Bryan Wallace http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"The true scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific
method of testing theories, and not in the theories themselves. I agree
with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to
be a science but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all
sciences." Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not
follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled
pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in
the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence
against the theories they believe in, should be considered
pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the
professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or
political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Bryan Wallace http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"The true scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific
method of testing theories, and not in the theories themselves.

It isn't a faith it is a dicipline. The scientist needn't "believe in"
the dicipline, he need only understand it and abide by it when
publishing scientific work. As an analogy if you are going to
publish a "sonnet" you should stick to the format and not publish
free verse. It doesn't matter whether you "believe in the form"
as far as capability goes. Generally where the faith or belief comes
in is in the question of why someone chooses to become a "true
scientist" vs a Baptist preacher or a police officer.


I agree
with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to
be a science but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all
sciences." Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not
follow the rules of science,

Let us make sure you are using the same rules as everyone else.
State what you believe these rules to be.

they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience.
The people who tend to believe more in theories than in
the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence
against the theories they believe in, should be considered
pseudoscientists and not true scientists.

Mind you I don't yet disagree with anything you state but you've flung
out very very general accusations, "most theories" covers a lot of
ground. Could you be more specific in examples of currently held
theories which you feel are "true science" and others which you feel
are "pseudo-science".

To the extent that the
professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or
political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes."

Pentcho Valev

From the title of your post I presume you are going to include
some relativity theories in your examples. Let me answer your
title question. As I would define it a relativist takes the
position that absolute quantities cannot be defined.
Rather we must consider observed quantities relative to the
method of observation (observer or observer frame).

Thus for example if I ask you to give your spatial position,
you may quote some coordinates but those numbers mean nothing
until you also give me a number of physical objects we can both
observe which then fix the coordinates. Thus further the operational
meaning of a position in space is relative to other objects or unique
localized phenomena. Hence lattitude is defined as the angle from
the north pole...and the north pole is determined by observing
the relative rotation of the Earth to the stars.

Consider the distinction between relative and absolute motion.
You are in a vehicle traveling west along the Earth's equator
so that the sun stays just on the horizon never setting.
Are you moving? or are you stationary? One man says yes it's
obvious that you are moving, you see the landscape passing by.
Another man says no of course you are not moving, the Earth
is rolling under you and your vehicle is stationary.
A third man say's oh but you forgot that the Earth is also orbiting
the sun so you are moving straight up!

They get into a heated debate which devolves into a fist fight.
Then a relativist comes along and says, motion is only defined relative
to other objects. You are moving relative to the earth, you are
stationary relative to your vehicle, you are moving relative to the
Galactic center but moving without the "relative to ___" is meaningless.
This sort of absolute metaphysical state is including exactly that
part of the theory you mentioned as not obeying the rules of science.
It is not something you can empirically measure. The relativist
excises those non-operational components and sticks to what is
meaningful in the context of empirical methodology.

This dicipline becomes even more important when one gets to quantum theory.

Regards,
James Baugh

Baugh wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Bryan Wallace http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

"The true scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific
method of testing theories, and not in the theories themselves.


It isn't a faith it is a dicipline.

It isn't a dicipline, it's a discipline.

Good post, but does a relativist take the position that "absolute
quantities cannot be defined"? Doesn't any invariant quantity qualify
as an absolute quantity?

Dear jem:

"jem" wrote in message
news:xUJhe.12379$sy6.6702@lakeread04...
....
"The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and
not in the theories themselves.

It isn't a faith it is a dicipline.

It isn't a dicipline, it's a discipline.

Good post, but does a relativist take the position
that "absolute quantities cannot be defined"?
Doesn't any invariant quantity qualify as an absolute quantity?

c is an invariant quantity. It is however not absolute to all
frames, for all paths that light can take. Only to local frames
is it invariant. Alpha serves to similarly tie down the other
big "invariant quantities".

Absolutes available then appear to be: death, taxes, and trolls
on sci.physics.relativity.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear jem:

"jem" wrote in message
news:xUJhe.12379$sy6.6702@lakeread04...
...

"The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and
not in the theories themselves.

It isn't a faith it is a dicipline.

It isn't a dicipline, it's a discipline.

Good post, but does a relativist take the position
that "absolute quantities cannot be defined"?
Doesn't any invariant quantity qualify as an absolute quantity?


c is an invariant quantity. It is however not absolute to all
frames, for all paths that light can take. Only to local frames
is it invariant. Alpha serves to similarly tie down the other
big "invariant quantities".

Sorry David, but I'm not getting your point. Depending on the
measurement details, the speed of light in Relativity can be invariant
or not. If it is (e.g. measured locally, in vacuum), then that speed
presumably could be considered an "absolute quantity". No?

Absolutes available then appear to be: death, taxes, and trolls
on sci.physics.relativity.

I don't know what they are, but dirk van expose men on her website

then she write books on relativity based on your copyrighted assertions

which is in turn ilegal

Dear jem:

"jem" wrote in message
newsG0ie.12430$sy6.4720@lakeread04...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear jem:

"jem" wrote in message
news:xUJhe.12379$sy6.6702@lakeread04...
...

"The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and
not in the theories themselves.

It isn't a faith it is a dicipline.

It isn't a dicipline, it's a discipline.

Good post, but does a relativist take the position
that "absolute quantities cannot be defined"?
Doesn't any invariant quantity qualify as an
absolute quantity?


c is an invariant quantity. It is however not
absolute to all frames, for all paths that light
can take. Only to local frames is it invariant.
Alpha serves to similarly tie down the other big "invariant
quantities".

Sorry David, but I'm not getting your point.
Depending on the measurement details, the
speed of light in Relativity can be invariant or not.

Sounds like it is not a good candidate for "absolute". If I know
the distance, and measure the time-of-flight, then get something
less than c (for light travelling in a vacuum), would I consider
that quantity "absolute"?

If it is (e.g. measured locally, in vacuum),
then that speed presumably could be
considered an "absolute quantity". No?

*I* wouldn't consider it absolute, no. How do you want to define
absolute?
Here is how the dictionary has it:
ADJECTIVE:
1) Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2) Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3a) Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional:
absolute trust.
3b) Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See
Usage Note at infinite.
4) Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an
absolute ruler.
5) Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.
6) Grammar
6a) Of, relating to, or being a word, phrase, or construction
that is isolated syntactically from the rest of a sentence, as
the referee having finally arrived in The referee having finally
arrived, the game began.
6b) Of, relating to, or being a transitive verb when its object
is implied but not stated. For example, inspires in We have a
teacher who inspires is an absolute verb.
6c) Of, relating to, or being an adjective or pronoun that stands
alone when the noun it modifies is being implied but not stated.
For example, in Theirs were the best, theirs is an absolute
pronoun and best is an absolute adjective.
7) Physics
7a) Relating to measurements or units of measurement derived from
fundamental units of length, mass, and time.
7b) Relating to absolute temperature.
8) Law Complete and unconditional; final.

It meets 7a (since it defines the length measurement, but fails
the rest. "Unconstrained by ... other provisions". Such as "only
when locally measured", or "only when there isn't a massive body
near the flight path".

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear jem:

"jem" wrote in message
newsG0ie.12430$sy6.4720@lakeread04...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:


Dear jem:

"jem" wrote in message
news:xUJhe.12379$sy6.6702@lakeread04...
...


"The true scientist must have faith and believe
in the scientific method of testing theories, and
not in the theories themselves.

It isn't a faith it is a dicipline.

It isn't a dicipline, it's a discipline.

Good post, but does a relativist take the position
that "absolute quantities cannot be defined"?
Doesn't any invariant quantity qualify as an
absolute quantity?


c is an invariant quantity. It is however not
absolute to all frames, for all paths that light
can take. Only to local frames is it invariant.
Alpha serves to similarly tie down the other big "invariant
quantities".

Sorry David, but I'm not getting your point.
Depending on the measurement details, the
speed of light in Relativity can be invariant or not.


Sounds like it is not a good candidate for "absolute". If I know
the distance, and measure the time-of-flight, then get something
less than c (for light travelling in a vacuum), would I consider
that quantity "absolute"?


If it is (e.g. measured locally, in vacuum),
then that speed presumably could be
considered an "absolute quantity". No?


*I* wouldn't consider it absolute, no. How do you want to define
absolute?
Here is how the dictionary has it:
ADJECTIVE:
1) Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2) Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3a) Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional:
absolute trust.
3b) Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See
Usage Note at infinite.
4) Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an
absolute ruler.
5) Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.
6) Grammar
6a) Of, relating to, or being a word, phrase, or construction
that is isolated syntactically from the rest of a sentence, as
the referee having finally arrived in The referee having finally
arrived, the game began.
6b) Of, relating to, or being a transitive verb when its object
is implied but not stated. For example, inspires in We have a
teacher who inspires is an absolute verb.
6c) Of, relating to, or being an adjective or pronoun that stands
alone when the noun it modifies is being implied but not stated.
For example, in Theirs were the best, theirs is an absolute
pronoun and best is an absolute adjective.
7) Physics
7a) Relating to measurements or units of measurement derived from
fundamental units of length, mass, and time.
7b) Relating to absolute temperature.
8) Law Complete and unconditional; final.

It meets 7a (since it defines the length measurement, but fails
the rest. "Unconstrained by ... other provisions". Such as "only
when locally measured", or "only when there isn't a massive body
near the flight path".

I used the example of light because you did, but in order to measure
something the measurement procedure has to be specified (e.g. locally,
in vacuum), otherwise if any old measurement procedure would do, the
quantification would be meaningless.

OK you don't like using light, then use any quantity at all that you
think is invariant, and indicate why "absolute quantity" is an
inappropriate characterization.

aquos:
I don't know what they are, but dirk van expose men on her website

then she write books on relativity based on your copyrighted assertions

which is in turn ilegal

In which country?

"Bilge" wrote in message ...
aquos:
I don't know what they are, but dirk van expose men on her website

then she write books on relativity based on your copyrighted assertions

which is in turn ilegal

In which country?

Probably in Dwain Piggybottom's country.

Dirk Vdm