Re: Just wondering.....(& waundering)...


<lamoore0777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137458897.765659.61350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> <lamoore0777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1137444265.442151.286860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Ok, so that was very very very muddy. Damn it, should have went to
>> > college (instead of Viet Nam) .
>>
>> Not a problem - never too late to learn. In physics start with Penrose -
>> The Road To Reality
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679454438/002-1415386-4666442?v=glance&n=283155
>> and at the same time increase you math knowledge particularly in
>> calculus:
>> http://www.calculus.org/
>>
>> >
>> > Let me try it again: Suppose light doesn't travel at all. Suppose (for
>> > a moment) that light is constant. That is to say, it is everywhere at
>> > the same time.
>>
>> That however is not supported by experience.
>> http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html
>
> Firstly, thanks Bill for your generous (and non-condenscending
> response).

No problem. Genuine queries always welcome here.

>
>
>> 'Do get me right: you don't have to believe anything you read on faith -
>> check it. Try alternative approaches, as many as you can. You will
>> discover,
>> time and again, that really what those guys did indeed was the smartest
>> thing possible.'
>
> I get it.
>
>>
>> > Which proving such a supposition I imagine would imply
>> > some sort of a capturing of "instantaneous communication" (where light
>> > and communication were established as being co-existant) at distances
>> > that would presuppose the possibility of *travel*.
>> >
> snip...
>
>> I suspect you are confusing science with philosophy. See
>> http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
>
>> 'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"?
>> As
>> questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
>> questions in philosophy.
>
> Why? I mean, if two men approach the question of the meaning of mass,
> or of distance, or of time, notwithstanding their approach to the
> question, wouldn't the "real" meaning supercede such approach?

The issue of the 'real' meaning of many things (eg time) is a very difficult
unresolved issue in philosophy. In science we do some simple definitions
(eg time is what a clock reads) that allow us to start doing the science.
These then evolve and change as more is learnt. That is the way of science.

> Which
> question is rhetorical, lol. I understand what you mean. Nonetheless I
> believe the gap can be bridged, although admittedly, not by me.
>

The following may be of interest:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html

>
>> In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
>> that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
>> gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
>> measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this
>> clock."
>
>> Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying.
>> They
>> are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
>> reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient,
>> not
>> necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
>> something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the
>> only
>> possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
>> seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
>> philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bill
>
> Very very well spoken Bill. It's obvious (to me) your heart has not
> been shrunk in direct inverse porpotion to the expansion of your mind.
> Lol. Which is not always the case with scientists.

You will find a lot of knowledgeable posters post here. Start small keep
the faith and you will be surprised at what you are able to learn.

Thanks
Bill

>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > I appreciate great minds.
>> >
>> > Lar
>> >
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Point
    ... Bill Hobba wrote: ... >> The man who lectures on too much philosophy around here doth quote ... I harped against the ether people bringing up ... fundamental questions about the nature of science are also very ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... >> Now Bill, you are usually a nice person. ... >> the ideas much better than John is able to do in a forum like this. ... the difference between science and philosophy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... >> Now Bill, you are usually a nice person. ... >> the ideas much better than John is able to do in a forum like this. ... the difference between science and philosophy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Even with Bushs term nearly over
    ... Antievolution legislation in Oklahoma ... Senate Bill 320, prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate and scheduled ... Louisiana Science Education Act was in fact born as the Louisiana Academic ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light
    ... It is pretty obvious you do not understand what science is. ... simply not concerned with the type of questions you philosophy types want ... that "mass resists acceleration" or "mass exerts ... Bill ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)