Re: waiting for a answer


"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1170956086.680974.261360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

harry ha scritto:

"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1170928179.939017.44690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

harry ha scritto:

"beda pietanza" <beda-pietanza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1170803653.861870.158680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Does the (SR) model correspond to reality????

It's not a model - thus your question is erroneous. SRT is a principle
theory. Thus it can be used to predict what one will measure under
certain
operational conditions. It works rather well.

But what makes it work ???
Is it a conjurer trick ???

Do you call thermodynamics a trick? Or QM?
Such theories are things on which one can agree, without debating an
infinite number of possible (or impossible) models. The strength of such
theories is that they do not depend on possible explanations; the
weakness
of such theories is that they don't provide possible explanations.

It is matter of priorities: if the task of science is to hit a target
in a war game
your attitude is correct: while if the task of science is to improve
the overall
knowledge and human being and the quality of his life then knowing how
to do things without knowing why is almost vain

The tasks of science are both; we have both thermodynamics and atomic
models. Atomic models that explain thermodynamics don't make thermodynamics
wrong (although, there is "Maxwell's demon"; nevertheless, thermodynamics
works fairly well anyway!).

known competing explanation attempts are "stationary ether" and
"spacetime".
As you know, SRT evolved from Lorentz's stationary ether model.

A conjurer that doesn't konw his tricks is dangerour (even for
himself).

The "trick" is publicly known, and announced by Einstein in 1905: it was
sufficient to just use the postulates of that time and see what the
consequences are, without a need to introduce any fantasy model that
pretends to explain it.

We never will know the full story, but a theory in not a set of
empirical instructions, it has explain things better.

Anyways, between SR and LET there is not any practical difference,
though
I think both have to be considered just approximations (since in both
the aether
is uninfluent, while i think it makes differences) I would prefere
LET, for it gives a physical expanation of the theory, so I would say
it is really a theory.

Nothing stops you from using LET as a model for SRT. With both approaches in
mind (Lorentz as well as Einstein), different kinds of common errors can be
avoided and the magic disappears. But I should note that I don't know a
clear-cut "common-sense" model for GRT similar as LET provides for SRT. Some
people in this group attempt to do so, but I don't think that that has been
achieved.

If there is a measure for Man it is the richness of his lanquage at
the most of the significance
of the terminology used, no use to add mistery to mistery

I don't quite follow you but I agree about no use to add mystery -it's just
a way to con people.

best regards

beda pietanza

Regards,

Harald


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast