3
   

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

 
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 04:35 pm
@layman,
I don't know why you are arguing about Feynman. You reject Einstein and Hawkins and Degrasse Tyson. Why does the fact you reject Feynman too make any difference?

Did you look at Feynman lecture on SR? There is no doubt on his view.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 04:41 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.h
You can read it for yourself.


You should try understanding (I don't mean "reading," I mean understanding) it yourself. Anything less is mere cargo cult pseudoscience.

You should try to understand the theoretical BASIS for SR, with all of it's nuances (which you don't see).

You should try to understand what is assumed in SR, as distinguished from what is empirically known or "provable."

You should try to understand the CONDITIONS for what he says, and the nuances and distinctions he makes BEFORE he states any conclusions.

You should try to understand how the conclusions follow from the arbitrarily accepted premises, but are not themselves "reality." You should try to understand what would change, how it would change, and why it would change if you chose different assumptions (axioms).

I don't think you have displayed any understanding of any of those things.

Quote:
This is the correct scientific view of how nature works.


No, that statement of yours merely shows how cargo cult "science" works. By making it, you are showing you don't understand.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 04:46 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I don't know why you are arguing about Feynman. You reject Einstein and Hawkins and Degrasse Tyson. Why does the fact you reject Feynman too make any difference?

Did you look at Feynman lecture on SR? There is no doubt on his view.


I don't in any way "reject" Feynman. In fact, I can't recall hearing ANYTHING he's ever said that I don't agree with. He is NOT saying what you say there is "no doubt" about. You don't "understand" Feyman, you just "read" him.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 04:49 pm
@layman,
I agree with everything in the Feynman lecture on Special Relativity. I believe it because he lays out the mathematics, and there is documentation that all of the experiments back it up this understanding of how Nature works.

If you are willing to make this statement, then you can claim that Feynman agrees with you.

In the beginning of this thread, I understood that you didn't think mathematics or experiment were the way to get the correct scientific view of nature. Was I wrong.

Tell me yes or no... is mathematics and experiment the way to get the correct scientific view of nature?

Feynman would say yes, in fact he gave a lecture saying just that.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 04:50 pm
@layman,
He gave a lecture on Special Relativity that contradicts pretty much everything you have said on this thread. Much of his work was on Special Relativity... the very thing that you have claimed several times on this thread to be "idiocy".

This is getting silly again.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 05:00 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
He gave a lecture on Special Relativity that contradicts pretty much everything you have said on this thread. Much of his work was on Special Relativity... the very thing that you have claimed several times on this thread to be "idiocy".


It contradicts NOTHING I have said, from what I have seen. Parts of that lecture do, however, flatly contradict assertions you have made in this thread (and presented as "indubitable").

If you could ever grasp what he means by "cargo cult science," then you would recognize that you are a practictioner of it.

But I don't think you will ever understand that.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 05:08 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
In the beginning of this thread, I understood that you didn't think mathematics or experiment were the way to get the correct scientific view of nature.


I said that math is not physics. Al said the same thing, remember? I quoted it to you at length (in another thread) after you gave a partial quote.

Quote:
Tell me yes or no... is mathematics and experiment the way to get the correct scientific view of nature.


It depends on what you mean by "correct." SR is correct. So is LR. But their basic assumptions are fundamentally different and contradictory.

If by "correct" you mean "true," then I disagree that SR is "true" and hence disagree that it is "correct" if that's what you take correct to mean.

layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 05:22 pm
@layman,
1. Obama is fat as a hog
2. That person on TV is Obama
3. Therefore that person on TV is fat.

1. Obama is as skinny as a rail
2. That person on TV is Obama
3. Therefore that person on TV is skinny.

Both syllogisms are completely "valid" as a matter of logic.

But they can't both be "true."
They could both be false, though.

"valid" does not mean "sound" or "true."
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 05:37 pm
In that lecture Feynman is being paid, as a University professor, to teach the theory of special relativity to students. He does a fair (if not very elaborate) job of:

1. First explaining the fundamental axioms, and then
2. Elucidating the logical implications which follow from those premises.

If he was teaching LR, he would do the exact same thing.

The ONLY difference would be that the premises, and therefore the implications which follow therefrom, would be different.

If his lecture was on LR, I'm sure I would agree with what he said in THAT lecture too, as I agree with what he says in this one.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 09:01 pm
@layman,
For anyone who cares, here are Feynman's remarks on Cargo Cult science. I think Layman is full of crap when he claims that Special Relativity is an example of Cargo Cult Science.... but anyone is free to read the original source and make up their own minds on what Feynman actually said..

http://www.californiachaparral.com/images/CargoCult.pdf

This discussion is losing my interest again...
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 09:11 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
For anyone who cares, here are Feynman's remarks on Cargo Cult science. I think Layman is full of crap when he claims that Special Relativity is an example of Cargo Cult Science...


That's not what I said at all. It's seems it is just impossible for us to communicate. I really get the feeling that you virtually NEVER understand a word I say.

I said your approach to (mis)understanding SR was tantamount to cargo cult science. I did NOT say that about SR at all. Einstien is the last guy I would accuse of that. He was (or at least became) extremely insightful with respect to analyzing the premises of both his own theories, and those of others. He fully realized what he was merely positing, without proof, and WHY he was positing it. He realized the full implications of his premises (until they were effectively altered by Minkowski), etc. He was always dissatisfied with SR on a number of grounds, and almost immediately set out to abandon it in favor of a better theory.

Those are thing you don't even consider. You want to go straight to the conclusions, without analysis of the premises, and memorize, by rote, what "science teaches." As Feynman said in his "what is science" analysis, "science teaches nothing." You think your mechanical approach is "science," but is merely the cult cargo mentality on display. Science, according to Feynman, is about observing, reasoning, and analyizing, not about memorizing such things as math formulas without even knowing how and why they are being applied as they are, within the confines of a particular theory.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 09:55 pm
@layman,
Feynman wrote:
The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean..


I have been saying for a while, Layman, that it would really help you to take a Physics course.

Quote:
The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.” But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations—to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.


This is the key point that I have been trying to make on this thread. If you agree with this, then we are 90% of the way there.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 10:01 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
This is the key point that I have been trying to make on this thread. If you agree with this, then we are 90% of the way there.


I agree with everything Feynman said that you quoted. I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of it, whatever that may be. In any event, I would suspect that we're closer to 90% apart than 90% in agreement.

You want to stress terminology and formulas, but elsewhere (as I have already quoted) Feynman makes it clear that those things are merely perequisites (as they are in any field) but are NOT science.

Quote:
Is necessary to learn the words [but] it is not science...It is not science to know how to change Centigrade to Fahrenheit.

It is not easy to understand energy well enough to use [the word] right. [It displays no understanding to say] "energy makes it move." It would be equally well to say that "God makes it move," or "spirit makes it move," or "movability makes it move."


Do YOU understand this (what I just quoted)?

Do you understand that LR and SR use the same math (the Lorentz transforms) and are equally confirmed by all relevant experiments?

Do you understand that is not math, nor experiments, nor terminology which distinguishes the two?

Do you understand the (very limited) function of the transforms in each theory, and that those formulas are DERIVED from the premises, rather than vice versa?

I don't think you do.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 10:23 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations—to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labor in physics...


Einstein explicitly made this very same point. He said that the facts do NOT dictate the theory. He said that theoretical constructs are the product of creative imagination.

Do you understand that? Again, I don't think you do.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 10:27 pm
@layman,
Quote:
The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.”


You are getting that backwards. You use imagination to come up with ideas to test. Bu these ideas don't become scientific knowledge until they are tested, and confirmed, by experiment.

Any time your understanding (or your intuition or your imagination) is contradicted by experiment, your understanding is invalid. A scientist will drop it.

Part of the advantage of getting a Physics education is that you not only gain tools and a language for scientific investigation (i.e. mathematics), you also get an understanding and experience with the experimental basis for our current knowledge of how Nature works. Feynman was a great educator, his lectures on Physics are widely regarded as some of the best ever by Physics students... we studied them carefully.

Science often contradicts human intuition... and really that is the purpose of science. If human intuition were correct, we wouldn't need scientific investigation as a way to get knowledge.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 10:39 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Part of the advantage of getting a Physics education is that you not only gain tools and a language for scientific investigation (i.e. mathematics), you also get an understanding and experience with the experimental basis for our current knowledge of how Nature works.


Once again you give evidence of a cargo cult mentality. Knowing the "procedures" does NOT, according to Feynman, give understanding. Nor is it science. You appear to defy Feynman and claim those things ARE science.

By way of editing, I asked you a few questions in my last post which you may have overlooked, such as:

Quote:
Do you understand that LR and SR use the same math (the Lorentz transforms) and are equally confirmed by all relevant experiments?

Do you understand that is not math, nor experiments, nor terminology which distinguishes the two?


If you would answer those questions, it would go a long way toward determining if (or how much) we are in agreement.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 10:52 pm
@layman,
Read what I wrote again. Mathematics was one thing (which Feynman agrees is necessary for understanding). The understanding of the epxerimental basis for our current knowledge is the second thing. Both of these are things that Feynman notes is important. If you read his lecture series (which does require calculus and a little more) you will get this.

Let me ask this... do you agree

1) If there was way that Special Relativity different substantively what you are calling Lorentzian Relativity it could be tested by experiment.

2) That if we ran this experiment, and Special Relativity passed the experiment and what you are calling Lorentzian Relativity failed, then that would mean that Special Relativity was the correct view of scientific knowledge?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 11:00 pm
From Feynman's cargo cult analogy:

Quote:
I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call Cargo Cult Science. In the South Seas there is a Cargo Cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas—he’s the controller—and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land.


What is the point of this comparison? He is trying to make more than one point in this address, but the point here is this:

Quote:
So I call these things Cargo Cult Science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential


Following the forms, in itself shows NO understanding. These cult guys would make imitation headphones out of coconuts, etc. thinking that was what it took to make planes come land on their island, bringing all kinds of desired material goods with them. They thought the significance was in the form, and had no clue about the substance of how planes operate, why they land where they do, etc.

What is the "essential something" that is missing? How do you extract one from cargo cult thinking? Feynman suggests it is virtually impossible:

Quote:
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing. But it would he just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones.


And that's why I don't think it's likely that we can communicate. We have been through this dozens of times, but your understanding, such as it is, never changes. We have fundamentally different understandings of what the essential features of physics theories are. The same goes for what scientific understanding is and, for that matter, even what science is. I don't think you agree with Feynman at all. You just impute your own idiosyncratic premises to Feynman, and then think he must be saying what you want him to say.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 11:03 pm
@maxdancona,
I agree in part with 2. In that case LR would be excluded as an equivalent or superior theory. However, that would NOT make SR "correct."
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 11:09 pm
@layman,
How do you think you get this understanding, Layman?

To Feynman this understanding is found through experimentation. Experiments are the sole judge. He also states clearly that to understand the knowledge gained by modern experiments requires an understanding of advanced mathematics.

People who go into Physics, including Richard Feynman, spend years in a University learning math and studying the experimental basis of scientific knowledge.

You don't just make this stuff up... and you don't get it from reading little snippets you find through a Google search. Yes, there is a role for imagination in order to get to the ideas you can test by experiment.

But Feynman never says that you can reach this understanding with out a University Education or at least the years of study in mathematics and Physics that that entails.

That seems to be what you are saying.

 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 07:12:57