Re: We All failed (regarding the definition of a crackpot)


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1138303474.734362.287900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

AllYou! wrote:
[snip]
>> >>
>> >> Funny you'd say that in a forum dedicated to the pursuit of the
>> >> specific part
>> >> of
>> >> science that deals with the notion that no observer can claim >> >> any
>> >> priory over
>> >> any other observer. IOW, there is no reality, no one truth, >> >> and
>> >> therefore,
>> >> no
>> >> single factual observation.
>> >
>> > I believe you have seriously misconstrued what relativity says.
>> > Relativity says that what is important (the laws of physics) are
>> > *common* to all observers. It insists that they will *all* >> > observe
>> > the
>> > same behavior in this sense.
>>
>> But in another sense, the observations of time and distance which >> you
>> make of a
>> series of events is unique to you, and not in common with others. >> In
>> that
>> sense, there is no one observable factual distance and time which >> can
>> be said to
>> be more valid than another observable distance and time.
>>
>
> Quite right. That's precisely the point.
> However, this does not mean that laws of physics that make use of > time
> and space are similarly affected, and this is a *crucial* > distinction.

Be that as it may, it demonstrates that no single observer can claim to
have observed a fact which is exclusive to the facts of other observers. 

Correct.

Each observer observes their own set of facts, and so to claim that
matters of observable facts are not worthy of discussion, as I said,
interesting.  How can we come to the conclusion that different
observations are equally valid if we don't discuss the observations?


We can't. Relativity is a study of the relationships between those
observations, what will be different and what will be common, and how
the different ones are connected.


That doesn't seem to square with your statement:

"I agree that there is ample room for discussion on the *content* of physics, expect on matters of observational fact."


> Moreover, there is an entirely predictable relationship between the
> time and space values that different observers will measure, and > this
> is also *crucial* information. These predictable relationships > become
> the facts that are pertinent to science.

And we only arrived at that conclusion by discussing our various
observations.


Yes.




>> > It also says that there will be some
>> > quantities that must remain *common* to all observers (for >> > example,
>> > the
>> > interval and invariant mass). However, it also says that those
>> > quantities do *not* include some that we had previously assumed
>> > should
>> > be common to all observers (such as length and time). It is
>> > therefore a
>> > false generalization to say that relativity says there is *no*
>> > reality,
>> > *no* one truth, *no* single factual observation. Instead, it
>> > refines
>> > what belongs in *the* reality, *the* truth, and *the* single
>> > factual
>> > observations.
>>
>> Dress it up any way you want, but for you to claim that >> observations
>> are factual
>> to the point that there simply cannot be any dispute as to what >> they
>> are is
>> arrogance,
>
> I don't agree. This is also part of the scientific process. A > single
> measurement (observation of fact) does not generally warrant
> scientific
> adoption. However, independent verification through a complementary
> observation method then adds an element of sturdiness to the
> observation. This sturdiness is nature exhibiting the way it works,
> predictably. Arrogance doesn't enter into it; if anything, > scientists
> are suspicious of their own observations until they have the > benefit
> of
> *independent*, *disinteterested* corroboration.
> 

[rest of stuff snipped that is not physics and not, apparently,
pertinent to me]

That begs the question why you'd challenge me on the issue in the first place. 

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GOD=G_uv A MESSAGE TO "Max"
    ... >> actual physical reality to exist even after we're all dead. ... It was only your bellowed crap that wsa printed in a NON-SCIENTIFIC rag! ... Scores of the world's leading scientists including Chris Isham, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: FYI, all recent responses to Rich Murray on ASD, MHD: Murray 2005.10.21
    ... >number of scientists has grown from about 100 to about 10,000,000. ... > This base reality is universally assumed to be impersonal, ... > This towering structure of established normality paradoxically ... >zillions of universe bubbles, forever disconnected, each with unique ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
    ... But the models may not be the reality we perceive. ... Scientists do not comprise the entire human race. ... that that undermines any ... beliefs ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: where theistic evolution leads
    ... how we examine reality. ... but when they come on this public newsgroup and assert to the ... SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE. ... of scientists that has been able to do that? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific Models Are Usually Wrong Though Helpful
    ... But the models may not be the reality we perceive. ... Scientists do not comprise the entire human race. ... beliefs ...
    (talk.origins)