Re: The real paradoxes in SR.

Phil <cms_pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1180212636.671266.26130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On May 26, 12:02 pm, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phil <cms...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1180193949.669258.233290
@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

....



In any event, practictioners of SR simply do not bother with concepts
which, even if consistent in principal, are not subject to
experimental confirmation separably.

That should be extended to all scientists.

Only philosophers and non scientists spend time thinking about things
that can not be tested[or lead to something that can be tested].

But then don't scientists do that every day?

They don't waste their time on unobservables.

Don't they assume a big
bang and yet can not be present to observe it. So instead they say it
would lead to something we can observe?

They look for an 'explanation' (some set of conditions that would predict
the currently observable universe). The conditions must be consistent with
laws of physics as now known and with all our other observations,
including our guesses as to how old the universe is.

The whole thing must be 'self consistent'.

What really is the difference
between Gerald's unobservable assumptions and the big bang?

Gerald's assumptions are not self consistent. He insists that one of two
theories is 'bad' because his interpretations of that theory conflict with
what he feels is 'right'.

Actually, he has his own favorite theory that he is trying to sell. He
want to get people to go to his web site, inhale the clouds of wisdom that
are there and worship him as a hero.

To that end, he makes statements that will be controversial in order to
keep threads going.

There are others that hang out around here that do the same. Henri Wilson,
Ken Seto, and half a dozen others that pop in from time to time.

Both
assumptions lead to predictions which can be tested. For example
Geralds assumptions ultimately predict invariant measurement of light
speed and physical law invariance under transformation while big-bang

Gerald says LET and SR use the same math so they predict the same results.
He then goes on to make the contradictory statement that SR has paradoxes
that LET does not have. SR, being simpler, not needing an aether, is, at
the basis a series of formula that 'work' and no 'explanation' as to why.

LET starts with a physical model and develops the same formula. Gerald and
some others are more comfortable with a 'physically based' model.

They don't understand that their physically based model has some 'non
physical' assumptions under it. And that 'faith' in those assumptions is
no different from 'faith' in the math of SR. Neither has any justification
other than 'they seem to work.

predicts background radiation.

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is
an infinite set.

The most interesting set is that portion of our "knowledge" which is
not "what we know" but instead "what we think we know". What we don't
know can never harm our thinking, only "what we think we know" can get
in our way.

Which is exactly Gerald's problem. He insists his interpretation of SR is
the correct interpretation AND that SR is impossible because his
interpretation doesn't makes sense to him.

That is NOT the viewpoint of a scientist. That is the viewpoint of a
priest that mutters scientific sounding phrases. He has faith in his 'AT'
theory and in 'LET' and no logic or reasoning will change his mind.

He doesn't come here to LEARN as some of us do. He doesn't come here to
teach, he comes here to preach.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... present to observe it. ... The whole thing must be 'self consistent'. ... Newtonian physics in its low velocity limit. ... the scientists decided to swing to SR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
    ... The whole thing must be 'self consistent'. ... Newtonian physics in its low velocity limit. ... the scientists decided to swing to SR. ... the contradictory statement that SR has paradoxes ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Q!Re: Shall We All Leave At Once?
    ... The Travels of Noe into Europe is based on primary and secondary sources including Berosus' Chaldanean history and is not a personal opinion. ... Yove not studied real science or philosophy. ... other scientists - sneer at cosmology these days). ... Most of the elementary particles in modern physics were predicted by the mathematics decades before the equipment could be built to detect them. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... the person you are talking about introduce ghosts into his biology the ... it does illustrate the principle that scientists as individuals can be ... B.S. Chemistry, San Diego State University, 1969 ... Robert Kaita holds a Ph.D. in nuclear physics from Rutgers University. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: (mechanical) Gravity
    ... to bravely come back to physics of mechanics. ... What do you think Newton's Universal Law of Gravity is? ... belief of scientists, neutrinos are very interactive. ...
    (sci.physics)