My heart beat like a hammer...
My eyes plumb fulla tears....
She been gone about an hour.....
But it seems like a thousand years.
0 Replies
Brandon9000
1
Reply
Sat 19 Dec, 2015 05:36 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
Quote:
"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." (Richard Feynman)
And this has what to do with word definitions? Why do I have to prove to you things that have been taught all over the world for centuries?
Energy, in physics, the capacity for doing work....
0 Replies
fresco
1
Reply
Sun 20 Dec, 2015 01:17 am
@Brandon9000,
Your repetition avoids the fact that definitions ultimately have a limited range of applicability. For example, 'force' in Newtonian mechanics does not have the same currency in relativistic field theory. It is that sort of paradigmatic shift which is implied by the OP for 'time'. The word 'currency is apt because the value of a concept is dependent on the area and era of its usage.
I suggest we close this exchange with the thought that 150 years ago we would have been learning about 'phlogiston' in our science class. And indeed, who knows where 'energy' is going to end up in a physics which must also account for 'dark energy'.
Anyone who was teaching phlogiston theory one hundred fifty years ago ought to have been fired, and soon would have been. The theory was being seriously questioned almost 300 years ago, and was thoroughly discredited more than 200 years ago. This is just another idiotic claim about the nature of reality. That people establish a theory about the nature of reality which happens to be wrong doesn't mean that it was right when people thought it was. Dark matter is not a theory, it's an hypothesis, just as so-called string theory is not a theory but an hypothesis. Phlogiston was actively disproven because some materials, such as magnesium, actually gain weight during combustion, because the oxygen which bonds with the magnesium produces an ash which is heavier than elemental magnesium. Many alleged theories get exploded because they are testable, and the tests reveal their flaws. The Clark-Maxwell's luminiferous aether is a perfect example of this. People attempted to keep that one alive for at least a generation, until Einstein's 1905 paper on optics exploded the theory by providing an explanation for how light crosses empty space (that light is an aggregation of quanta). Max Planck refused to accept that for about 15 years, but finally gave in an accepted the theory. Some hypotheses are probably not testable, like string "theory," in which the dimensions are so small as to be ultimately imperceptible.
You consistently refuse to recognize the difference between an absolute reality and descriptions of reality. Flawed descriptions of reality aren't "true" just because people believe in them. Here's a little experiement for you. Convince yourself that gravity is not what it's cracked up to be, then go to the top of the tallest building in your area, and throw yourself off. Take an observer with you so that he or she can tell us how that worked out for you.
Clark-Maxwell's luminiferous aether is a perfect example of this. People attempted to keep that one alive for at least a generation... Max Planck refused to accept that for about 15 years, but finally gave in an accepted the theory.
By which time Al had changed his tune and said an aether was needed in connection with general relativity. Go figure, eh?
0 Replies
Brandon9000
1
Reply
Sun 20 Dec, 2015 01:49 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
Your repetition avoids the fact that definitions ultimately have a limited range of applicability. For example, 'force' in Newtonian mechanics does not have the same currency in relativistic field theory. It is that sort of paradigmatic shift which is implied by the OP for 'time'. The word 'currency is apt because the value of a concept is dependent on the area and era of its usage.
I suggest we close this exchange with the thought that 150 years ago we would have been learning about 'phlogiston' in our science class. And indeed, who knows where 'energy' is going to end up in a physics which must also account for 'dark energy'.
Not even remotely relevant to my initial assertion that physics defines terms clearly and the definitions are pretty much universal within the field.
Big deal !The historian is bursting to correct my 150 years estimate and play at being a scientist, and the naive realist is bursting to show his ignorance of the Pragmatist's rejection of the difference between 'descriptions' and 'reality' .
What's the matter ? Are you getting bored ? Nobody to throw your favorite words 'bullshit' and 'clown' at today ?
If anyone around here consistently "plays" scientist, it's you. That you reject a distinction between descriptions of reality and absolutely reality is neither science nor evidence that the distinction is invalid. Your sneering insults are a fair measure of the value of your response.
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether...the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity...
...there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view.
The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation.
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
fresco wrote:
You are effectively denying that paradigms shift in science !I suggest you read Kuhn and consider its implications for the OP.
Not only am I not denying it, it's not relevant and I'm not even discussing it.
And you never "effectively" denied it either, eh, Brandon?
Ya gotta forgive poor Fresky, though. That boy is a straight-up solipsist and he thinks you said whatever HE thinks you said. And why not? There aint nobody here but him (if ya ask him).
0 Replies
fresco
1
Reply
Sun 20 Dec, 2015 10:25 am
@Brandon9000,
So let's get this straight...you are not denying there has been a paradigm shift in physics which questions the ontological status of a pre Relativistic concept of 'time? And yet you say that such a shift has no bearing on the OP ?
So let's get this straight...you are not denying there has been a paradigm shift in physics which questions the ontological status of a pre Relativistic concept of 'time? And yet you say that such a shift has no bearing on the OP ?
It has no bearing on my statement that physics defines its terms clearly and that there is essentially universal agreement among physicists as to what the definitions are.
Fresky NEVER lets that stop him from trying hijack every thread he enters and attempting to turn it into a forum for promulgating his pet theories, eh? For him there simply is no other subject matter.
Aint that right, Fresky?
0 Replies
fresco
1
Reply
Sun 20 Dec, 2015 12:06 pm
@Brandon9000,
But do you not understand that'universal agreement ' is still delimited by a particular paradigm, and 'agreement' per se may be different in degree in physics, but not in kind as per everyday contexts. That is the whole crux of my argument. There is nothing sacrosanct about the meaning of any term, scientific or otherwise. It is all about 'what works' in particular contexts or paradigms.
Obviously hard line 'scientific realists' may want to dig their heels in on this point, but I am surprised that one who proclaims an interest in 'the history of science' would do so.
But do you not understand that'universal agreement ' is still delimited by a particular paradigm, and 'agreement' per se may be different in degree in physics, but not in kind as per everyday contexts. That is the whole crux of my argument. There is nothing sacrosanct about the meaning of any term, scientific or otherwise. It is all about 'what works' in particular contexts or paradigms.
Obviously hard line 'scientific realists' may want to dig their heels in on this point, but I am surprised that one who proclaims an interest in 'the history of science' would do so.
The entire world of physics from high school textbooks to the most advanced papers defines its terms clearly and there is essentially universal agreement on those terms. Many of the definitions have been the same since the 18th century if not earlier. That is simply a fact. Your discussion is simply off topic. Who said anything about sacrosanct? The criteria are for making the definitions, e.g. "what works" are irrelevant to my point. My point is that the definitions of the terms used are clear and uniform throughout the field. If you disagree, provide a counter-example. Give me a physics term for which the definition is vague or for which people disagree more than trivially as to the definition. And don't waste my time by giving me a word which is not a term used by physicists in the actual practice of physics.
