Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light

Curious:
>Look, to you Tim, and David Smith - you're still misunderstanding me.
>Probably becuse I mixed two thoughts.
>1. 'Reality' as opposed to perception: If we cannot tell whether the
>'real' speed of light is constant (or even if there is such a thing as
>a 'real' speed of light), this doesn't remove the question from
>physics. It just removes the answer from physics. For now. In future we
>may be able to answer this in some way by physics. If you had asked a
>caveman how far away the stars are, would he have been able to tell?
>But if we had left curiousity about this question up to philosphers
>alone we would never have answered it.So all I'm saying is, there is no
>wall dividing questions up between philosophy and physics. They rather
>co-operate on the question. But perhaps you misunderstand what I mean
>by philosophy. I don't mean airy-fairy wonderings about angels on pins.
>I thinking of the great philosophers who have analysed the science of
>logic and enhanced our ability to use the power of reason to deduce
>correct conclusions and detect false ones. Which leads me to my other
>thought: about paradoxes.

>2. A theory has to be logical.

A theory has to agree with nature. If your concept of logic doesn't
agree with the logic that nature follows, your logic needs modification.
Nature isn't going to change.

>Not common sensical. Just logical.
>That's all I'm saying. SRT/GR may be logical. I personally have my
>doubts, not because of time dilation in itself, but because of the
>paradoxes - if they are indeed there.

Since the explanations of relativity you find most compelling
are those given by people who don't understand it, you will
undoubtedly never resolve the so-called paradoxes. However, the
contradictions you believe exist boil down to not accepting that
two different paths through the same two points can be different
lengths. If there is a logical flaw in relativity, the same logical
flaw would require you to insist every path between any two points
must be the same length.

>But if I can see how my
>(currently tentative) opinion might be wrong I'll change it quicker
>than greased lightning. But at the end of the day if a theory's
>predictions *don't* make sense, if the theory does indeed predict
>paradoxes, then putting the paradoxes into the philosophy section
>doesn't save it. But you probably agree with me there.
>And for the record, just because thousands believe it doesn't make it
>right. Look how many people 'knew' the world was flat (because
>otherwise you would fall off.)

And some people are still comitted to that idea, despite the
evidence against it. Here's an explanation of michelson and
morely's experiment as ``scientific evidence'' for a flat earth:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

They also cite a number of ``paradoxes'' associated with a
round earth.

>Sometimes the pressure of not seeing any
>other option, or the love of an elegant lateral thought, or a long-held
>allegiance that takes a life of its own, or peer pressure alone, can
>cause large numbers of people to hold to a group opinion. I don't think
>I'm clever than them all - just more arrogant.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light
    ... Look, to you Tim, and David Smith - you're still misunderstanding me. ... It just removes the answer from physics. ... wall dividing questions up between philosophy and physics. ... paradoxes - if they are indeed there. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • 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: 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: 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)