Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_uaf.edu)
Date: 10/18/04 

Date: 17 Oct 2004 20:46:47 -0700

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<ior5n0hf4h2n8vnc43lhi76sgafl58jia2@4ax.com>...
> On 16 Oct 2004 21:56:31 -0700, fsegg@uaf.edu (Eric Gisse) wrote:
>
> >H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message news:<n44rm05859clpetpal4v2dl8gcm2umo214@4ax.com>...
> >[snip]
> >
> >>
> >> Mathematical treatments merely describe what we already observe. In this case,
> >> how fields behave.
> >
> >Right.
> >
> >We observed computers before quantum mechanics.
>
> Where did you get that idea?
>
> >
> >We observed gravitational lensing before relativity.
>
> Where did you get that idea?
>

I guess I need to explicit with my sarcasm tags...

The mathematical treatments predicted things we have never observed
before. They pointed us in the right direction.

> >
> >Right.
> >
> >Mathematical treatments have no use other than modeling. None at all.
>
> That's actually not what I said. It is posible to make predictions with a
> mathematical model by changing parameter values.

What is the parameter you have to adjust in SR to get the Compton
effect?
What is the parameter you have to adjust in SR to get the increased
half-lives of particles?
What is the parameter you have to adjust in GR to get the Mossbauer
effect?
What is the parameter you have to adjust in GR to get Mercury's orbit
correct?

Well, the last two aren't fair - you don't understand GR. I will be
generous in the assumption that you understand SR enough to answer the
first two questions.

> That still doesn't tell you the reasons behind an observation.

So what?

>
> All known theory so far doesn't reveal to us any 'reason' for
> action-at-a-distance, which is undoubtedly the biggest physical mystery.

I guess spacetime geometry doesn't satisfy you. I thought geometry was
your specialty...

Again, so what if a physical theory doesn't give you an answer to the
"Why?" question?

> Einstein's theory on gravitation doesn't help one iota. Nor do maths treatments
> of electrostatics and magnetism explain why charges attract and repel.

They explain, only so far. The reasons are buried within the theory,
but you are right - there is no answer to the ultimate "Why?"
question.

But again, so what? The theory works irregardless of being unable to
answer the ultimate question of Why Things Are.

I get the faint impression you don't understand the math behind E&M.

>
> >
> >> That does not delve any deeper into the 'philosophy' behind them.
> >
> >Wah.
> >
> >Science =/= philosophy. BFD.
>
> It is a lot closer than you might think.

No.

Science is testable, philosophy is not.

>
> Ask yourself, "why does a moving electron experience a force when in a magnetic
> field", then ask, "what physical mechanism causes that force to be at right
> angles to both field and velocity?" You can easily describe the effect
> mathematically using vectors. but....

I look to the math, because the math has yet to fail.

You do forget that math is based heavily in geometry. For many things,
R^3 - our flat Euclidian space, is the foundation. Geometry satisfies
me until it breaks, then I look further.

>
> This verges on philosophy because it asks what exactly gives us an impression
> of 'three axes at right angles'. Is it physical or psychological?

Verges but does not cross. You do realise that coordinate systems
don't always have to be orthogonal, right? It makes the math painful
because dot products of the unit vectors arent 0 anymore.

At any rate, science is testable, philosophy is not.

I think this is a very big deal for you. Dollars to doughnuts when you
asked "Why?" enough, you reached a point where nobody could answer
your question. At that point, you rejected everything because it
couldn't satisfy your insatiable desire for everything having a base
reason.

Either that or at one point someone tossed you an equation you
couldn't handle. Probably a combination of both.

>
> >
> >> You will never make a physycist Geese.
> >
> >Correct...but I will be a physicist.
> >
> >How's the crusade against science going, Henri?
>
> The 'crusade', geese, is aimed at digging physics out of the Einsteinian rut
> and setting it going in the right direction again.

Did you ever once think for a little while about how Einstein's ideas
were accepted? Did you know Einstein's ideas were fought against
viciously? Even after, but less so, after Eddington's expedition?

You are ignorant of history. I suggest you take an introductory
physics class, and spend some time in the library reading about
Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Corpernicus, Lorentz, Einstein, Planck, etc
and etc.

>
> >
> >[snip]
>
>
> HW.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A little challenge for relativists.
    ... >>light is independent of the source as a function of geometry. ... deeper questions physics into a shallow debate over semantics. ... I will only justify my assumptions at the same level you do. ... Your refusal to understand what the math means ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Uniqueness of physical objects in the universe.
    ... > less in physics, but I dont do it for a living, and so I may not be aware of ... geometry, outside of an institution. ... My personal opinion is that math and physics ideas are ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Reading Dawkins ... was "Scrump"
    ... But nearer the present day math became disentangled from ... physics, to take a math course called somthing like "Plane ... Geometry from an Advanced Viewpoint". ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Geometric Form
    ... "So any valid theory of physics must be expressible in a -free manner."? ... Our theories of the world are models, and must therefore involve math and geometry. ... Within those models, however, if any coordinate system was special, then the model could not be an accurate model of the world, as the world uses no coordinates and therefore has no special coordinate system. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: "Deep Impact" predictions
    ... considered by physics. ... that the laws of gravity do not apply to quantum particles such as in ... the same 3-space motions - but definitely not by geometry alone. ... Geometry has no cause that can initiate motion. ...
    (sci.astro)