Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
In . com
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .

wrote:
Who gets to determine if an experiment was
"properly done"?

O'Barr comments:
This is a job for scientists.

Which scientists? The fallible or the infallible ones?

....

delete by O'Barr

O'Barr wrote:
Again you show you are not a scientist. You are
a philosopher. And you should not be on this net!
Physics is all about truth! Let me show you
your lie! You state that we can know nothing.

wrote:
Actually, I didn't state any such thing, nor would I!

O'Barr comments:
Come now. Anyone can see what kind of a philosopher you are.
And anyone can go back and re-read what you posted. It is in
black and white, and clear as a bell. You said, among many other
things to support it:

Well, you' re both a terrible philosopher and a terrible skeptic. Isn't
science supposed to have skepticism?


No one can know what is
"really hapening"

And if you cannot know what is really happening,
then you cannot know that we cannot know.

You obvoiusly do not know the difference between the statement "We can
know nothing" and the statement "No one can know what is really
happening." So, I will not bother to debate epistemology with such a
closed-minded and arrogant person as yourself.

....

wrote:
I would think that someone who believes in absolute
time could tell us something about what it is
supposed to mean. If you can't give a deeper
explanation of time than the relativist does, then
why say that LET is a deeper explanation than the
operationalism of SR?

O'Barr comments:
There is much more to our reality than just time.

Yet another of your nonresponsive reply.

wrote:
Nature invented its own laws, however the hell it
wanted to. It didn't get prior permission from
etherists to do so either.

O'Barr comments:
Boy, for someone who does not believe that we can
really know anything, you sure seem sure that you
know that nature can do anything it wants. You know
that nature invented its own laws. And you know
that it could invent any law it wanted. And it
didn't have to get permission. To me, you should not
be on this net. You talk just like a philosopher, a
child philosopher at that.

Except that I didn't claim it as "knowledge of absolute truth." You are
in such a habit of thinking in absolute terms that you habitually
assume that all others do too, I guess. The claim is obviously just my
personal formal point of view.


O'Barr wrote:
Nature is fixed and repeatable and thus
testable and knowable.

wrote:
That's a useful induction, of course --- but not
provable.

O'Barr comments:
Provable or not, science has shown to all of us
that it is fairly successful. So some of these basic
assumptions of science must be fairly correct!

Wow, there is in you a microscopic hint of scientific skepticism after
all! Oh well, it will probably disappear by your next post.

....

wrote:
Gee, it only takes one non-law conforming physical
event to disprove your assumptions, doesn't it? Oh,
but what's just one little old anomaly among
dogmatists, right?

O'Barr comments:
It would take only one, if it were the TOE, and
that there were no other possibilities of being
wrong: such as incomplete knowledge or understanding
of the theory, or of reality itself, or a mistake, or
some unknown outside influences that were not yet in
evidence. So yes, what you said above is without any
merit at all. Why is that? Why would you say things
that are not scientific? Why are you just trying to
make troubles? Don't you have better things to do?

Don't you?
....
O'Barr comments:
The very purpose of science is to come to know and
to understand our reality. It is not just to
guess.

wrote:
How can one tell that one ever has more than a
"guess that just happens to work"?

O'Barr comments:
And why is it necessary for me to answer such a
simple question? Have you ever heard of statistics?
Do you know what independent correlations are? Do
you know anything about science, and how it works?

Do you?

When General Dynamics builds something, do you know
that they know exactly how well they know what they
know? They know what they know, and when what they
know is adequate, they stop spending money in knowing
more. But they decide! They have the power to know
as much as they have the money to know. Science is
not limited to the degree to which things can be
known!

Is this ancient rationalism popping up its ugly head? Not that I'm a
positivist, no sir! But what is this thing that you know that is not
known to science that you mean to refer to here?

This is the science I know. And sure, there are
always areas in science, the unexplored, where we
have many uncertainties. And so far, some of these
uncertainties cannot yet be removed. But we also do
not yet have the TOE, and no one should give up in
understanding our reality. What a shame that we have
begun to teach such wrong concepts in our schools!

The "explored has just as many uncertainties as the unexplored" is what
you'll never get through that overly thick, dogmatic cranium of yours.
It is the viewpoint of a skeptic. Your personal obsession with
attaining certainty in life through science is wrong. It is rife with
dogmatism. It is anti-scientific.

"jem" wrote in message news:e6Fhf.11290$mm5.8016@dukeread03...
Harry wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
news:Knkhf.17503$om5.3188@dukeread04...
SNIP


You don't get to interject your own words into a theory
(especially when those words are inappropriately suggestive).


We agree on that. For the rest, your bias obviously differs from mine.
SNIP

If you agree that you don't get to interject your own words, then don't
do it.

In fact I didn't, I quite nearly cited Einstein. Apart of that, didn't you
know that everyone is inherently biased?

I claim that a lot of people don't understand the difference
between models (largely metaphysics) and predictions (pure physics),

and

Rather than object to your use of the term "metaphysics", let me just
say that physical models *are* the "predictions" of specific natural
phenomena (i.e. what you described as "pure physics").


We fully agree on that. SRT simply doesn't propose an underlying model
for
light propagation, because it's not a constructive theory but a
principle
theory, as Einstein also pointed out.

I see. You fully agree that dogs have four legs, since dogs have two
legs.

What a nonsense!

Einstein's SR *is* a model (based on an underlying theory
for which LET is also a model), and it's a model that *does* address the
propogation of light.

You obviously don't understand the difference between a constructive model
(such as the atomic theory of gas pressure) and a phenomelogical model (such
as the law of Boyle). The first kind is based on an underlying cause, the
second kind isn't.

BTW, the constructive/principle issue isn't relevant to Physics, since
the distinction involves models rather than theories, and since every
model of any given theory makes identical predictions (i.e. generates
the same Physics).

Reading only that last part, I would almost think that you understand it...
Maybe an example will help. Here's how Math pages' author put it, apparently
referring to Einstein's interpretation of SRT as "relativity", and to SRT
itself as a phenomelogical model:

"Incidentally, Ives and Stillwell themselves were not advocates of
relativity, and in fact gave a completely different theoretical model to
account for their experimental results and the deviation from the classical
prediction. This illustrates the fact that the results of an experiment can
never uniquely identify the explanation. They can only split the range of
available models into two groups, those that are consistent with the results
and those that aren't. In this case it's clear that any model yielding the
classical prediction is ruled out, while the Lorentz/Einstein model has
survived nicely."

With all such confusion, discussions can be endless and lead nowhere
-- which is all too typical for philosophy.

Best regards,
Harald

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
...

The experimental evidence corroborates
only the special and general theories
of relativity.

That's erroneous, according to scientific
literature.

What scientific literature claims this is
erroneous?

But it does corroborate SRT and GRT. See
Wikipedia for some possible alternatives
to GRT, and also Ilja's theory here.

Using the keywords "general relativity alternative(s)"
on Wikipedia's search engine, I found no alternatives
to relativity. Ilja's "theory" has all kinds of
problems: he and I discussed those on this newsgroup
a few years back.

Yes, if with "relativity" you mean the theory
of physics called relativity; No if you mean any
of many interpretations of it. Predictions can
easily be tested; interpretations are in part
metaphysical, and thus difficult to test, if at
all.

The only scientific "interpretation" of relativity
is the one given in the sciences.

I never claimed you did. If you agree that
relativity is not ad-hoc then you agree that
spacetime is not an ad-hoc assumption.

"spacetime" as mathematical tool is indeed not
ad-hoc but a consequence of observations, and as
such it's very useful. "spacetime" as claim about
hidden (metaphysical) reality (portrayed as such
by Minkowski) is a matter of fait, and doesn't
belong to physics. This has nothing to do with
"ad hoc".

Fortunately, space and time (also known as the physical
spacetime) is neither hidden nor metaphysical and
certainly does belong to physics. Of course, if
somebody denies that space and time exist then they
must claim that spacetime does not physically exist.
But, as Minkowski showed and as experiment has
demonstrated, this is not the case. Absolute time does
not exist.


Randy

"RL Gerl" wrote in message
...

"Harry" wrote in message
...

The experimental evidence corroborates
only the special and general theories
of relativity.

That's erroneous, according to scientific
literature.

What scientific literature claims this is
erroneous?

But it does corroborate SRT and GRT.


It's erroneous and corroborates SRT and GRT.
That makes sense.
Do you get the impression someone is an idiot?


The only scientific "interpretation" of relativity
is the one given in the sciences.

I get the impression someone else is an idiot





I never claimed you did. If you agree that
relativity is not ad-hoc then you agree that
spacetime is not an ad-hoc assumption.

"spacetime" as mathematical tool is indeed not
ad-hoc but a consequence of observations, and as
such it's very useful. "spacetime" as claim about
hidden (metaphysical) reality (portrayed as such
by Minkowski) is a matter of fait, and doesn't
belong to physics. This has nothing to do with
"ad hoc".

Fortunately, space and time (also known as the physical
spacetime) is neither hidden nor metaphysical and
certainly does belong to physics. Of course, if
somebody denies that space and time exist then they
must claim that spacetime does not physically exist.
But, as Minkowski showed and as experiment has
demonstrated, this is not the case. Absolute time does
not exist.

I get the impression someone is a raving lunatic.
Androcles.

Harry wrote:

"jem" wrote in message news:e6Fhf.11290$mm5.8016@dukeread03...

Harry wrote:

"jem" wrote in message

news:Knkhf.17503$om5.3188@dukeread04...

SNIP



You don't get to interject your own words into a theory
(especially when those words are inappropriately suggestive).


We agree on that. For the rest, your bias obviously differs from mine.
SNIP

If you agree that you don't get to interject your own words, then don't
do it.


In fact I didn't, I quite nearly cited Einstein.

As I believe has been pointed out to you before, in the early days of
his theory, Einstein needed to use words that his audience would be
comfortable with. However, it's quite obvious, from an examination of
Relativity, that it contains no substance which mediates the
transmission of light.

Apart of that, didn't you
know that everyone is inherently biased?


I claim that a lot of people don't understand the difference
between models (largely metaphysics) and predictions (pure physics),

and


Rather than object to your use of the term "metaphysics", let me just
say that physical models *are* the "predictions" of specific natural
phenomena (i.e. what you described as "pure physics").


We fully agree on that. SRT simply doesn't propose an underlying model

for

light propagation, because it's not a constructive theory but a

principle

theory, as Einstein also pointed out.

I see. You fully agree that dogs have four legs, since dogs have two
legs.


What a nonsense!

Yes, well, parodies of nonsense, generally tend to be nonsensical.

Of course SR models light propagation - it predicts the phenomena. Just
above you "fully agreed" that "models *are* the predictions". Remember.

Einstein's SR *is* a model (based on an underlying theory
for which LET is also a model), and it's a model that *does* address the
propogation of light.


You obviously don't understand the difference between a constructive model
(such as the atomic theory of gas pressure) and a phenomelogical model (such
as the law of Boyle). The first kind is based on an underlying cause, the
second kind isn't.

I understand the distinction between the two, and like I said, as far as
Physics is concerned, it's a distinction without a difference, however,
*all* models model - not just constructive models.

Neither are "causes" unique to constructive models; every model's
theorems are "caused" by its postulates. Moreover the "causes" that
arise in models deal exclusively with the arbitrary elements of the
models - there's no objective way to link those causes to the real-world.

BTW, the constructive/principle issue isn't relevant to Physics, since
the distinction involves models rather than theories, and since every
model of any given theory makes identical predictions (i.e. generates
the same Physics).


Reading only that last part, I would almost think that you understand it...
Maybe an example will help.

It would probably help more if you'd picked a quotation that had
something to do with what we're discussing.

Here's how Math pages' author put it, apparently
referring to Einstein's interpretation of SRT as "relativity", and to SRT
itself as a phenomelogical model:

"Incidentally, Ives and Stillwell themselves were not advocates of
relativity, and in fact gave a completely different theoretical model to
account for their experimental results and the deviation from the classical
prediction. This illustrates the fact that the results of an experiment can
never uniquely identify the explanation. They can only split the range of
available models into two groups, those that are consistent with the results
and those that aren't. In this case it's clear that any model yielding the
classical prediction is ruled out, while the Lorentz/Einstein model has
survived nicely."


With all such confusion, discussions can be endless and lead nowhere
-- which is all too typical for philosophy.

Best regards,
Harald


Harald

In .com
wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
. . .. .. ..

O'Barr comments:
Since we are no longer talking physics (we are
only talking **about** physics), I have decided not
to answer you. Whether or not we believe or do not
believe that there is a limit to what we can know, or
any of these other important points, none of this
should keep us from knowing what we do know.
We do know that in free space, SR is fairly
correct. We should also all know that LET produces
for us the exact same exactness, but it does so with
a physical base. And we should all be able to
understand the differences that this makes between
these two theories. The fact that SR experts are not
willing to discuss these differences, and the proper
advantages and disadvantages that exists between
these theories, seem to me to be very unscientific.
But because my theory, the at theory, is a
physical based theory, then it becomes important to
me that we all properly understand these differences.
And when no one else is willing to understand these
differences, then the benefits of my at theory cannot
be as easily appreciated.

In trying to display my at theory, in the basic
program that is now posted, there is one point where
the program asks for a time function (1 to 500, etc.)
The only purpose of this function is to slow down the
rate at which the data gets displayed on the screen.
For those who just want to see the final results, you
can just skip this page by hitting a return.
When I first started to write such programs, the
computers I could afford were so slow that it was
easy to see the plot get developed, point by point by
point, with these particles jumping horizontally back
and forth (the x axis), starting from the bottom of
the screen towards the top (the time axis.) But over
the years, computers have gotten faster and faster,
and now, when you run my program, to the eye, it
appears almost instantly, as one filled out screen.
You do not see the particles bounce around with any
sense of time. You just see their complete, traced
path, without even knowing that they went from the
bottom towards the top or the top towards the bottom.
The time delay being used is just a do loop, doing
any time consuming task. Initially, just putting the
extra loop into the program was more than enough to
slow things down. But as computers got faster and
fast, the loop had to be increased from 1 to 10. And
then from 10 to 50, etc. Today, on most computers,
you might have to use much more than asked for, maybe
5000 or more, to slow it down enough to actually get
a sense of time in these interactions.

Isn't progress great!

But the progress that counts is in our physics,
and we need to get off of these pure math theories,
such as SR and/or GR, and get back to physical
reality. And we need this in order to make a
connection with QM, and with Newtonian physics.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr
+ Remove 3 dots for e-mail.

"RL Gerl" wrote in message
...

"Harry" wrote in message
...

The experimental evidence corroborates
only the special and general theories
of relativity.

That's erroneous, according to scientific
literature.

What scientific literature claims this is
erroneous?

Papers in physics journals that discuss alternatives to GRT -- there are
several.

But it does corroborate SRT and GRT. See
Wikipedia for some possible alternatives
to GRT, and also Ilja's theory here.

Using the keywords "general relativity alternative(s)"
on Wikipedia's search engine, I found no alternatives
to relativity. Ilja's "theory" has all kinds of
problems: he and I discussed those on this newsgroup
a few years back.

Hmm, let's see if I can find it back... their search engine is lousy indeed.
I think I saw it under "General relativity": yes indeed, under par. 3.3 is
mention of several alternatives that apparently are not disproved.

Yes, if with "relativity" you mean the theory
of physics called relativity; No if you mean any
of many interpretations of it. Predictions can
easily be tested; interpretations are in part
metaphysical, and thus difficult to test, if at
all.

The only scientific "interpretation" of relativity
is the one given in the sciences.

In physics no interpretation of a theory can be scientific except if it in
turn can be subject to testing as well.

I never claimed you did. If you agree that
relativity is not ad-hoc then you agree that
spacetime is not an ad-hoc assumption.

"spacetime" as mathematical tool is indeed not
ad-hoc but a consequence of observations, and as
such it's very useful. "spacetime" as claim about
hidden (metaphysical) reality (portrayed as such
by Minkowski) is a matter of fait, and doesn't
belong to physics. This has nothing to do with
"ad hoc".

Fortunately, space and time (also known as the physical
spacetime) is neither hidden nor metaphysical and
certainly does belong to physics.

It depends on what you mean with space and time. What is usually meant with
"physical spacetime" certainly isn't the same concept as the total of
measured "space" and "time". Have you ever read for example Newton, Lorentz,
Einstein or Dirac on this? Or no, looking at what you write below, drop it.

Of course, if
somebody denies that space and time exist then they
must claim that spacetime does not physically exist.
But, as Minkowski showed and as experiment has
demonstrated, this is not the case. Absolute time does
not exist.

Now you make me laugh! That's a neat piece of unscientific crap to end
with. Never mind, I've seen it before. And as all your comments here can be
tracked down to the same unscientific mindset of "my theory seems to work,
therefore it must be The Truth and All Others Are Wrong", I give up and
leave it.

Good Luck!

Harald

"Harry" wrote in message
...

The experimental evidence corroborates
only the special and general theories
of relativity.

That's erroneous, according to scientific
literature.

What scientific literature claims this is
erroneous?

Papers in physics journals that discuss
alternatives to GRT -- there are several.

You have misunderstood my point. At present,
the experimental evidence solidly corroborates
both the special and general theories of
relativity and, in this sense, those theories
have no real contenders. That is, it is not
like the case of gamma ray bursts where there
were equally plausible theories that divided
the scientific community: the neutron star
collision theory vs hypernovas. If there were
a really serious contender to GRT it would be
well known in both the popular literature and
the journals you're referring to. Interestingly,
GRT is a consequence of M-theory so GRT is still
true even if M-theory is made into a workable
theory that `replaces' all existing field theories.

But it does corroborate SRT and GRT. See
Wikipedia for some possible alternatives
to GRT, and also Ilja's theory here.

Using the keywords "general relativity alternative(s)"
on Wikipedia's search engine, I found no alternatives
to relativity. Ilja's "theory" has all kinds of
problems: he and I discussed those on this newsgroup
a few years back.

Hmm, let's see if I can find it back... their search
engine is lousy indeed. I think I saw it under
"General relativity": yes indeed, under par. 3.3 is
mention of several alternatives that apparently are
not disproved.

Again, you have misunderstood my point,
please see the remarks above.

Yes, if with "relativity" you mean the theory
of physics called relativity; No if you mean any
of many interpretations of it. Predictions can
easily be tested; interpretations are in part
metaphysical, and thus difficult to test, if at
all.

The only scientific "interpretation" of relativity
is the one given in the sciences.

In physics no interpretation of a theory can be
scientific except if it in turn can be subject to
testing as well.

Fortunately, both the special and general
theories of relativity have only one scientific
interpretation. It is not like quantum
theory where there is the Copenhagen
interpretation, the many worlds interpretation,
and so on. If relativity did not have a unique
scientific interpretation, then all the textbooks
would discuss those interpretations just like
textbooks on quantum theory usually discuss the
differing interpretations of that subject.

I never claimed you did. If you agree that
relativity is not ad-hoc then you agree that
spacetime is not an ad-hoc assumption.

"spacetime" as mathematical tool is indeed not
ad-hoc but a consequence of observations, and as
such it's very useful. "spacetime" as claim about
hidden (metaphysical) reality (portrayed as such
by Minkowski) is a matter of fait, and doesn't
belong to physics. This has nothing to do with
"ad hoc".

Fortunately, space and time (also known as the physical
spacetime) is neither hidden nor metaphysical and
certainly does belong to physics.

It depends on what you mean with space and time.
What is usually meant with "physical spacetime"
certainly isn't the same concept as the total of
measured "space" and "time". Have you ever
read for example Newton, Lorentz, Einstein or
Dirac on this? Or no, looking at what you write
below, drop it.

No, it does not depend; scientists clearly
know what they mean by space and time. Space
and time, that is spacetime, really exist
according to observation and experiment.

Of course, if
somebody denies that space and time exist then they
must claim that spacetime does not physically exist.
But, as Minkowski showed and as experiment has
demonstrated, this is not the case. Absolute time does
not exist.

Now you make me laugh! That's a neat piece
of unscientific crap to end with. Never mind,
I've seen it before. And as all your comments
here can be tracked down to the same unscientific
mindset of "my theory seems to work, therefore it
must be The Truth and All Others Are Wrong",
I give up and leave it.

What I wrote is not unscientific, it
is the mainstream view. What you are doing
is deriding the theory of relativity itself and
using polemics on people who accept relativity.


Randy