Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"MobyDikc" wrote in message ups.com...

snip
How come you didn't make the exercise?

Because I think you put forward the false dilemia that describing the
universe can either be done through the application of theories to form
predictions, or through the application of theories to understand the
results of an experiment, but not both.

Frankly, I think describing the universe is an activity that includes
both calculation and measurement, as well as hypothesizing and
criticizing the theories being applied in the first place.

But if I had to conjecture an answer to your riddle, "a description of
the universe in your opinion can only be a priori" would be one answer
consistent with the criteria you've disclosed in excersize.

"MobyDikc" wrote in message oups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"MobyDikc" wrote in message ups.com...

snip
How come you didn't make the exercise?

Because I think you put forward the false dilemia that describing the
universe can either be done through the application of theories to form
predictions, or through the application of theories to understand the
results of an experiment, but not both.

Ha, so you did make the exercise.
No, first of all that is not the reason for my preference,
and it is just a preference - not a dilemma - See below.


Frankly, I think describing the universe is an activity that includes
both calculation and measurement, as well as hypothesizing and
criticizing the theories being applied in the first place.

Before I hypothesize or critize a theory I prefer to learn it.
From your question it is obvious and from your enthusiasm
over the simple application with the rod, it is obvious that
you haven't done that yet, so I decided to give the exercise
to get you started.


But if I had to conjecture an answer to your riddle, "a description of
the universe in your opinion can only be a priori" would be one answer
consistent with the criteria you've disclosed in excersize.

Can we use some sort of common language here?
Remember, this is a physics newsgroup.
So, why do I prefer to describe the act of
"Calculating the proper length L of the rod from the
measured length L' using the known value v ( and
of course g(v) ) with the equation L = g(v) L' "
in stead of the act of
"Measuring length L' as the coordinate length of the
rod"
as an example of
"describing the Universe"
?
Hint: the rod is part of the Universe, but pretend that,
together with yourself and the measuring aparatus, and
all the other observers you can imagine, it *is* the entire
universe. Make the abstraction that saying something
about the rod is "describing the universe".
Try to keep the answer strictly in the context and in terms
of the example, so don't talk in terms of "universe"...

Dirk Vdm

You do not know Albert Einstein ridiculed all the foolish world people
during the rast 20th century with faudulent science, the special
theory of relativity. He really didn't know what was light and what was
the mechanism of light propagation through the empty space of this
universe. If you want to know how he cheated world people, and wish to
know real science concerned to light and its propagation, I recommend,
you better read Dr. Yoon's textbook (www.yoonsatom.net) newedana wrote

"newedana" wrote in message oups.com...
You do not know Albert Einstein ridiculed all the foolish world people
during the rast 20th century with faudulent science, the special
theory of relativity. He really didn't know what was light and what was
the mechanism of light propagation through the empty space of this
universe. If you want to know how he cheated world people, and wish to
know real science concerned to light and its propagation, I recommend,
you better read Dr. Yoon's textbook (www.yoonsatom.net) newedana wrote

See also
http://www.netdisaster.com/go.php?mo...yoonsatom.net/

Dirk Vdm

MobyDikc:
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

snip
Clearly the same model has been applied to two different
sets of conditions (unless u = v) and "describes the Universe"
for two observers, *and* a new set of initial conditions is used
for each observer taken into consideration.
Perhaps this answers the question?

It does indeed, thanks.

Do you know much about Process physics? I'm trying to get a clear
answer if Process physics "predicts" length contraction differently
insofar as it can allows you to derive the measurements of several
observers based on one mathematical and one set of initial conditions.

Does anyone know if that's correct?

So-called ``process physics'' consists of stringing a lot of
jargon and buzzwords together into a hodge-podge of vacuous
statements. My impression is that the author has some kooky
ideas which he tries to make credible by incorporating terminology
he deems to be fashionable from the frequency in which the
terminology appears in recent literature - sort of like a star trek
episode.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

snip
Before I hypothesize or critize a theory I prefer to learn it.

Like Process physics?

"MobyDikc" wrote in message oups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

snip
Before I hypothesize or critize a theory I prefer to learn it.

Like Process physics?

Well, for someone who has learned some physics, this
thing *immediately* exposes itself as a hoax. From the first
sentences it is clear that it is gibberish. It almost hurts.
An interested layman, like you obviously are, cannot
possibly spot this and will most certainly be impressed
by the (abuse of) jargon.
You can almost compare it with Bermuda Triangles and
Cosmonaut Gods.

Is there any reason why you don't attempt to make the
exercise I gave?
It really has an important point to make, and, noticing
that you seem to be interested in physics, I really don't
understand why you ignore it.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

snip
Is there any reason why you don't attempt to make the
exercise I gave?

I did attempt it. You didn't like my terminology so you asked it again.

You think that measurement is the universe while mathematical theories
are a description of the universe.

In order for this to be true it must also be true that observation and
knowledge are conceptually distinct and seperable.

This is a common position and one that I'm familiar with.

On the other hand, it is entirely dependent on specific ontological and
epistemological assumptions.

Assumptions that are in disagreement with Einstein's positions, by the
way, who thought that observation and knowledge are so deeply
intertwined that our description of the universe tells us what the
universe is (Heisenberg
speaking):

quote
"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but
observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"

"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in
some surprise. "After all, you did stress the fact that it is
impermissible to speak of absolute time, simply because absolute time
cannot be observed; that only clock readings, be it in the moving
reference system or the system at rest, are relevant to the
determination of time."

"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but
it is nonsense all the same. Perhaps I could put it more
diplomatically by saying that it may be heuristically useful to keep
in mind what one has actually observed. But on principle, it is quite
wrong to try founding a theory on observable magnitudes alone. In
reality, the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides
what we can observe."
/quote
(In 'Physics and Beyond - Encounters and Conversations', Harper
Torchbooks, 1972, p. 63.)

Now here is an excersize for you:

Why does Einstein think that the theory tells us what we observe?

"MobyDikc" wrote in message oups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

snip
Is there any reason why you don't attempt to make the
exercise I gave?

I did attempt it. You didn't like my terminology so you asked it again.

You think that measurement is the universe while mathematical theories
are a description of the universe.

Oops. Stop already.
You are in a physics newsgroup and you asked a very
specific question about physics to which you got a very
detailed answer.
Then I gave you a very specific exercise about physics
and asked you to do your best to make it and express
yourself in the language of physics.
I asked you not to mention "the universe" in your answer.
Can't you do it?

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

snip
Then I gave you a very specific exercise about physics
and asked you to do your best to make it and express
yourself in the language of physics.

No, you asked a very specific question about epistemology and ontology,
branches of metaphysics.

If I am wrong, reveal the answer to your profound riddle and expose me
as the blubbering fool I must be.