Re: The horrible failure of science education
From: Ole D. Rughede (ole.rughede_at_privat.dk)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: strings near the speed of light"
- Previous message: suzysewnshow: "Interpretation of SR"
- In reply to: Oriel36: "Re: The horrible failure of science education"
- Next in thread: Harry Conover: "Re: The horrible failure of science education"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 23:06:35 +0200
"Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:273f8e06.0408310310.4f7f37c0@posting.google.com...
> reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message
news:<844a1b64.0408300917.4ada8a7d@posting.google.com>...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:<5ysYc.12675$D7.9493@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > "Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:844a1b64.0408291335.98dc0bd@posting.google.com...
> > > > eleatis@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message
> > news:<9c1b39be.0408272333.2d626c8@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<cfFXc.9844$D7.4860@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:9c1b39be.0408270020.3a028ff7@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:<9muXc.9096$D7.1255@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I gave the answer in my reply and a link that discusses
such -
> > > > > > > >
> >
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since when you're referencing cranks?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > POR says the laws of nature are the same in all inertial
reference
> > frames.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which PoR are you talking about? If Newtonian you are
correct. Not
> > > > > > > Einstein's though. This is the one we are talking about
here. Red
> > > > > > > herring again?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The POR stands for the Principle of Relativity which says
the laws of
> > > > > > physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. It
is standard
> > > > > > terminology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thus if we do an experiment in one frame and deduce a
law of
> > nature from
> > > > > > > > that then do the same experiment in another frame the
same law
> > > must
> > > apply.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You must first prove that these are indeed two different
frames.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An inertial frame is defined as one in which free particles
move with
> > > > > > constant velocity. Obviously a frame moving at constant
velocity wrt
> > an
> > > > > > inertial one also has free particles moving at constant
velocity so is
> > also
> > > > > > inertial. That you would even formulate such an idiotic
question
> > indicates
> > > > > > you lack grounding in basic physics.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Idiot, inertial frames is a math abstraction useful only in
SR, which
> > > > > is an abstract kinematic theory lacking dynamical content.
> > > >
> > > > Proof of the horrible failure of science education! The guy
doesn't
> > > > even know that Newtonian mechanics is founded on the
inertial-frame
> > > > concept. How do you ever expect to get through to such a one?
Either
> > > > teach him Newtonian mechanics or just give up. Do what science
> > > > education failed to do in the first place in its hurry to get to
the
> > > > equations: Stress the logical foundations to Newtonian
mechanics.
> > > >
> > > > Patrick
> > >
> > > With all due respect Patrick, and not wishing to imply he has had
a proper
> > > science education, his problem, by his own self admission, is he
gets his
> > > physics from what he terms 'higher sources' - books on philosophy.
Now of
> > > course many competent philosophers understand relativity and
physics, but
> > > this guys problem, IMHO, is trying to understand physics via
surrogate ie
> > > via the writings of philosophers who analyze the philosophical
basis of the
> > > physics, not the physics itself. To me it points to the necessity
of
> > > understanding the physics before venturing into the philosophy.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Bill
> >
> > There is no physics prior to philosophy. You have to have a formal
> > point of view to set down the rules for doing even simple Newtonian
> > mechanics, and there was no unique way for Newton to do it. He just
> > did it his way, and it happened to work well. This doesn't require a
> > philosophy book any more than learning how to put a quart of oil in
> > your car's engine block requires a trained auto mechanic.
> >
> > Whatever sources he claims to use now, he clearly was not taught
> > Newtonian mechanics correctly. That makes him easy prey to slick
> > arguments which are designed to exploit naive misconceptions most
> > people have. That has been my point all along, in case you haven't
> > gotten the message. The reason there are so many cranks is because
> > these cranks were never innoculated with the truth about Newtonian
> > mechanics in the first place. And the responsibility for doing that
> > belongs to science education.
> >
>
> You are correct,the truth about Newton's mechanical agenda is not well
> known,go through the fog of definitions of time,space and motion and
> he did set things up his own way with some unauthorised maneuvers.
>
> The reason the guys in the 1840's found themselves in so much trouble
> was as part of the gravitational agenda in attempting to explain
> Keplerian motion,Newton sets it all up with a mean circular orbital
> motion derived from Flamsteed.He patches in elliptical motion by
> appealing to Roemer's method for determining the anomalous motion of
> Io as it appears to speed up and slow down.
>
> Basically he mixes Kepler with Roemer using Flamsteed's erroneous
> assumption for axial rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency as a
> template.
>
> http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif
>
> http://r2d2.stcloudstate.edu/~womack/astr/models/retropicmars.jpg
>
> http://history.nasa.gov/SP-349/p6c.jpg
>
> "For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
> nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
> direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
> little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
> distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
> areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
> demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
> help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
> of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
> Principia"
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm
>
>
> The poor guys in the mid 19th century were saddled with a Newtonian
> view which locks the insight on finite light distance into Keplerian
> motion notwithstanding that Keplerian motion could not be explained
> until the 1930's with the recognition of the solar system's rotation
> around the galactic axis and the influence on that motion on the
> dominant helicentric orbital motion of planets.
>
> Keplerian motion,pioneer 10,the perihelion advance and more
> importantly the Milankovitch cycle and indeed whatever other puzzle
> there is out there has now a wonderful 21st century setting by
> incorporating the motion of the solar system to an inner and outer
> galactic orbit by freeing up Newton's mangling Roemer's insight with
> Kepler's.
>
> Your pathetic appeal is far from the dignified position that men held
> in the 1840's when they realised something was badly wrong but did not
> know what.
>
>
http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425
>
> Without you and your relativistic cronies and the absurd backdrop you
> provide,I probably would not appreceate Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer
> and thank you for that.
>
>
>
> We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring
> will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first
> time.
> T. S. Eliot
>
Thanks for an excellent review and the lovely Eliot quotation.
As you mention we still have lots of unsolved problems, say for
instance in the planetary perihel advancements, where I doubt
that even my own General Theory of Aether and Relativity in 5D
Kaluza-Klein will come up with exact results before we consider
the effects of the Sun's light-pressure and the solar plasma wind.
As is known, any point on the diameter of a circle rolling at the
inside of another circle of twice the diameter of the smaller one
is the running point on an ellipse, since the point parts the smaller
circle's diameter in a and b parts to become the half-axes of the
ellipse of any eccentricity. If the ratio of the circles diverges the
slightest from 1:2 we will see a rotation of the "ellipse" axes and
the running point to describe an hypocycloid curve corresponding
to the perihel-movement, of say Mercury, which by the pressure
from the Sun may move on a slightly greater orbit than given by
the Newtonian gravitational movement, where the half-axis a
represents the entire energy of the planet's gravitational movement.
I have had the pleasure to find also a remarkable correlation
between the rate of changes of the Earth's intrinsic rotation and
the variation of global temperature - for all time where we have
reliable measurements of temperature according to variations in
the global climate presented in tables and graphs from DMI, The
Danish Meteorological Institute. The delta intrinsic rotation, when
graphed, even clearly shows the very cool years about 1650-60,
when a Swedish army was able to march over the Danish sounds
and belts in a devastating rôute right through Denmark, - and the
temperature depressions of the Maunder minimum, the so-called
Little Iceage. I presume that interaction between the randomly
orientated magnetic fields of the plasma wind from the Sun and
the Earth-magnetic field could result in random accelerations and
decelerations of the Earth's intrinsic rotation. In that case great
amounts of kinetic rotational energy could by decelerations be
freed in form af heat, which would warm the oceans and release
very great measures of CO2 dissolved in the ocean waters.
My calculations show a nearly 100 hundred times greater effect
of global warming than is considered in present klimate-models.
If these relations are correctly interpreted in such hypotheses,
we have no ideas at all about when cooling or further heating of
the climate could occur due to such random effects of the solar
wind. Therefore I assume we should monitor the solar activity,
the changes of the Earth-magnetic fields, and the very small
changes in the rotational time of the Earth, as well, of course,
as the variations in ocean temperatures and salinities.
If also the solar activity should depend on a modulating flux of
radiant energy from the Milky Way, it may be of great interest
to research also this possibility like the search for gravitational
waves produced by any movement, swinging, or oscillation of
massive bodies as a spin-2 modulation of the otherwise ordinary
spin-1 Aether of radiant energy from all astrophysical objects.
In other words, you are so absolutely right in sketching the
complex phenomena of the heavenly bodies' movements, which
have presented so great theoretical problems in the history of
physics since Tycho Brahe, Keppler, Roemer, Newton, all the
great astronomers, and, of course, Einstein.
This course of modern scientific research was begun by my
countryman Tycho Brahe and his great contemporary, the
Italian Galilei. The findings of my other great countryman,
Ole Roemer, of the velocity of light from Jupiter-Io irregular
eclipses was a tremendous leap forward. To-day we are even
able to study the strange phenomena of variation in light velocity
due to gravity and due to the special effects in low temperature
physics and in Bose-Einstein condensations, and are now
waiting for the Gravity Probe B results to show if a finer tune
in gravitational theory should be necessary as predicted from
5D Kaluza-Klein and General Relativity. Indeed, there are many
options in modern science education.
Best regards,
Ole D. Rughede
>
> >
> > Teach the students right when they're still young and you give them
a
> > fighting chance to see BS when it comes along. But, just try to cram
a
> > bunch of unmotivated equations down their throats as the "correct
> > physics" and they are ever susceptible to the BS of the wrong way.
> >
> > The poster I replied to thinks that inertial reference frames are
> > foreign to Newtonian mechanics and introduced spuriously in SR.
Until
> > you disabuse him of that misconception you are wasting your time
> > trying to get through to him on anything else.
> >
> > You're part of the problem, Bill. You're one of the equation
pushers.
> >
> > Patrick
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: strings near the speed of light"
- Previous message: suzysewnshow: "Interpretation of SR"
- In reply to: Oriel36: "Re: The horrible failure of science education"
- Next in thread: Harry Conover: "Re: The horrible failure of science education"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
