Re: The farce of relativity of simultaneity

On Mar 30, 10:24 am, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1119122e-6bbf-4725-a465-
05461051f...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



On Mar 30, 7:23 am, Alen <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2:30 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 29, 9:15 am, Alen <al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]
There is essentially NO VALUE in physics for two models that have
completely identical predictions of experimental results.
Historically, and rightly so, there is simply no compelling reason to
entertain a second "interpretation" that does not distinguish itself
in any *measurable* way from the prevailing model.

I would say that that is a very poor modus operandi
if one is attempting to find the objective truth. If one
possible interpretation comes first, it becomes the
prevailing model, and the other, which appears later,
is then aribtrarily given all the burden of proof, as it were.
That is really no better than selecting a model by tossing
a coin.

I think that, if experimental results cannot select one
model over the other, the models themselves should be
examined for greater or lesser completeness and
internal consistency, and possible greater interpretive
range, etc.

Sorry, but that's not science. That's something else. Perhaps
esthetics, perhaps philosophy, but not science. Science is based on
whether a greater range of experimental results are accurately matched
by the model. Period. No exceptions. You may not like that, but that's
how science is done. I recommend some reading on the history and
methodology of science. Do you need a reference? Perhaps you are
pursuing the wrong hobby.

Actually Allen IS partly correct as are you, partially correct.

Science has, for many years, applied the Razor of Sir William of Okham
(Occam's razor) to decide WHICH THEORY TO test _first_.

The rule is that when more than one theory applies to known data, the
SIMPLER theory is tested first.

For example, if a process seems to follow a linear relationship, one would
try to extend the range of the independent variable to confirm that the
relationship remains linear rather than choosing another rule that adds a
second, non linear term AND THEN testing THAT formula.

The non linear term(s) are not added unless they
1) are necessary to explain data from new experiments or
2) allow us to formulate a more general expression that applies to
different kinds of experiments, showing that the processes are related in
some way.

Special Relativity did BOTH.
It explained data that was inconsistent with current theories and
It allowed science to formulate a more general expression that applied to
MANY different kinds of experiments.

General Relativity did BOTH again.

String theory seeks to do both again however none of the many different
attempts to formulate string theory have produced predictions that can be
easily tested.

Regardless, science does NOT demand any particular 'membership in the
club' before a theory can be proposed.

ANYONE can propose a new theory, however science DOES require that the new
theory be credible.

Everything up to this last statement I agree with. However, this last
one is problematic. Credibility is affected by presumptions that are
difficult to distinguish from what is really required by nature.

Lord Kelvin had a terrible time with quantum mechanics because it
violated strict causal determinism, and he held that any abandonment
of strict causal determinism was tantamount to abandonment of orderly
science. Einstein also found quantum mechanics to be incredible
because he could not accept the loss of the principle of locality,
which he also took to be a given. Eddington and Einstein both
rejected black holes, because neither thought that "real" matter would
ever be subject to a singularity in density. And of course, a number
of physicists thought that absolute time was too central a tenet, too
common-sense, for relativity of simultaneity to be considered
credible.

In the end, a suspension of credibility is sometimes required to see
if correct prediction of experimental results does in fact hold. It
would be a terrible waste to chuck a theory as unacceptable until it
is determined that experimental data are in conflict with it.


For it to be credible, the proponent MUST be familiar with current theories
in order to intelligently show how his or her new theory subsumes the
current theory and projects new results.

The proponent must thus be able to speak the language of science (math) and
correctly use the vocabulary of science.

The proponent must ALSO have 'done his or her own "homework".' The idea
must be well developed.

Tossing out an idea and expecting others to adopt it is wrongheaded and
destined to failure.

I agree, and this is where cranks whine that people are being "close-
minded". Very often, they recognize that they do not have the skills
required to develop an idea into a testable theory. The lack of
interest by others who might have the skill to embrace the idea and
develop it FOR the crank, is taken as something else to whine about.

There is no shortcut. Develop the skills, do the homework, turn the
idea into a real theory.


If I had a 'grand idea', I would find those that work in that field of
science and ask if I could visit their laboratory because I have some
questions.
I would read ALL the papers that had been published in that particular
field of science and make sure I understand everything in them.
That probably means reading all their references and sometimes asking the
authors questions about their paper.

I would NOT attack what they said and try to tell them how wrong headed
they were, even if I thought they were wrong. I would say 'I don't
understand this point, can you help me understand it?'

Many of those that come to sp/spr refuse to do their homework, are
unfamiliar with the language of science and unwilling to learn. They may
have memorized a few of the words, be able to parrot a little math, but
they don't understand the meanings of the words. they lack an understanding
of the vocabulary. They thus doom their idea.

They are generally easy to recognize. They have a favorite theory and try
to sell it to everyone. When a flaw in the theory is pointed out to them,
they patch it with whatever they can think of. They accuse science of being
a conspiracy. They attack others personally and with words that reflect
poorly upon them.

--
bz

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

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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: There is no such thing as absolute falsification
    ... But all of this model building consists of matching predictions to experiments, ... but we are not free to make conclusions about the credibility of the theory despite the ... > Theory is the central concept of science. ... And men and women of good conscience over all have no choice but to make these decisions ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why do you believe what you believe?
    ... it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word ... can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility. ... other ancient texts. ... They are not science or history books as we understand the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why do you believe what you believe?
    ... it comes to religion, I might take a respected religious leaders word ... can cast serious doubt on someone's credibility. ... other ancient texts. ... They are not science or history books as we understand the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Jeff Hawkins Q&A
    ... >> So science tries to limit to those that are usable and to some extent ... > So why are you assuming that your feedback theory has credibility whereas ... > dualistic theories of mind were posited first. ... Dualism is simply a modification on ideas already present 5000 ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?"
    ... "Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion?" ... then insured the survival of that "Faith" by controlling what material that ... Unlike many, if not most, physicists, the writer is not foolish ... General Relativity has allegedly replaced Newtonian Gravitational ...
    (sci.physics.particle)