Who is your favorite Physicist?

@layman,

.....and more specifically, I'll let others judge your 'philosophical understanding' of the significancw of the original SR paradigm.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

For what it's worth, Ollie, I share your viewpoint about this. Physicists are prone to claiming that the "social sciences" are not "true science."

And to be fair there are important differences between history and physics in terms of methodology, degree of precision etc. But the irony is that physics cannot be taught nor understood without studying the history of physics. Science is inherently a historical process: each generation of scientists learn from previous generations. They "stand on the shoulders of their predecessors". Science is cummulative, and therefore historical. No science can prosper without documenting and studying all the trial-and-error attempts of past scientists. Therefore history is the mother of all sciences.

0 Replies

@layman,

By the way, Lay, and for what it's worth, you may wish to read this excellent book:

https://secure-ecsd.elsevier.com/covers/80/Tango2/large/9780122636530.jpg

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

...blessed are the cheese-eaters !
(or indeed the cheesemakers... : re: Monty Python)

1 Reply

@fresco,

Obviously not to be taken literally... Christ was referring broadly to the whole dairy value chain.

0 Replies

I haven't done much reading lately, but some books by Freeman Dyson and Rupert sheldrake have attracted my attention. I know that sheldrake is considered a kook by many physicists, but I like ideas that stretch the mind. Any recommendations by these authors?

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

.....and more specifically, I'll let others judge your 'philosophical understanding' of the significancw of the original SR paradigm.

OK. Here's what it is. Einstein said he conceived of relative simultaneity "out of desperation" after 8 years of struggling with trying to reconcile Galilean Relativity with the Lorentz Transformation. He was never satisfied with SR, and he himself deemed it to be an inferior "principle theory."

He would never have done it had he not, at that young age, been enthralled with, and a devout disciple of, Ernst Mach's philosophical "positivism." He later rejected this philosophy, to the point of ridiculing it. He was way ahead of his time there, too. Positivism wasn't thoroughly discredited and rejected by the scientific community until somewhere around 1950.

SR is fully imbued with "philosophy," although many practicing scientists have no clue about that.

1 Reply

@layman,

You don't accept Galilean relativity, do you Layman? Or am I remembering wrong.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You don't accept Galilean relativity, do you Layman? Or am I remembering wrong.

Of course I do, Max. But I think you think it it means something it doesn't. Maybe that's why you think I don't "accept" it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Refresh my memory now, eh, Max: If I'm not mistaken, your contention is that Galilean relativity "tells you" that, if two objects are moving with respect to each other, it is impossible to know which one is moving. Is that right?

4 Replies

@layman,

As a sidenote regarding Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton:

Galileo "discovered" (invented is probably the better word) the concept of inertia, which was absolutely essential to Newtonian mechanics.

Aristotle had, with good reason, concluded that objects were put in motion by an "impetus" (roughly corresponding to Newton's "force"). Since the "impetus" was finite, so was the motion it generated. In other words, the impetus would naturally dissipate and "wear out." If you hit a baseball with a bat, it could only go so far, because only so much "impetus" had been transmitted to it by the bat.

Using astute reason, combined with experimental evidence from balls rolling down inclined planes, Galileo concluded that a rolling ball would continue moving in perpetuity if it did not meet with "resistance" (e.g. from friction). This was a revolutionary, and highly controversial, claim (insight) at that time.

It was only because of inertia, Galileo concluded, that when a cannonball was dropped from the mast of a moving ship, it would appear (to those on the ship) to fall "straight" down to the foot of the mast (although it would appear to follow a curved path to a stationary observer on the shore).

One of the long-standing arguments against the proposition that the earth was moving around the sun involved the lack of an inertial concept. If the earth was moving, the argument went, then if you threw a ball straight up in the air, it would not come back to you because, while it was in the air, you would have moved out from "under it."

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Galileo "discovered" (invented is probably the better word) the concept of inertia, which was absolutely essential to Newtonian mechanics.

And to special relativity, too, I might have well added. One problem with SR is that, while it fundamentally relies on Newtonian inertia, it also effectively denies the existence of inertia where so required to fit the "philosophical" aspects of the theory.

Here's what I mean: As I've stated in other threads, SR requires a "travelling twin," who has been blasted off into space, to regard himself as utterly motionless the second he stops accelerating. Essentially, this is a reversion to the Aristotelian "impetus" concept, where the impetus has "worn off." This would require that he come to an immediate and dead "stop" as soon as he is travelling at a uniform speed. It is a rejection of, not an "acceptance" of, Galilean relativity, or, at a minimum, Galileo's theoretical insights.

0 Replies

@layman,

Maybe you missed it, after being distracted by my subsequent posts, Max, so I'll repeat the question:

layman wrote:

Refresh my memory now, eh, Max: If I'm not mistaken, your contention is that Galilean relativity "tells you" that, if two objects are moving with respect to each other, it is impossible to know which one is moving. Is that right?

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Refresh my memory now, eh, Max: If I'm not mistaken, your contention is that Galilean relativity "tells you" that, if two objects are moving with respect to each other, it is impossible to know which one is moving. Is that right?

Not exactly. What is tells you is that in one frame of reference, the first object will be stationary and the second object will be moving. In another frame of reference the second object will be stationary and the first object will be moving.

Galileo pointed out that both frames of reference are equally correct, since the laws of motion work out in each.

The phrase, "it is impossible to know which is moving" is poorly worded. Under Galilean relativity... it is completely possible to know which is moving, as long as you specify a frame of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Galileo pointed out that both frames of reference are equally correct, since the laws of motion work out in each.

No, he didn't say that, and I'll elaborate on what he DID say in a subsequent post. Mach said that, and following Mach, so did Einstein, but Galileo didn't say that. In fact he said the opposite. We've been through this before, but you never listen. Nevertheless, I'm willing to repeat it, on the off-chance that you might actually comprehend what he DID say this time around. And, whether you know it or not, any claim about what is (or is not) "equally correct," is strictly a product of philosophy, not empirical observation.

But, before I do that, let me ask you this, Max. Do you see your own contradictions? Earlier you said:

maxdancona wrote:

Galileo took an important step in the struggle of evidence based science to free itself from the confines of philosophy. And Galileo paid the price and should be respected for that. When he said "But it moves..." he was pushing back against the powerful philosophical orthodoxy of his time.

Galileo reportedly said "yet it moves" under his breath as he was leaving the inquisition chamber after being forced to "recant" on his claim that the earth moved around the sun, rather than vice versa.

As you seem to acknowledge, he was making a definite claim here about objective reality, not "specified frames of reference," and you give him high praise for it.

His clear position was that the earth "really does" orbit the sun, and he had rock-solid arguments and reasoning to buttress his claims.

Do you see your own self-contradiction?

1 Reply

@layman,

You are disputing with 500 years of Physics, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and Feynman because it doesn't make sense to you... in spite of the fact that Science has 500 years of experimental data and demonstrable progress in technology.

That is the difference between philosophy and science.

Quote:

His clear position was that the earth "really does" orbit the sun, and he had rock-solid arguments and reasoning to buttress his claims.

Do you see your own self-contradiction?

Do you know what the phrase "inertial frame" means?

The problem is that you don't understand the science. The mathematics works, and it makes perfect sense. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't change that fact.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Galileo pointed out that both frames of reference are equally correct, since the laws of motion work out in each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

You, in both your "logic" and grasp of scientific history" go wrong with the use of the word "since" (meaning "therefore) in that sentence.

Your wiki cite says this:

Quote:

Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames.

This part is quite correct. But the conclusion you draw from it is both logically unsound and contrary to Galileo's own conclusions.

Again, you own citation says this:

Quote:

. Galileo Galilei ... used the example of a ship travelling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

That too is accurate, as far as it goes, but you fail the pay attention to the qualifications and conditions which make it correct.

Galileo was taking only about what you could detect IF you were in a windowless cabin on a calm sea. Had there been a window, you could have detected your motion (or lack of it) by merely looking out the window.

Galileo went on to say that, once you went up to top deck, felt the winds blowing in your face, saw the billowed sails, and saw that you were moving relative to things on the coast, then would then be NO QUESTION that the ship was moving, relative to the coast, and NOT vice versa. This conclusion would be based on (fuller) empirical evidence and knowledge of elementary physical facts such as: It takes a force to move things, and the wind blowing into the sails give evidence of the necessary force. The wind is NOT causing the earth to move, while the ship remains motionless.

Get it?

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are disputing with 500 years of Physics, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and Feynman because it doesn't make sense to you... in spite of the fact that Science has 500 years of experimental data and demonstrable progress in technology.

No, I'm not disputing a single word of what any of them said. I'm disputing what YOU said.

I'm also contending that it is YOU who lacks a proper understanding of the issues in question.

0 Replies

@layman,

We have had this argument before Layman.

Do you accept the fact that you are objecting to what is taught in Physics classrooms in high school and college classes around the world?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

We have had this argument before Layman.

Do you accept the fact that you are objecting to what is taught in Physics classrooms in high school and college classes around the world?

Yeah, and this is the only "argument" you ever have. Problem is, it's not an argument, and, once again you refuse to respond to event the most simple questions.

I "accept" this: YOU do not understand what is taught, as evidenced, just for example, by your incorrect interpretation of both what Galileo said and of what his observations imply.

If you were actually "taught" that, then you were simply taught wrong. But my guess is that you just didn't really understand what you were taught.

1 Reply

Who is your favorite Physicist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know