Re: What are relativists?
- From: jem <xxx@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 08:33:41 -0400
Bilge wrote:
jem: >
>I.e. the constants are dependent on which model is chosen to represent >Nature. So are you distinguishing a relativist as someone who believes >Nature can be represented by multiple models, whereas a non-relativist >believes there is just one "true" model?
The term, ``relativist,'' is what the kooks on this newsgroup
use to refer to anyone who considers relativity to be a real theory,
so they avoid physics and deal in semantics. Relativity has nothing
to do with relative quantities.
OK, so what was the reason that "Relativity" was chosen as the name of the theory?
>
>If not, how about giving an example of a hypothetical situation in which >an "absolute quantity" would be definable.
The asymptotic limit of the electromagnetic coupling constant, \alpha.
The weinberg angle. Spin. The planck length.
Why do you think these are "absolute quantities"? Is it because they are fundamental entities of a theory? If so, is it the case for every theory, or only the consensus favorite at any particular time?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What are relativists?
- From: Bilge
- Re: What are relativists?
- References:
- What are relativists?
- From: Pentcho Valev
- Re: What are relativists?
- From: Baugh
- Re: What are relativists?
- From: jem
- Re: What are relativists?
- From: Baugh
- Re: What are relativists?
- From: jem
- Re: What are relativists?
- From: Baugh
- Re: What are relativists?
- From: jem
- Re: What are relativists?
- From: Bilge
- What are relativists?
- Prev by Date: Re: A dumb question about time..
- Next by Date: Re: A dumb question about time..
- Previous by thread: Re: What are relativists?
- Next by thread: Re: What are relativists?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading