Re: SR Postulate on Speed of Light


"Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1116772387.781407.75850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Multiple misunderstandings here.
> 1. I wasn't referring to any specific paradox, but it is my impression
> that relativity requires that there be no absolute frame of reference,
> and if there is one, that paradoxes arise. If that is not so, please
> ignore the phrase "in an absolute frame".

Then I'll ignore that.

> 2. I used emotionally loaded words - sorry. What I meant by "shoved
> over into philosophy" was simply that instead of saying "we don't know
> yet", physicists are saying "that's not our department". I would
> suggest that there is a universe out there that gives rise to many
> questions - some we need measurements to answer, some can be answered
> by careful logic alone (eg. cogito ergo sum).

Fine so far.

> All questions are the
> province of any field, if not to answer (yet), at least to defend.

I don't think so. Should a carpenter answer questions about bridge
construction? And how defend a question?!

> If
> philosophy shows some physics theory to be illogical, then it's time to
> modify it, not build a wall.

The logic of physics theories is in predicting what we will measure or
observe under certain conditions. If the predictions are correct, the theory
is accepted for use in science and technology. What's illogical about that?
BTW, are you sure that you are "curious"? You don't appear to be interested
to examine proposed explanations.

Harald


.

Quantcast