Re: Why

John Kennaugh:
>In message <slrnd4q84o.btn.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bilge
><dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>> John Kennaugh:
>> >In message <slrnd4m7ih.btn.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bilge
>>
>> >>
>> >> >Relativity is a principle theory - a mathematical model.
>> >>
>> >> Bzzzzt. Bull*** detected. Slogans aren't arguments.
>> >
>> >It isn't a slogan I was quoting Einstein.
>>
>> No you weren't. You are using the term ``principle theory'' to
>>mean a theory which is unphysical. Nowhere does einstein say that.
>>If you are using ``principle theory'' to mean unphysical, then
>>you no longer have any argument.
>
>Take what Einstein said and analyse it. He says that relativity is a
>principle theory and the properties he gives to a principle theory are
>as follows.

I read it the first time and based my response on what I read.
You must be really hard up for your own ideas to try weaving
a semantic argument around the blatantly silly idea that what einstein
wrote is an argument against his own reasearch. Go away. You really
ought to find a diffeent armchair hobby. Science and technology
passed you by before you were born.


>
>"The elements which form their bases and starting-point are not
>hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general
>characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to
>mathematically formulated criteria which these separate processes or the
>theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. They employ the
>analytic, not the synthetic, method."
>
>Maybe you can explain, based on Einstein's own definition, the
>difference between a 'principle theory' and a mathematical model?
>
>If we return to my 'tide' example. If this planet was one with a
>permanent cloud cover we may be totally unaware that we have a moon. We
>would have to base our predictive theory on purely empirical results. It
>is possible, having found a math which is a good fit that that math may
>suggest theories as to the underlying cause. One such theory might be
>that there is a massive object orbiting the planet every 29.5 days.
>
>One may point to just such a process in our own physics. When Rayleigh
>derived black body radiation curves based on then current theory
>(Maxwell) and it did not fit the empirical data, Wien came up with a
>mathematical model which was pretty good at predicting the physical
>results but it would not qualify as being:
>
>"A picture of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a
>relatively simple formal scheme from which they start out".
>
>It was a mathematical model based on an empirical starting point without
>a theoretical causal explanation. i.e. there was no 'physical
>interpretation' to go with the maths. Wien's equation never the less was
>useful to Planck who succeeded in coming up with a theoretical cause and
>a physical interpretation to say nothing of maths which were superior in
>accuracy to Wein's and appear to exactly model nature. This then is what
>Einstein terms a 'constructional' theory.
>
>We feel that we understand the photo electric effect - it makes sense
>from a causal point of view.
>
>"When we say that we have succeeded in understanding a group of natural
>processes we invariably mean that a constructive theory has been found
>which covers the processes in question."
>"The advantages of the constructive theory are completeness,
>adaptability, and clearness."
>
>If one asks of relativists about physical causality they inform you that
>relativity is a principle theory and does not attempt to answer those
>sorts of question.
>
>"The advantages of the principle theory are logical perfection and
>security of the foundations."
>
>So what security have we in the foundations of relativity?
>
>There was no empirical basis for relativity because there was no
>empirical evidence for source independence in 1905 and nothing we would
>today consider as credible until 1964. The foundations of relativity was
>simply a belief in source independence based on a belief in the ether.
>No other causality has been suggested. You try and claim that the maths
>which has evolved from that assumed causality is actually the cause and
>you expect me to take you seriously.
>
>The original ether theory failed to predict the result of MMX. Lorentz
>came up with a fix - interaction between matter and the ether - The
>Lorentz transforms - which you still use and swear by. Lorentz's theory
>said that light travelled in the ether at c but because of the
>transforms it appeared to every observer that he is stationary w.r.t the
>ether.
>
>Einstein in effect assumed that it not only appeared to every observer
>that he is stationary w.r.t the ether but that he IS stationary w.r.t
>the ether. He got the same maths as Lorentz of course. That is what is
>implied by the second postulate. His starting point was unashamedly
>Lorentz's theory.
>
>"Lorentz ... achieved the most important advance in the theory of
>electricity since Maxwell." 1920 lecture.
>
>His objection to Lorentz's theory was its lack of symmetry:
>
>"For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure,
>with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is
>intolerable."
>
>What he did in SR is to assume symmetry (after a suggestion by Poncere
>which he fails to acknowledge) and hope that the necessary physical
>explanation would naturally follow. Mathematically he assumed each
>observer has his own ether which he is stationary w.r.t - which is
>called his FoR as described by his second postulate. Light propagates
>everywhere in an observers ether/FoR at c because he is stationary w.r.t
>it. It is independent of the speed of the source because it is
>propagating in his ether/FoR.
>
>15 years on in his 1920 lecture it is clear that no physical explanation
>has emerged. He still rejects the asymmetry of Lorentz's theory but can
>only talk vaguely of an ether without the immobility of Lorentz's.
>
>"..the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special
>theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the
>ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility."
>
>Finally he realises there is no way of translating the properties of the
>FoR used in the maths into anything physically realisable so declares
>relativity to be a principle theory which does not address such things.
>
>A FoR is a mathematical abstraction the only physical thing defining it
>is the observer who's FoR it is. The physical space it defines is
>according to you devoid of ether. i.e. has no physical substance which
>can have a causal effect on the light so you are left with the absurdity
>that the only physical thing which can cause light speed to be constant
>w.r.t the observer is the observer himself.
>
>Your problem is that you were educated towards the end of the 20th
>century when those responsible for your education had become very expert
>in packaging the theory so as to conceal its true origins. You admitted
>in another thread that Einstein's original paper was not a part of that
>education and that you more recently looked at it only because someone
>suggested it contained an error.
>
>> Instead of scheming to misconstrue
>>einstein
>
>I do not scheme to misconstrue Einstein. You never actually point out at
>any time any distortion I make but your education has distorted your
>mind such that you genuinely assume what I say must be a distortion.
>Study the history for yourself with an open mind and no matter how
>unpalatable what I say may be, you will find it is a completely accurate
>(though perhaps a little superficial) perspective of the historical
>context and the thinking of Einstein and others which led to the theory
>of relativity.
>
>>and argue through a fallacious appeal to authority, try
>>doing some of that original thinking you've commoditized into a
>>slogan and take responsibility for what you mean when you say something
>>instead of trying to set up a strawman through carefull selected
>>mirerepresentations. Dunce.
>
>Try addressing the questions rather than snipping them on the lamest
>excuse.
>
>> > "We can distinguish various kinds of theories in physics. Most of
>> >them are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture of the more
>> >complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively simple formal
>> >scheme from which they start out.... When we say that we have
>> >succeeded in understanding a group of natural processes we invariably
>> >mean that a constructive theory has been found which covers the
>> >processes in question. Along with this most important class of
>> >theories there exists a second, which I will call "principle-theories."
>> >These employ the analytic, not the synthetic, method. The elements
>> >which form their bases and starting-point are not hypothetically
>> >constructed but empirically discovered ones, general characteristics of
>> >natural processes, principles that give rise to mathematically
>> >formulated criteria which these separate processes or the theoretical
>> >representations of them have to satisfy. The advantages of the
>> >constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness,
>> >those of the principle theory are logical perfection and security of the
>> >foundations. The theory of relativity belongs to the latter class."
>> >Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers Press, p. 228-9.
>> >
>>
>
>--
>John Kennaugh
>to email convert the number from hex to decimal
.

Quantcast