Re: Einstein's relativity, the postmodern patch to physics, must be neglected

On Feb 13, 1:28 pm, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:41 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 13, 11:47 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 12, 10:12 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 12, 4:47 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Einstein's relativity (SR and GR) is the paradigm of postmodern patch.
A patch always presupposes the existence of the object to be patched.
You can't perform relativistic corrections if there is nothing to be
corrected. Postmodernism has only any sense if there were ever a
thing
called modernism. Einstein's relativity is then the postmodern patch
fixed upon the Emperor's old garment in order to repair it and cover
an awful hole. The funny thing is that patch is not made of the same
material the cloth of the garmet is made of, but of the fabric of the
hole, in such a way that the patch is intended to be fixed, not upon
the hole, but upon the rest of the garment. Once the patch is fixed,
the Emperor owns a New and Postmodern Garment!

Let's see what Noam Chomsky said when he was criticizing some aspects
of postmodernism,

                "There are lots of things I don't understand, say,
                 the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass
                 or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently)
                 proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have
                 learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in
                 these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can
                 understand, and they can do so, without particular
                 difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to
                 learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now
                 Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. even Foucault,
                 whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different
                 from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand,
                 but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do
                 understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as
                 to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves
                 one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in
                 intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden
                 genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory"
                 that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth
                 and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out."
                                                        -Noam Chomsky

Now I ask,
Is Einstein's relativity (a) option? Some advance in intellectual
life,
perhaps a sudden genetic mutation, which has created that form of
"theory"
that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and
profundity?
or is it (b) option, whose word Chomsky doesn't want to spell it out?

IMHO, the correct option is (b), and I'll spell that damned word out
for him: B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

Well, since relativity is easily an application of (1) or (2), then
the recourse to the evaluation (a) or (b) don't really apply.

If you are having difficulty with (1) or (2), perhaps it's time to
question the quality of the resources that you've chosen to bring to
bear.

PD

Go to a layman and tell him that A clock is ticking
slower than B clock, and also B clock is ticking slower
than A clock. Then, explain to him why is that true.

You don't understand. There is absolutely NO REASON why nature should
conform to common sense.

You don't understand. There is absolutely NO REASON why nature should
conform to SR.

That is determined by experiment. So far, SR is by far and away the
best model for explaining a wide variety of phenomena with the minimum
number of assumptions and arbitrary parameters. That metric is how
theories compete in science. If you have one that can do as much, then
by all means you are encouraged to do so.


If there is a confrontation between common sense and what experiment
shows as the real behavior of nature,

Wrong. Experiments can never show us the real behavior of nature.
The best an experiment can do is to falsify a theory, but never to
prove it is right.

Alright, then let me modify the sentence to read, "If there is a
confrontation between common sense and experimental observation, then
it is ALWAYS the case that common sense backs down."

So, Nature will be always hiding some subtleties
that we will unable to address by any model. It is in those
subtleties
that nature could show its real behavior.

then it is ALWAYS the case that
what backs down is common sense. Or, to put it another way, if nature
tosses up a surprise, then it is common sense that has to change in
order to accommodate this new discovery.

Common sense should dictate how experiments have to be performed
and arranged.

That is patently ridiculous. It's pretty simple, really. In a
competition between two theories, one theory will say, e.g., "Given
circumstances A, B, and C, this theory predicts that outcome X will be
observed in quantity Q," and another theory will either say, "Given
circumstances A, B, and C, this theory predicts that outcome X will be
observed in quantity Q', " or possibly "Given circumstances A, B, and
C, this theory predicts that outcome Y will be observed in quantity
R." Then the call to experimental action is completely clear: You set
up or look for the natural occurrence of circumstances A, B, and C,
and then you see whether it's outcome X or Y that emerges and in
quantity Q or Q'.

There are lots of silly experiments (not guided by
commom sense) that should have not been performed.

And this is just *completely* misguided. Which experiments do you
think should not have been done, and why?


Some people are more eager to do that than others. Those that aren't
also adapt less quickly and end up with a survival disadvantage.

PD

As I said, you are more a humanist than a scientist

Sorry, but what you are attempting in philosophy is not to be confused
with science.


You should try this forumhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.philosophy.humanism/topics
:-)

.

Relevant Pages