Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: Phil <cms_pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 May 2007 13:50:36 -0700
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? 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? What really is the difference
between Gerald's unobservable assumptions and the big bang? 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
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.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: bz
- Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- References:
- The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: Gerald L. O'Barr
- Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: Phil
- Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- From: bz
- The real paradoxes in SR.
- Prev by Date: Re: When do EM waves collide and when do they superposition???
- Next by Date: Re: how does atom knows that it is pushed in order to oppose resistance?
- Previous by thread: Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- Next by thread: Re: The real paradoxes in SR.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
