Einsteins special relativity nonsense

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If you can develop a heliocentric mathematical model that got the same mathematical results with Isaac Newton in every possible experimental test, than you model would be equivalent to Newton's model.

I take it you meant to say geocentric here, not "heliocentric."

Quote:

...your model would be equivalent to Newton's model. I think this is possible. I think the mathematics would be considerably more difficult.

How is this relevant to the question? My question was asked as a matter of physics, not mathematics.

Quote:

But in Physics all mathematical models that match the same experimental results make the same predictions and are equally valid.

I disagree. Physics is basically the study of, and attempt to explain, phenomena pertaining to matter in motion. Two things that are "mathematically equivalent" don't have anything to say about that. 3 cows and two chickens add up to the same number (5) as 3 chickens and two cows. But they certainly not "equivalent" with respect to the physical world.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If you were going to develop the equivalent heliocentric model, you would have to abandon Newton's laws.

Exactly. (Again, assuming you meant "geocentric").

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Why don't you just address the topic, if you have anything substantive to say about it?

Hmmmm?

Someone who is not competent to discuss even the simplest elements of physics is in no position to correct the world physics community.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Yet it has now been abandoned. Go figure, eh?

Galileo was at the forefront of what later became known as the "copernican revolution." Yet in his day, copernicus could not make any predictions that differed from ptolemaic predictions.

Galileo (greatly reinforced by Newton in later years) carried the day.

Why? Because the heliocentric view made physical (as opposed to merely mathematical) sense, and ptolemaic astronomy didn't.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I disagree. Physics is basically the study of, and attempt to explain, phenomena pertaining to matter in motion.

I think you are confusing Physics with Philosophy. Any one can "attempt to explain" phenomena you just have to write your ideas. That isn't science.

Physics predicts theories in a testable, object way. The experimental results and precise observations of Physics are the referee. If your theories can't predict some aspect of the Universe will react to an experiment, they are meaningless.

Your chickens and cows thing is not a testable prediction... if you want this example to make sense, you are going to have to turn it into a testable question with an experimental way to determine if your theory is valid or not.

You had a point to make about heliocentric vs. geocentric. Do you want to tell me what that is?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You had a point to make about heliocentric vs. geocentric. Do you want to tell me what that is?

Read on. I've already made a couple of additional posts which address the issue (and your attempt to deny the point).

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Galileo was at the forefront of what later became known as the "copernican revolution." Yet in his day, copernicus could not make any predictions that differed from ptolemaic predictions.

This is untrue.

1) Kepler's laws were published in 1609. Kepler's laws were a mathematical model of a heliocentric solar system... and more importantly, Kepler's laws made pretty accurate mathematical predictions of the motions of the planets. Galileo discovered moons of Jupiter in 1610 (I just look this up). Kepler and Galileo were working together.

For you to say that the heliocentric view was not mathematical is simply inaccurate. It was based on careful mathematical measurements starting with Tycho Brahe.

2) I don't see any other point you are making about heliocentrism.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I will also point out that all of the people we are discussing, such as Galileo, were highly educated professional mathematicians.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
I don't see any other point you are making about heliocentrism.

I'm confused now, too, A post I made (or at least thought I made) seems to have disappeared. Hold on, if I can't find out what happened to it, I'll attempt to reproduce it. I may have accidentally deleted it.

By the way, I never said that the heliocentric view did not contain some math. But math is still not physics. It is merely a tool of physics.

1 Reply

@layman,

Physics is not Philosophy. It is not interested in speculations about higher truth.

Physics is the practice of making precise models that can make accurate predictions about how the Universe works using experiments and observations. Physicists care about testable, measurable theories.

I am pretty sure that Galileo had no interest in getting into a Philosohical debate about what the position of the Earth in the Universe meant. He was forced into one anyway against his will. Galileo was simply saying, "this is what I observe and this is the mathematical model that fits these observations". That is how science works.

Mathematics seems to be the only way to do this, and it has made these predictions spectacularly well. I have not heard of any other tool that can express testable measurable precise theories that can be confirmed by experiment.

Whether or not this means "Physics is mathematics" is a question for linguists and philosophers. Real scientists study and use mathematics because that is the only tool that works.

1 Reply

OK, here's my attempt to reproduce the missing post:
You said:

Quote:

But in Physics all mathematical models that match the same experimental results make the same predictions and are equally valid.

My response was along these lines:

For centuries, an geocentric solar system (universe) was presupposed. And, Lo and behold, ptolemaic astronomers concocted complex mathematical (and even physical) models which made extremely accurate predictions. They could, for example, predict, to the day and hour, a solar eclipse 500 years in advance.

In Galileo's day, the heliocentric model was incapable of making any novel predictions that were not matched by the ptolemaic geocentric model.

And yet the ptolemaid model has now been abandoned. Go figure, eh?

My next, follow-up post is still there, but this preceded it.

One point to be made, here again, it that math is not physics. Two model which make equivalent predictions cannot BOTH be true if their basic premises contradict each other, as the geocentric premise is contradicted by the heliocentric premise. They are not, and cannot be, "equally valid" as a matter of physical (not mathematical) explanation.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

In Galileo's day, the heliocentric model was incapable of making any novel predictions that were not matched by the ptolemaic geocentric model.

This is incorrect. Kepler's "equal areas for equal times" was a remarkable achievement. It allowed predictions to be made far beyond the ptolemaic model.

The real test was Halley's comet, some 80 years later.. Kepler predicted that path, something that allowed the math to make a mathematical prediction that was then confirmed by observation.

Had Halley's comet failed to meet that expectation, the Kepler's theory would have been disproven.

0 Replies

@layman,

Your idea of "truth" is a philosophical one.

It is outside the realm of Physics. Physics only cares about what can be tested and confirmed by experiment or observation.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Whether or not this means "Physics is mathematics" is a question for linguists and philosophers. Real scientists study and use mathematics because that is the only tool that works.

What is the first step in the scientific method? Is it "get out your slide rule and start doing some mathematical business?"

I don't think so. It's something along the lines of "form a hypothesis," isn't it? That is the FIRST step. SR's fundamental postulates don't contain even a hint of math.

Theoretical physics is inherently laden with "philosophical" issues. It is a branch of physic distinct from experimental physics. So distinct that experimental physicists often have little understanding of the theoretical side of it.

Many, many volumes have been written on "the philosophy of science." Physics cannot possibly be divorced from philosophy.

1 Reply

@layman,

Theoretical Physicists are highly mathematical. Ironically (in this anti-Einstein thread) Einstein was a Theoretical Physicists. He came up with the ideas mathematically. His triumph was creating a mathematical model that fit with all of the data. You can read his hypothesis... it was written in advanced mathematics.

The experimental Physics came after to confirm Einsteins theories. They predicted black hole (which they measured experimentally), and gravitational lensing (which they measured experimentally). Einstein's record wasn't perfect... the details of Relativity have been tweeked by Feynman and Hawking.

But the current theory of Relativity is based on the work of Einstein, and we accept it because time and again it is proven experimentally.

Can you name a consequential theoretical physicists who was not also a highly educated mathematician? Read their papers.... it all starts with advanced linear algebra and differential equations.

2 Replies

@layman,

Ive found something that i thing you are wrong about, and Ive explained why its wrong, and your response is simply, "but it seems to work".
Explain why anyone should use the lorentz math fudge or you have no case, and no reason to interpret the experimental evidence in your favor.
Your latest proposal of explaining the facts, is to not explain anything at all, and just ignore me. What a cop out.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Can you name a consequential theoretical physicists who was not also a highly educated mathematician?

We are talking about SR here, not GR. Al was not really much of a mathematician in those days. Infamously he said (paraphrasing) "Since the mathematicians got involved, I don't understand special relativity myself."

But your question misses the point, in any event. As I have acknowledged, math is a tool for physics. But it is not physics. Logic is a tool for philosophy, but it is not philosophy.

Don't confuse the hammer with the carpenter.

2 Replies

@layman,

I don't see the point on arguing this. It is a meaningless argument over words.

Someone who doesn't have a strong understanding of advanced mathematics (i.e. differential equations and linear algebra) has zero chance of understanding modern Physics. All of the source papers are math. All of the conferences are about math. All of the experiments rely on math.

I suppose I see your point about carpentry. Someone who doesn't know what a hammer is would have trouble being a carpenter.

0 Replies

@layman,

Since it has now probably gotten lost in the shuffle, I will repost this:

layman wrote:

Galileo (greatly reinforced by Newton in later years) carried the day.

Why? Because the heliocentric view made physical (as opposed to merely mathematical) sense, and ptolemaic astronomy didn't.

1 Reply

@layman,

You are wrong. The theories of Galileo and Newton carried the day because they were confirmed by experiment and made predictions that could not be made by earlier theories.

Galileo and Newton could make precise predictions and confirm them by experiment. The earlier theories were much less successful at doing this.

Halley's comet was immensely important for the new Physics. The mathematical laws made precise predictions that could be measured by an actual comet. They confirmed the theories.

Had this not been the case, then these theories would have been discarded.

2 Replies

Einsteins special relativity nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know