he based his theory on a
belief in the ether [1]. In the mean time any heretics were silenced by
the prophet De Sitter but his gospel was found to be false about 60
years later. Everything which sustained the belief for the first 260
years has been discredited.

OTOH to any thinking person with no axe to grind, no reputation to
protect the obvious explanation of MMX taken together with the discovery
of the photon is that light is not a propagated wave, does not require
an ether and is made up of particles shot out by the source at c
relative to the source as indeed Einstein's contemporary Walter Ritz
assumed. Any other assumption would be perverse indeed unless there was
overwhelming evidence to rule out that straightforward explanation.
There was no overwhelming evidence. It seems to me highly likely that
human nature being what it is, the physics community accepted relativity
rather than accept they had been wrong for 200 years. The only
experimental evidence which does exist did not appear until the mid
1960's and that is hardly overwhelming although no doubt sufficient to
convince the already convinced, the true believer.

When a 'science' introduces a belief in invisible, undetectable virtual
photons, which can act over any distance instantaneously and do anything
required of them, e.g. decide to attract or repel as is needed, then so
called science has re entered the dark ages by including a belief in
magic. When belief in a theory is so strong that it is still believed
even when the facts show it to be untenable then it is no longer
science. The facts did not fit the Big Bang theory so rather like the
Christian fundamentalists, who rather than change their ideas decided
that god hid the dinosaurs fossils in the rocks to test their faith, the
church of BB invented inflation, dark matter and dark energy without any
evidence of any of them.

Physics has become a mathematicians playground. What you have in physics
is a lot of totally speculative and inventive ideas of what a
mathematical equation, itself built on several generations of equations,
means. Thus we have wormholes in space, and string theory, and
singularities and god knows what else. The essential division between
maths as a scientific tool and theory has been blurred to the point
where maths is seen as complete theory rather than as an augment to
theory. Thus we have in relativity a mathematical theory which not only
does not attempt to answer perfectly reasonable questions about for
example, causality, but scorn is poured by its advocates on those who
dare to ask such questions.


--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message
.uk...
| Alex Green writes
| Now, attacking relativity because you don't like the twin paradox or
| time dilation or can't see why the speed of light is constant is where
| lack of humility comes in. Nobel prize winning physicists are the
| intellectual equivalent of olympic gold medallists but much more
| selected. Even your university physics/maths professor is a regional
| champ. If you believe that all of these people could have considered
| time dilation and the twin paradox over a whole century and all got it
| wrong then humility should suggest to you that the fault could be with
| yourself.
|
| I do not accept your analogy. Athletic prowess is easily measured
| 'rightness' is not. A better analogy would be with the catholic Church
| (or any church).
|
| How many priests do you think there are who don't believe in god? None.
| Why? Because they wouldn't get to become priests if they didn't believe
| in god.

Hmm... Seems to me that a priest could have chosen his career based on his
perverted interest in molesting small boys rather than any true belief.
I think you are extraordinarily naive in your own faith as to the goodness
of mankind, John. There are many perverts out there, in all walks of life,
all with ulterior, hidden motives. A catholic priest:
1) Has no sexual interest in women (but will claim to "Hail Mary")
2) Likes to dress in fancy robes
3) Wants a position of power in the community
4) Has a one-day working week
5) Is a manipulator of people
6) Is wealthy (actually from begging, but in the form of demanding)
7) Knows the right words to say to people who do beleive in god.
Whether he actually believes or just pretends to is irrelevant.




| How many professional physicists are there who don't accept relativity.
| None (or very few). Why? Because they wouldn't get the job if they
| didn't because the catechism of relativity equates anyone who does not
| accept relativity as being someone who does not understand relativity
| and someone "incapable of understanding" a principle theory of modern
| physics has no prospect of a career in physics. It is therefore a self
| fulfilling prophesy. If I was to rewrite what you wrote you may see what
| I mean:
|
| Now, attacking the idea of god because you don't like the idea that he
| created disease and that he allows people to die horribly is where
| lack of humility comes in. Cardinals are the intellectual equivalent of
| Olympic gold medallists but much more selected. Even your average bishop
| is a regional champ. If you believe that all of these people could have
| considered the paradoxes of disease and death for 2000 years and all got
| it wrong then humility should suggest to you that the fault could be
| with yourself.
|
| Whether you are talking religion or science, then at the end of the day
| it is what convinces you.
|
| I am sceptical of relativity because in essence it is based on an
| unjustified belief which goes back 300 years.

No... Much, much further. it goes back to the dawn of man.
It is inherent in us all to believe what we see is reality.
We had no reason to question the speed of light may be involved
until we had the telescope. That intuition contradicts c+v.
The turning point begins with John Goodricke, who believed
that Algol is an eclipsing binary. It cannot be, the trig doesn't work,
but that belief is still accepted by astronomers today.
Einstein is totally subjective, and his ideas have been called
"counter intuitive". They are, because it is intuitive to accept
the vector addition of velocities. The conflict is, that counters
our intuition to believe what we. One or the other must be discarded.
Einstein chose to retain "believe what we see" and discard
the vector addition of velocities, replacing it with his own
V = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2); subjectivity has displaced objectivity
in science.



A belief in source
| independence, or the more fashionable term invariance. For the first 200
| years the belief was sustained by another belief, that of the ether. The
| speed of light cannot be affected by the speed of the source because its
| speed is constant w.r.t the ether. Einstein accepted that belief from
| his predecessors and built it into his theory despite the fact that the
| source of that belief, belief in the ether had been put in question by
| MMX. While it was fashionable to deny belief in the ether Einstein
| followed fashion but eventually admitted that he based his theory on a
| belief in the ether [1]. In the mean time any heretics were silenced by
| the prophet De Sitter but his gospel was found to be false about 60
| years later. Everything which sustained the belief for the first 260
| years has been discredited.
|
| OTOH to any thinking person with no axe to grind, no reputation to
| protect the obvious explanation of MMX taken together with the discovery
| of the photon is that light is not a propagated wave, does not require
| an ether and is made up of particles shot out by the source at c
| relative to the source as indeed Einstein's contemporary Walter Ritz
| assumed. Any other assumption would be perverse indeed unless there was
| overwhelming evidence to rule out that straightforward explanation.
| There was no overwhelming evidence. It seems to me highly likely that
| human nature being what it is, the physics community accepted relativity
| rather than accept they had been wrong for 200 years. The only
| experimental evidence which does exist did not appear until the mid
| 1960's and that is hardly overwhelming although no doubt sufficient to
| convince the already convinced, the true believer.
|
| When a 'science' introduces a belief in invisible, undetectable virtual
| photons, which can act over any distance instantaneously and do anything
| required of them, e.g. decide to attract or repel as is needed, then so
| called science has re entered the dark ages by including a belief in
| magic. When belief in a theory is so strong that it is still believed
| even when the facts show it to be untenable then it is no longer
| science. The facts did not fit the Big Bang theory so rather like the
| Christian fundamentalists, who rather than change their ideas decided
| that god hid the dinosaurs fossils in the rocks to test their faith, the
| church of BB invented inflation, dark matter and dark energy without any
| evidence of any of them.
|
| Physics has become a mathematicians playground. What you have in physics
| is a lot of totally speculative and inventive ideas of what a
| mathematical equation, itself built on several generations of equations,
| means. Thus we have wormholes in space, and string theory, and
| singularities and god knows what else. The essential division between
| maths as a scientific tool and theory has been blurred to the point
| where maths is seen as complete theory rather than as an augment to
| theory. Thus we have in relativity a mathematical theory which not only
| does not attempt to answer perfectly reasonable questions about for
| example, causality, but scorn is poured by its advocates on those who
| dare to ask such questions.
|
|
| --
| John Kennaugh
| to email convert the number from hex to decimal

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message ...
"Alex Green" wrote in message m...
"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message ...
"Alex Green" wrote in message m...

Scientific
theory is an ever more accurate approximation to the rules existing in
the world revealed by measurement and observation.

It is an unwarranted assumption on your part that there are rules
existing in the world.


It would be an unwarranted assumption if patterns derived by maths did
not match the patterns found in measurements. Although, perhaps, I
should have made it clear that by 'world' I meant the place inferred
from observation and the observation of the values on measuring
instruments.

Are you suggesting that there must be some kind of 'Official Cosmic Rule
Book' by which things actually work?


No, just that measurements can be described by maths in such a way
that some future measurements can be predicted.

Best Wishes

Alex Green