Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light

Dear Curious:

"Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1116781915.511959.45950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> shuba wrote:
>> Curious wrote:
>>
>> > If
>> > philosophy shows some physics theory to
>> > be illogical, then it's time to modify it, not
>> > build a wall.
>>
>> I know this is a radical suggestion, but why
>> not start by learning the physics? That
>> seems better than crouching behind a
>> self-constructed wall of ignorance and
>> throwing philosophical brickbats. You
>> might even discover that relativity is logical.
>
> I'm quite happy to, and in fact I am busy
> doing that. You're missing the point: IF a
> physics theory - correctly expressed -
> predicts a logical contradiction, (i.e.
> something which cannot be true),

Does relativity do this? I believe you will find it does not.

> the
> theory cannot be true. It may only need
> some refinement, some better
> understanding, but in its full illogical
> form it is wrong, or flawed. And it
> doesn't take any knowledge of physics
> to know that - just a philosphical
> understanding of logic.

So "common sense" trumps theory?

> In this case studying physics
> would only help to find the error and
> resolve it.

What error? That concepts can be expressed loosely, and hence be
misunderstood, says nothing about the theory. Only on the very
provincial mind that assumes that its "common sense" can prevail
where thousands of careers have tested the theory in every nook
and cranny achievable to find holes.

> And any physicist
> who, instead of using philosophy and any
> other means of checking his theory,

What quantifiable predictions does philosophy make?

What is insufficiently philosphical about "the laws of physics
are the same for all inertial observers"? And then quantify.
And then measure. And challenge the theory that provided the
prediction.

> separates his theory from their spotlight
> by insisting that they have no place in
> physics,

Not only in Physics, but in Science in toto. Measurement makes
and measurement breaks. Common sense does not.

> is only doing himself and his theory
> short of advantageous refinement.
> There is only one truth out there,

.... completely inaccessible to reality ...

> and it isn't going to bend itself to a
> theory just because the theory is well
> liked.

Do you think it is well liked? Do you really think *anyone*
wants the limitations? Newton is keeping us bound to the surface
of the planet (that and politics), Einstein will simply allow us
to get there when we are young.

> No, sooner or later the theory is going
> to have to change, and the sooner it
> does, the more useful it is.

The voice of untrained youth. Same words spoken by thousands
whom you now rail against.

> So I'm not 'crouching' 'throwing brickbats':
> I'm helping to iron out the anomalies either
> in my understanding (and learning physics in the
> process)or in the theory.

My money is on your understanding, notwithstanding your
assumption that the theory is wrong because "reason" (aka. common
sense) says it is.

> My main point is that this is not a 'self-
> constructed wall of ignorance' on the side
> of philosophy, but if there is such a wall, it
> is on the side of such physicists.

You have assumed the theory is incorrect. You have said so more
than once. What does "reason" say about the hearing you will now
give it in your personal kangaroo court?

> We have nothing to fear from the truth.
> It is the truth we seek.

Refering to yourself in the third person plural, now? Get down
to specifics. Get down to measurable quantities. What
event/action/consequence do you find personally "unreasonable"?
It is fine to stand back "100 miles" and say that is wrong "over
there".

> By observation, by hypothesis, by reason.

aka, common sense

> By *all* of these.

Apparently by only the last of these. Your personal "reason".

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physics & Philosophy
    ... How Western science education has failed. ... Philosophy gets used all over the place in physics. ... impose a formal point of view, as Einstein said: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
    ... > remove the question from physics. ... > philosophy and physics. ... Paradoxes are handled quite well in philosophy. ... your own "reason" being tested. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult?
    ... >> Not another philosophy dude posturing meaningless gibberish as physics. ... All science has is a collection of theories and experimental ... > You wished a clarification for my definition of the universe, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult?
    ... >> Not another philosophy dude posturing meaningless gibberish as physics. ... All science has is a collection of theories and experimental ... > You wished a clarification for my definition of the universe, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading