Re: Light speed invariance
From: sal (believer_at_nospam.org)
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: sal: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- In reply to: Cozmo Man: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:44:35 -0400
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:47:18 -0700, Cozmo Man wrote:
> sal wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:55:06 -0700, Cozmo Man wrote:
>>
>>> sal wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:29:25 +0000, Androcles wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [sal]
>>>> The point is Einstein recanted that particular statement, with the
>>>> assertion that GR, a superset of SR, shows that SR's prediction in
>>>> that case is wrong.
>>>>
[CM]
>>> But Einstein said "under otherwise identical conditions." He was right
>>> in what he said in SR because the conditions that change in GR are
>>> considerations of gravity which creates conditions that are not
>>> "otherwise identical."
>>[sal]
>> You are splitting hairs. When Einstein made that prediction, he had not
>> yet developed GR, as you know. There is no reason to believe Einstein
>> didn't fully expect experiments to bear out his prediction that clocks
>> would run more slowly at the equator.
>>
>>
> I do not doubt that Einstein thought his conclusion could eventually be
> verified by experiment. But at the time he was also smart enough to
> require his "identical clock" to be "subjected to otherwise identical
> conditions." He had discovered discovered a certain effect but he could
> not know what other effects might be relevant and he therefore could not
> control them. Einstein qualified his prediction to pertain only to the
> circumstances he had discovered.
>
>> Hence, Einstein was, indeed, wrong in this case, by common definitions
>> of the word "wrong".
>>
>>
> Then not only do you not understand the methods we use in science,
Oh, I think I do, really. But I'm not going to get bent out of shape
about it if you say I don't. :-)
> but you also do not understand common usage.
Time for a dictionary break.
>From WordNet 2.0:
wrong
adj 1: not correct; not in conformity with fact or truth; "an
incorrect calculation"; "the report in the paper is
wrong"; "your information is wrong"; "the clock showed
the wrong time"; "found themselves on the wrong road";
"based on the wrong assumptions" syn: incorrect
ant: correct, correct
So, the question is, was Einstein's assertion in conformity with the truth?
You say it was, because he qualified it heavily by specifying
"otherwise identical conditions".
I say that's weaseling, and he expected the prediction to be born out by
experiment. But the prediction was "not in conformity with fact or truth".
Perhaps you're right and he really had the notion that gravity might throw
him a curve. I don't see that in his words, but perhaps I'm just
overlooking it.
> If I were to predict that the New
> York Yankees were to beat the Boston Red Sox in a particular baseball game
> as long as both teams are in the same condition that they are in now, then
> would you say my prediction was "wrong" if the Yankees lost because their
> star hitter was injured? If so then it is you, not me, who does not
> understand common usage.
Pfui. The conditions changed when the hitter was injured. The conditions
didn't change after Einstein's prediction, in that the presence of gravity
predated it.
Besides, a "star hitter" doesn't generally win baseball games, which are
primarily a duel of pitchers. What's more, the Yankees have depth on
depth, and are not dependent on any one "star hitter". So, if you
claimed your prediction only went wrong because one of the Yankee's
sultans of swat was injured, I'd say you were most likely just making
excuses and you were really just plain wrong to start with. ;-)
>> And the error indeed shows that
>> SR is not a complete theory of everything ... which should come as no
>> surprise to anyone.
>>
>>
> It was not an "error". But that SR was not complete was known by
> Einstein at that time.
Of course. I'm not attacking SR here, nor am I attacking Einstein, as I
assume you realize.
>> When someone is attempting to show the divinity of Jesus by citing Old
>> Testament prophecy, one might possibly see them bend over backwards to
>> show that, for example, every prediction made by Isaiah really did come
>> true if you only look at it right. This is, of course, due to the
>> stated criterion for judging a "false prophet": one whose predictions
>> do not bear fruit. Isaiah must have been right in every case, or he
>> would have been a false prophet. But relativity is not a religion,
>> Einstein is not a prophet, and Einstein himself explained his error
>> with his theory of GR, which filled in the missing pieces of SR and
>> yielded a different -- and correct -- result in this case. So why do
>> you feel the need to insist Einstein's original prediction was "right"?
>
> Because I am a physicist, not a priest, and I understand the conditions
> by which Einstein qualified his prediction.
Whatever -- in a case like this it comes down to semantics, and I should
know better than to dive into the semantic swamp.
-- To email me directly, take out nospam and put back physicsinsights.
- Next message: sal: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Previous message: Sam Wormley: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- In reply to: Cozmo Man: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Next in thread: Androcles: "Re: Light speed invariance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
