Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

@BillRM,

This article was written by Steve Carlip, and others. Van Flandern, in his 1998 paper, notes that:

Quote:

One relativist in particular, Steve Carlip of UC Davis, had the patience to stay with this issue over a span of several years, defending the GR interpretation to the fullest extent possible. Between us we have written enough prose, created enough analogies, pondered enough equations, and consulted enough references to fill a book....

The author further thanks Jeffery Kooistra for his key role...his inquiries to both Steve Carlip and to the author forced us to explain our positions in layman’s language, and thereby diverted us from talking past one another.

He also acknowledges help from Vigier in this (early) article. Vigier was, among other things, evidently an editor for Physics Essays, at that time:

Quote:

Jean-Pierre Vigier, in addition to several penetrating questions, encouraged the author to stop talking and start writing, promising a fair peer review process at the conclusion. Without such encouragement, this paper would certainly not have come into existence.

Four years later, Vigier joined him as a co-author in the 2002 article mentioned above.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I think I see what you are misunderstanding. I never said the Earth had accelerated or was accelerating.

No, I'm not misunderstanding that at all. On the contrary, I have repeatedly reminded you of that. That's the point. All your examples show that it is NOT accelerating.

Quote:

I have agreed with you that it is the car in this example that accelerates.

Well, that's good to know then. I never saw that admission anywhere. I will once again repeat (for the third of fourth time) the original question, to wit:

So you would agree then that if the driver claimed that he was not moving he would be wrong, right? KEEP IN MIND: all that's meant by "moving" here is that HE, not the earth, experienced ADDITIONAL motion by virtue of mashing down on the gas pedal. His velocity changed, not the earth's. HE accelerated, not the earth. If he denies that, and claims he's not the one who has increased his speed, relative to the earth, he's wrong

Quote:

An object. such as the Earth in the example of the "end of acceleration" frame I defined, can be in motion without accelerating

NOBODY ever said that a body had to be accelerating to be "in motion." Why do you keep bringing up this straw man/red herring? I understand what you're trying to do here. You're still trying to "prove" that absolute motion cannot be detected. That's nothing I (or Newton, or Galileo for that matter) ever disputed. We ALL know that. It's not relevant to the issue here, as I have repeatedly explained to you. HOW IS THAT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION?

Quote:

(I think this is the exact point that your reasoning is breaking down).

How, and why, could you possibly think that? I have repeatedly acknowledged that a body can be in motion without accelerating. I have also repeatedly told you that it is completely irrelevant to the question. Since you have now conceded the issue, it's really not important. You are saying (finally) that the car has accelerated AND the earth has not. That's all I ever said from the git-go. You just kept disputing it before, dragging this simple point out forever.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Thanks for the video, Max. Within the first 2:00 it shows that a "frame of reference" which defies physical laws is NOT the correct one.

It makes my point for me.

Watching for a couple of more minutes, it shows than an "optical illusion" is JUST THAT. It is NOT the true state of affairs. It is an illusion. It shows that the wall is the one "really moving" wrt to the earth's frame. It doesn't show that such things "can't be known." It shows the opposite. They can be known.

If they couldn't be known, then the video couldn't show you which one (the wall or the man) is the one moving in the earth's frame.

To elaborate on the point being made here. The "appearance" may be misleading. We initially think that the man is the one moving, relative to the earth's surface, not the wall. On the other hand it "could be" (and IS, as a matter of demonstrable fact) the other way around.

Whatever the case, you can never say that BOTH views (that (1) the wall is not moving and (2) the man is not moving) are correct. They are not "both" correct, and, furthermore, that can be demonstrated--it is not "unknowable."

You have, in effect, previously claimed that BOTH views are (or could be) correct. That claim can't be right, as either a matter of elementary logic or empirical demonstration.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I like science fiction as much as the next guy... but it should at least be interesting as fiction.

I was raised on John W. Campbell astounding/analog SF magazine and god help an author who made some dumb science error in his story that Campbell did not catch as the letters to the editor would be full of pages of equations proving that the author was an idiot.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

It merely points out that the mass of the car is quite a bit less than the mass of the earth. The same force is applied to the earth as is applied to the car.

"Merely," eh, Parry?

Yeah, right.

Nice try.

It points out that:

1. the crowd does not move with respect to the earth's surface, but
2. the car does, and therefore
3. If the car driver maintains that he has remained motionless while the crowd accelerated, then he is just plumb wack, that's all.

0 Replies

Hi guys,
My ISP had a problem so until now I was able to connect to the net.
See you later.
Cheers.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I have agreed with you that it is the car in this example that accelerates.

Now that that issue is out of the way, let me ask you another question, Max.

Suppose this dragster is participating in a 20 mile race down a straight track with a big crowd lining the whole route.

The dragster has a top end of 200 mph. As long as he has enough gas, he can maintain that speed, but he can't exceed it, get the idea? After he hits top end he just "cruises" along at 200 mph.

Would he now (while cruising) be correct, if he claims he's not moving wrt the crowd (the earth's surface)?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Would he now (while cruising) be correct, if he claims he's not moving wrt the crowd (the earth's surface)?

Looks like maybe Max aint gunna answer no more questions, eh?

Anybody else care to take a stab at the answer? Oris, maybe?

1 Reply

@layman,

The man had been as nice and as patience with you to an amazing degree but there come a time when anymore interaction with you is just a wasted of time.

Any library will likely contain a college level text book on physic if you have any real desire to understand the subject instead of making up your own worthless theories.

If you had ever used a GPS it correct functioning depend on the equations and theories of relativity being correct.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Still determined to display your ignorance while being cocksure that you're right, eh, Billy?

Quote:

If you had ever used a GPS it correct functioning depend on the equations and theories of relativity being correct

The equations, yes. They were "stolen" from Lorentz who had a different theory. It is Lorentz' theory, NOT special relativity, which is utilized in the GPS. The GPS doesn't, and can't, use SR to function. It must use Lorentzian relativity. Maybe YOU should read up on it, eh? Naaaawwwww.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Before I answer this question, would you like to give us the definition of science in your mind?

The problem of "demarcation" has never been satisfactorily resolved, Oris, and I aint gunna try to do it all by my own self now? I would say that you can't be a good scientist without a critical mind, though.

What's your definition?

That is exactly why I've said your thinking pattern is similar to that of a novelist/an artist. With the "demarcation" unresolved satisfactorily, your definition of science can run in all directions, which excites you and makes you artistic in your expression.
But the definition given by Max and by me runs in one and only direction: testable:

maxdancona wrote:

I think this is my definition of science (from my post of the top of this page).

Quote:

Science only knows what can be tested by experiment. By experiments we can define what is "correct" (of course isn't the same as "truth"). A theory is correct if and only if it can make predictions that are confirmed by experiment that no other theory can make... and of course there have been techniques developed by scientists to define this very clearly.
URL: http://able2know.org/topic/301703-8#post-6070142

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Yet this critical mind of yours is artistically, not scientifically

Beyond that assertion, Oris, can you answer the question I asked, which was, in part, "do you understand what I am saying?"

I don't think anything I've said on this topic is "artistic" at all. I'm simply speaking prosaically; nothing poetic about it. I'm speaking literally, not in terms of metaphors, allusions, vague symbolism, etc.

By what standard approach can I understand you, Lay? If you yourself cannot define your "science"?
You make enthusiastic statements and I read them with your "science" definition in mind: explain it freely as you wish, because there is no satisfactory demarcation between science and liberal arts according to your theory.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Quote:

But the definition given by Max and by me runs in one and only direction: testable:

Yeah, and for reasons I've stated, I don't think that's a good definition. He says:

Quote:

A theory is correct if and only if it can make predictions that are confirmed by experiment that no other theory can make

By that definition there can be no correct theories. Which is OK, maybe there aren't any "correct theories." But Max thinks otherwise, and he (mistakenly) thinks special relativity is a "correct theory" by his definition.

In any event, I've been more interested in the claims Max has been making than I am in trying to define "science," and I remain so.

I was actually trying to save you from falling into the same trap Max has fallen into. But maybe you don't want to be saved---that's OK, too.

I asked Max a question a few posts up. He has not, and apparently will not, attempted to respond to it. Care to give it a shot?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
But the definition given by Max and by me runs in one and only direction: testable:

Yeah, and for reasons I've stated, I don't think that's a good definition. He says:

Quote:
A theory is correct if and only if it can make predictions that are confirmed by experiment that no other theory can make

By that definition there can be no correct theories. Which is OK, maybe there aren't any "correct theories." But Max thinks otherwise, and he (mistakenly) thinks special relativity is a "correct theory" by his definition.

Again, Lay, the way of your thinking is metaphysical, not scientific.
To be candid, you've given us the impression that you've been imagining there is an absolute correct theory in/for science. With this belief in your mind, you wield it as a powerful magical wand to bombard everything Max says or denounce any physical theories that you don't like. Is it true?

But there is no such thing as an absolutely correct theory in science. Scientists offer effective theories like physics and chemistry. Your superstition of an absolutely correct theory opens doors for pseudoscience.
That is why you are too sheepish to give us your definition of science. Because you lack common sense of real science.

layman wrote:

In any event, I've been more interested in the claims Max has been making than I am in trying to define "science," and I remain so.

I was actually trying to save you from falling into the same trap Max has fallen into. But maybe you don't want to be saved---that's OK, too.

I asked Max a question a few posts up. He has not, and apparently will not, attempted to respond to it. Care to give it a shot?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

Again, Lay, the way of your thinking is metaphysical, not scientific.

Physics and other sciences are often seen as having two (or more) branches: (1) theoretical, and (2) experimental. Although there is some overlap, the theoretical physicists often have no direct involvement with the the experimental ones, and vice versa.

I asked you if you understood what I was saying. You don't, and that's OK. But I'm not talking "metaphysics," merely theoretical physics.

Quote:

That is why you are too sheepish to give us your definition of science. Because you lack common sense of real science

No common sense, eh? No, it's because it's irrelevant to anything being said here and I don't give a **** WHAT definition you use. Use yours, and only your definition, fine with me. It's not about "definitions."

My question to you was whether you care to answer the very simple question Max refuses to address. Like him, you don't care to address it.

Carry on, Oris. Listen to everything Max tells you, and don't question him. Then you will think just like he does, and like him, you will be quite happy with that.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Again, Lay, the way of your thinking is metaphysical, not scientific.

Physics and other sciences are often seen as having two (or more) branches: (1) theoretical, and (2) experimental. Although there is some overlap, the theoretical physicists often have no direct involvement with the the experimental ones, and vice versa.

I asked you if you understood what I was saying. You don't, and that's OK. But I'm not talking "metaphysics," merely theoretical physics.

Quote:
That is why you are too sheepish to give us your definition of science. Because you lack common sense of real science

No common sense, eh? No, it's because it's irrelevant to anything being said here and I don't give a **** WHAT definition you use. Use yours, and only your definition, fine with me. It's not about "definitions."

My question to you was whether you care to answer the very simple question Max refuses to address. Like him, you don't care to address it.

Carry on, Oris. Listen to everything Max tells you, and don't question him. Then you will think just like he does, and like him, you will be quite happy with that.

I don't understand you? It boils down to the fact that you DON'T understand yourself, Lay. You've indulged in MYSTICISM that is neither testable nor falsifiable, that is governed by a religion-like spirit, which bestows you a superior illusion. This illusion can not have a natural process and you are debauched, losing your courage to give us your definition of science - yet you have the audacity to ridicule any definitions of science given by any scientists.

Theoretical physicists still offer testable explanations and predictions, e.g. Hawking radiation.

Max's definition needs to be improved. Because he didn't appear to realize that the science should have to be a systematic enterprise. So do I have reasons to listen to everything Max tells me?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

No comment Oris. Carry on.

0 Replies

To be exact, Lay's A2K's Aristotle, who believed that pure reason is best physics, which needs not to be testable. Do you remember the historical fact that Aristotle's theory dominated scientific thought for a millennium? How powerful!
Lay's driven by this power.

Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know