Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- From: "Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 May 2005 11:18:24 -0700
Big help, Harry, thanks!! Very well put.
>The diplomatic answer is that physics is about measurements, it's not
>intended to cover such "philosophical" matters.
Yep, I've seen that time and again. Shoving it over into philosophy as
if it doesn't matter is a bit of a cop-out I think.
When we are measuring *something*, it's a bit cowardly to dogmatically
avoid attempting to derive or even discuss its absolute attributes
independent of our measurements. Phyics was borne out of a desire to
understand our universe, not just to handle it. If our experimental
evidence leads us to a paradox in an absolute frame, I'd rather keep
travelling until we do understand it, than settle down with the
irrationality of believing (simply because our theory can't handle the
alternative) that everything is relative to everything else (and our
universe is relative to what? ad infinitum), and that logical thought,
philosophy, (because it causes problems for us) is not important or
relevant.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- From: harry
- Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- References:
- SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- From: john_doe_ph_d
- Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- From: Harry
- Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- From: Curious
- Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- From: harry
- SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- Prev by Date: Re: why people pretend that the moon landing was for real
- Next by Date: Re: relative motion and aging
- Previous by thread: Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- Next by thread: Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|