Erratum Tycho Brahe. There is one case which I han't considered, the
statistical double journey. Mu mesons decay in about a microsecond,
originate in the upper atmosphere ~20Km and are the main component of
cosmics rays at sea level. Strictly speaking we should get a signal
when a meson is formed and detect the click an the counter at sea
level. But the argument is statistica. There are lots and lots of
cosmic rays and we know 20Km to be an average height. The meson
travells at over 99%c.

wrote:
From a purely kinematic
relativistic point of view, geocentric and heliocentric systems are
indistinguishable.

That is not the case. Acceleration is absolute. Strictly speaking we
should say that clocks run slower if you accelerate and decelerate,
since you cannot compare clocks except by reference to a double
journey.

Acceleration in SR is not absolute but "kind of absolute". Absolute
acceleration calls for a single, global inertial reference frame which
is the set of all possible selections of inertial reference frames,
i.e. a Newtonian absolute space.

Furthermore, Force/Acceleration does not affect clocks. It is speed and
gravitational potential that does.


Anyway the stars show parallax. Titus Brahne if I recall propsed just
this theory. The Sun revolved round the Earth, but all the planets
revolved round the Sun.

Ptolemaic and Copernican systems are totally kinematically equivalent
save the dynamics and observational wonders.

Mike

Mike wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip Valev's crap]

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.

[snip emotions]

Corroborated that is, not verified. Big, big differece. No theory about
nature workings in this world can be proven. Try and someone can just
introduce an auxiliary hypothesis that will knock out your proof
worthless.

Before you claim understanding of what you refer to as "postscientific"
era, read classics like that:

"In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the
phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was
that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of
bodies, and the laws of motion and gravitation, were discovered...."
Newton, Principia.

Do you know how many times in the history people thought they had a
correct theory about some phenomenon and someone came around with an
experiment that falsified it?

Let me remind you that geocentric model of the planet system (Eudoxous)
survived over heliocentric counterproposal (Aristarxos of Samos)
because there was no dynamic explanation of the latter. Then, Newton
came along and offered a dynamic explanation in favor of the
heliocentric Copernican world enough to make geocentrics bite their
tail. Suddenly, a pattent attorney came up with speical relativity that
challenged directly the Copernican system. From a purely kinematic
relativistic point of view, geocentric and heliocentric systems are
indistinguishable.
[snip]

You've got a little problem there, ds^2 vs. observation. The real
world is a bit sloppy given its limited perspective. Stellar
aberration "proves" the Earth orbits the sun. You cannot have annual
stellar aberration if the sun is at the center of the solar system.
Ditto annual parallax of the nearest stars.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Furthermore, Force/Acceleration does not affect clocks. It is speed and
gravitational potential that does.

This is true. However if we do not accelerate we can never get our
oscilloscope out to make a comparison. This was the essence of what I
said. Which frame of reference experiences time dilation? Our friend
the mu meson would say that the Earth was travelling at .995c and was
flat. After formation (20Km in Earth's frame) there would be 140m to
the ground (meson frame).

To get an oscilloscope out you need to go on a journey and come back.
Otherwise you rely on a light signal (travelling at c in all frames).

Uncle Al wrote:
Mike wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip Valev's crap]

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.

[snip emotions]

Corroborated that is, not verified. Big, big differece. No theory about
nature workings in this world can be proven. Try and someone can just
introduce an auxiliary hypothesis that will knock out your proof
worthless.

Before you claim understanding of what you refer to as "postscientific"
era, read classics like that:

"In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the
phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was
that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of
bodies, and the laws of motion and gravitation, were discovered...."
Newton, Principia.

Do you know how many times in the history people thought they had a
correct theory about some phenomenon and someone came around with an
experiment that falsified it?

Let me remind you that geocentric model of the planet system (Eudoxous)
survived over heliocentric counterproposal (Aristarxos of Samos)
because there was no dynamic explanation of the latter. Then, Newton
came along and offered a dynamic explanation in favor of the
heliocentric Copernican world enough to make geocentrics bite their
tail. Suddenly, a pattent attorney came up with speical relativity that
challenged directly the Copernican system. From a purely kinematic
relativistic point of view, geocentric and heliocentric systems are
indistinguishable.
[snip]

You've got a little problem there, ds^2 vs. observation. The real
world is a bit sloppy given its limited perspective. Stellar
aberration "proves" the Earth orbits the sun. You cannot have annual
stellar aberration if the sun is at the center of the solar system.
Ditto annual parallax of the nearest stars.


This is true but in a 3-D coordinate projected world of a 4-D manifold.
How would you decide the same in a 4-D static spacetime? The answer
might be that from that perspective the motions are only apparent and
the aberration is the result of looking from a selected FoR that does
not reflect the proper account of spacetime or at best relativizes 3-D
+ time.

Mike



--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

chip wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Pentcho Valev, idiot from plant pinhead:

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.

Well gee. Since physical theories are supposed to be theories
about nature, don't you think that checking with nature would
be a rather obvious requirement? Or, are you planning to come
up with your own theory and send lots of letters through your
attorneys threating nature to conform or be sued for failing to
meet some implied warranty?

what if the nature cheat us by means
of observations, the man still have a
point

No, he doesn't. Nature is not malicious. Nature's behavior is what it
is, whether we've discovered it or not. If we have a misunderstanding
about how it works, then eventually we will find an instance where that
understanding fails. That's what experimentation is all about.


if the theory fails making 10 predictions
but succes repeatly 2 specific predictions,
then the theory is good enuff, huh?


Not at all, and that's the point. Relativity has *never* made a
prediction that is counter to experimental results.



Being faithful to
the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:



The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.

The problem is that, in the postscientific era, the initiated are
logical jugglers able to derive anything from anything. For instance,
the frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, is a corollary of the
equivalence principle and Newton's c+v principle (the speed of light
does depend on the speed of source or observer - see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm }. The Juggler did obtain the
factor for himself in this way but to sycophants he offered the absurd
derivation in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" (see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm ).

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".


And that's not true. A theory can be an "effective theory", slightly
off the mark in its underpinnings, but actually quite good in its
predictive power. The question then becomes, when a better and more
fundamental theory appears, why was the effective theory so good?
Often, this question yields additional insights to the more fundamental
theory, chiefly in how it corresponds in some limit or special
circumstances to the effective theory. Consider Regge pole theory in
high energy physics, or solitons in scattering theory.

PD

PD wrote:
chip wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Pentcho Valev, idiot from plant pinhead:

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.

Well gee. Since physical theories are supposed to be theories
about nature, don't you think that checking with nature would
be a rather obvious requirement? Or, are you planning to come
up with your own theory and send lots of letters through your
attorneys threating nature to conform or be sued for failing to
meet some implied warranty?

what if the nature cheat us by means
of observations, the man still have a
point

No, he doesn't. Nature is not malicious. Nature's behavior is what it
is, whether we've discovered it or not. If we have a misunderstanding
about how it works, then eventually we will find an instance where that
understanding fails. That's what experimentation is all about.

you are totally absoultely ubdeiable inconsisten
and wrong here

what you call for nature is somthin only in your mind,
you brain cells and ramifications, done in such a
maner to safe space

thats whay tha logic

so nature doesnt exists, or only exists as chemical
reactions and small electric impulses in your brain,
nothin else



if the theory fails making 10 predictions
but succes repeatly 2 specific predictions,
then the theory is good enuff, huh?


Not at all, and that's the point. Relativity has *never* made a
prediction that is counter to experimental results.

wrong again, relativity is only a buch of neuron connections
and / or ramifications in your brain ( to save space) thats
whay your logic, which easily can be wrong, but giving
you the feeling that is okay

but is not

actually youll never know from inside

you need to move outside




Being faithful to
the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:



The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.

The problem is that, in the postscientific era, the initiated are
logical jugglers able to derive anything from anything. For instance,
the frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, is a corollary of the
equivalence principle and Newton's c+v principle (the speed of light
does depend on the speed of source or observer - see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm }. The Juggler did obtain the
factor for himself in this way but to sycophants he offered the absurd
derivation in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" (see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm ).

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".


And that's not true. A theory can be an "effective theory", slightly
off the mark in its underpinnings, but actually quite good in its
predictive power.

predictive means "What follows from what?".

The question then becomes, when a better and more
fundamental theory appears, why was the effective theory so good?
Often, this question yields additional insights to the more fundamental
theory, chiefly in how it corresponds in some limit or special
circumstances to the effective theory. Consider Regge pole theory in
high energy physics, or solitons in scattering theory.

PD

mazafaka wrote:
PD wrote:
chip wrote:
Bilge wrote:
Pentcho Valev, idiot from plant pinhead:

According to one of the most pernicious myths adopted in postscientism,
theories can only be verified through experiments.

Well gee. Since physical theories are supposed to be theories
about nature, don't you think that checking with nature would
be a rather obvious requirement? Or, are you planning to come
up with your own theory and send lots of letters through your
attorneys threating nature to conform or be sued for failing to
meet some implied warranty?

what if the nature cheat us by means
of observations, the man still have a
point

No, he doesn't. Nature is not malicious. Nature's behavior is what it
is, whether we've discovered it or not. If we have a misunderstanding
about how it works, then eventually we will find an instance where that
understanding fails. That's what experimentation is all about.

you are totally absoultely ubdeiable inconsisten
and wrong here

Slow down. You're more intelligible when you type more deliberately.


what you call for nature is somthin only in your mind,
you brain cells and ramifications, done in such a
maner to safe space

I see. And so it's all in our mind? Sorry... my mind? How is it, then,
that what's in your mind and what's in my mind are close enough in
synchrony that we can communicate?


thats whay tha logic

so nature doesnt exists, or only exists as chemical
reactions and small electric impulses in your brain,
nothin else

And why should such impulses exist? To keep us amused in an otherwise
blank universe?




if the theory fails making 10 predictions
but succes repeatly 2 specific predictions,
then the theory is good enuff, huh?


Not at all, and that's the point. Relativity has *never* made a
prediction that is counter to experimental results.

wrong again, relativity is only a buch of neuron connections
and / or ramifications in your brain ( to save space) thats
whay your logic, which easily can be wrong, but giving
you the feeling that is okay

but is not

actually youll never know from inside

you need to move outside

And, I take it, because nature exists only in the mind, there IS NO
outside?





Being faithful to
the mythology, sycophants neither understand nor care about the logic
used by the initiated in the transition from axioms to final results.
They even don't care about the relevancy of experiments. Sycophants can
only sing dithyrambs containing stanzas of the sort:



The frequency shift he gave in defiance
was neatly confirmed under the tower.
Oh Einstein, oh Albert, oh giant of science,
oh creature divine with an infinite power.

The problem is that, in the postscientific era, the initiated are
logical jugglers able to derive anything from anything. For instance,
the frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, is a corollary of the
equivalence principle and Newton's c+v principle (the speed of light
does depend on the speed of source or observer - see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm }. The Juggler did obtain the
factor for himself in this way but to sycophants he offered the absurd
derivation in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" (see
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm ).

Experimental verification can only make sense if a prior LOGICAL
verification has comprehensively answered the question "What follows
from what?".


And that's not true. A theory can be an "effective theory", slightly
off the mark in its underpinnings, but actually quite good in its
predictive power.

predictive means "What follows from what?".

Not necessarily. Imagine a causal chain A=B=C, where C is perceived,
and A and B are theoretical structures. It's entirely possible that
every prediction of A and B lead to experimentally verified behaviors
C, and yet the causal chain is incorrect, where the better chain is
D=B=C. It's even possible the replacement theory that works is more
like A=E=C, though this is rarer. Experimental prediction implies
only that C is predicted and observed, and makes no claim about whether
B or E is the one that follows from A. In such cases, the way to
distinguish B from E is the size of the set C that is successfully
predicted.

PD


The question then becomes, when a better and more
fundamental theory appears, why was the effective theory so good?
Often, this question yields additional insights to the more fundamental
theory, chiefly in how it corresponds in some limit or special
circumstances to the effective theory. Consider Regge pole theory in
high energy physics, or solitons in scattering theory.

PD