Re: Relativity is not science! surr
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2006 10:17:14 -0700
Leonard Abbott wrote:
----------------------------------------------
Apart from your political biases, tell us why relativity is not science.
Define science. That is, don't mention communism, fascism, God, theism,
or the like, please.
-------------------------------------------------
There ar 6 definitions for science in websters dictionary.
I like ''Gaining knowledge by a systematic study'' the most I
like''Mathematical knowledge '' the least because there is no
systematic study associated with math.
I take it you never took a math class where you had to systematically
prove assertions on the weight of previously proven (or assumed)
assertions, or disprove by counterexample. I take it the only contact
you've had with mathematics is light discussion.
there is discussion about math, but little or no systematic study. Non
-Euclidean Geometry in particular is lacking ''systematic study.'' or
reasons for its acceptance.
On the contrary, Non-Euclidean geometry is developed in exactly the
same way that Euclidean geometry is developed: Start with a set of
axioms, and proceed via systematic proof a number of theorems, lemmas,
corollaries, etc.
Now it may be that you feel strongly about one set of axioms and are
not prepared to accept another set of axioms. Is that the issue?
Euclidean Axioms were changed,with no experimentation, proving there is
a curvature of straight lines in space, or that Parallel lines cross .
Actually, there are a number of common examples of spaces where
Euclidean axioms do not apply. The 2-dimensional surface of the earth,
for example.
Ah, but you only want to deal with 3D flat spaces. Anything else, you
apparently feel, is not worth talking about.
if parallel lines really cross, then their direction could be slightly
changed to make them parallel again.
A mathematician would never do that because it could not be explained
with geometry.
I see you've never traced parallel lines on a schoolroom globe.
The first attempts at non-Euclidean Geometry were in Newtons day,
Astronomy was beginning to overshadow Mathematics, to remain important
Non-euclidean geometry was invented.
Here is a little from a web page showing Non-Euclidean Geometry is
anti-systematic study.
Which you cite without attribution. That would be plagiarism.
'' Meanwhile there is virtually a conspiracy of silence. If we just
don't think--ostrich-like--about facing an infinite universe again, then
it won't happen. This is not intellectually or philosophically honest.
But it is of a piece with much of the way non-Euclidean geometry and its
related cosmological issues have been dealt with for a long time. The
closest we seem to have come to a more open consideration of these
matters is when both Stephen Hawking and Karl Popper [Karl Popper,
Unended Quest, Open Court, 1990; p.16] point out that Einstein, whether
or not he successfully answered Kant's Antinomy of Space, did not answer
the Antinomy of Time: despite decades of everyone glorifying in the
philosophical revelation of a finite but unbounded universe, they simply
didn't notice that the solution proposed for space didn't work with
time.''
If this is true then most of relativity is a hoax,
Fortunately, it's not true. In the least.
PD
.
- References:
- Re: Relativity is not science! surr
- From: surrealistic-dream
- Re: Relativity is not science! surr
- From: Leonard Abbott
- Re: Relativity is not science! surr
- Prev by Date: Re: A day in the gay life of Eric Gisse (Geese)
- Next by Date: Re: Another look at the Lorentz factor.
- Previous by thread: Re: Relativity is not science! surr
- Next by thread: Re: Relativity is not science!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
