Re: Is there cheating in relativity?

On Oct 8, 11:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 8, 8:39 am, strich.9...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Oct 8, 9:09 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 7, 10:39 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

PD wrote:
On Oct 7, 10:58 am, sam <samwo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think there is lying or cheating in the theory of relativity.
Specifically, cheating happened in the textbook Fundamentals of
Physics, 6th edition, published by John Wiley and Sons, jointly
authored by David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Jearl Walker. On
pages 925 , 926 and 927, the book tried to prove that time is
relative. First it promised clocks would be used to obtain time
intervals; then it dropped clocks and switched to another tool, t =
d/ v, thereby the time intervals were obtained. I believe such a
switch constituted cheating. It promised one thing, and then did
quite a different thing.

Well, first of all, you are reading a very light treatment of
relativity in a survey textbook aimed at freshman. It is designed to
be a gentle introduction, with more emphasis on pedagogy than rigor.
But it is also a chapter that is usually sped through in a freshman
class, and so this chapter also gets less attention from the author
and the editors.

Translation.
That book is the brainwashing drug to get you ready for
the rest of the brainwashing.
If you can actually see how stupid that book is, the drug is not
working and that means your brain is stronger than the stupidity
in that book.

Translation:
To hell with books, to hell with what anyone else claims to have
observed.
Make it up as you go along, and if it makes sense to you internally,
then it's right.
It's the only way to prevent brainwashing.
Otherwise you might get brainwashed into believing that -2 x -2 equals
+4 or some fool thing like that.

LOL

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your policy has been to hell with reason, just follow the books.  The
books can be wrong PD.  While most of what is published may be
correct, it cannot be overgeneralized.

You read books with a critical mind.  You listen to theories and
claims with a critical mind.  You never disregard reason.  That has
been your downfall.

It is not a matter of books. The books only outline the model that has
been checked in experiment. Beginning students, but only beginning
students, are asked to take it on faith that what is presented in the
books has been checked with experiment. However, for those more
interested in physics, the expectation is that immersion in
experimental verification and the documentation surrounding what has
been already checked, is not only required but an essential part of
the activity.

What is also *certain* is that reason is NOT sufficient for
determining truth in science. This is evidenced by the frequent
occurrence of competing models that are *equally* rational, equally
plausible, equally mathematically sound and consistent, and which
plainly disagree both on the model and on the predictions for
observable outcomes in areas not yet explored. In such cases, reason
does not decide. Moreover, the fact that one of the competing models
ends up being disfavored by experimental test does not imply that
there was something wrong logically or mathematically with the model
after all. Reason is just not sufficient. Appeal to observation is
required.

Reason is also confused with intuition. Intuition is a notorious liar
and a cheat, and it is part and parcel with why beginning students
make such egregious errors on the Force-Concept Inventory. Intuition
is based off extrapolation from our senses, where such extrapolation
may or may not be warranted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When reason or logic of one type contradicts with reason or logic of
another type, then one of them must not really be reason. This is
seen clearly in the geocentric and heliocentric models, whereby both
were argued as logical. In hindsight, the logic of one could have
been easily exposed as fallacious if it was dissected in more detail.
I am sure the dissection was done, but faith probably intervened along
the way, and those who could not readjust their erroneous logic would
keep insisting on its veracity.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is there cheating in relativity?
    ... Physics, 6th edition, published by John Wiley and Sons, jointly ... the rest of the brainwashing. ... Your policy has been to hell with reason, just follow the books. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: If youre feeling bad atm please read this :o)
    ... tell you where you can go to get medical treatment? ... and I'm banned from contacting my GP (no reason given). ... psychotherapists - although modern techniques are different. ... Nor do I think I'll find any useful books. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: If youre feeling bad atm please read this :o)
    ... I'm banned from contacting my GP (no reason given). ... Nothing could convince me to pay any private mental health treatment. ... modern techniques are different. ... Nor do I think I'll find any useful books. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: If youre feeling bad atm please read this :o)
    ... and I'm banned from the premises (no reason given) and I'm ... presence of any NHS staff or in an NHS establishment: ... learning to play a musical instrument or supporting your local ... Nor do I think I'll find any useful books. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: If youre feeling bad atm please read this :o)
    ... I'm banned from contacting my GP (no reason given). ... Nothing could convince me to pay any private mental health treatment. ... modern techniques are different. ... Nor do I think I'll find any useful books. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)