Re: The horrible failure of science education

From: Oriel36 (geraldkelleher_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/31/04 

Date: 31 Aug 2004 04:10:38 -0700

reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message news:<844a1b64.0408300917.4ada8a7d@posting.google.com>...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:<5ysYc.12675$D7.9493@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "Patrick Reany" <reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:844a1b64.0408291335.98dc0bd@posting.google.com...
> > > eleatis@yahoo.gr (Mike) wrote in message
> news:<9c1b39be.0408272333.2d626c8@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<cfFXc.9844$D7.4860@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> > > > > news:9c1b39be.0408270020.3a028ff7@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:<9muXc.9096$D7.1255@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I gave the answer in my reply and a link that discusses such -
> > > > > > >
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since when you're referencing cranks?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > POR says the laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference
> frames.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which PoR are you talking about? If Newtonian you are correct. Not
> > > > > > Einstein's though. This is the one we are talking about here. Red
> > > > > > herring again?
> > > > >
> > > > > The POR stands for the Principle of Relativity which says the laws of
> > > > > physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. It is standard
> > > > > terminology.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus if we do an experiment in one frame and deduce a law of
> nature from
> > > > > > > that then do the same experiment in another frame the same law
> > must
> > apply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You must first prove that these are indeed two different frames.
> > > > >
> > > > > An inertial frame is defined as one in which free particles move with
> > > > > constant velocity. Obviously a frame moving at constant velocity wrt
> an
> > > > > inertial one also has free particles moving at constant velocity so is
> also
> > > > > inertial. That you would even formulate such an idiotic question
> indicates
> > > > > you lack grounding in basic physics.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Idiot, inertial frames is a math abstraction useful only in SR, which
> > > > is an abstract kinematic theory lacking dynamical content.
> > >
> > > Proof of the horrible failure of science education! The guy doesn't
> > > even know that Newtonian mechanics is founded on the inertial-frame
> > > concept. How do you ever expect to get through to such a one? Either
> > > teach him Newtonian mechanics or just give up. Do what science
> > > education failed to do in the first place in its hurry to get to the
> > > equations: Stress the logical foundations to Newtonian mechanics.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> >
> > With all due respect Patrick, and not wishing to imply he has had a proper
> > science education, his problem, by his own self admission, is he gets his
> > physics from what he terms 'higher sources' - books on philosophy. Now of
> > course many competent philosophers understand relativity and physics, but
> > this guys problem, IMHO, is trying to understand physics via surrogate ie
> > via the writings of philosophers who analyze the philosophical basis of the
> > physics, not the physics itself. To me it points to the necessity of
> > understanding the physics before venturing into the philosophy.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bill
>
> There is no physics prior to philosophy. You have to have a formal
> point of view to set down the rules for doing even simple Newtonian
> mechanics, and there was no unique way for Newton to do it. He just
> did it his way, and it happened to work well. This doesn't require a
> philosophy book any more than learning how to put a quart of oil in
> your car's engine block requires a trained auto mechanic.
>
> Whatever sources he claims to use now, he clearly was not taught
> Newtonian mechanics correctly. That makes him easy prey to slick
> arguments which are designed to exploit naive misconceptions most
> people have. That has been my point all along, in case you haven't
> gotten the message. The reason there are so many cranks is because
> these cranks were never innoculated with the truth about Newtonian
> mechanics in the first place. And the responsibility for doing that
> belongs to science education.
>

You are correct,the truth about Newton's mechanical agenda is not well
known,go through the fog of definitions of time,space and motion and
he did set things up his own way with some unauthorised maneuvers.

The reason the guys in the 1840's found themselves in so much trouble
was as part of the gravitational agenda in attempting to explain
Keplerian motion,Newton sets it all up with a mean circular orbital
motion derived from Flamsteed.He patches in elliptical motion by
appealing to Roemer's method for determining the anomalous motion of
Io as it appears to speed up and slow down.

Basically he mixes Kepler with Roemer using Flamsteed's erroneous
assumption for axial rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency as a
template.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif

http://r2d2.stcloudstate.edu/~womack/astr/models/retropicmars.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-349/p6c.jpg

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct, and to proceed with a motion nearly uniform, that is to say, a
little swifter in the perihelion and a little slower in the aphelion
distances, so as to maintain an equality in the description of the
areas. This a noted proposition among astronomers, and particularly
demonstrable in Jupiter, from the eclipses of his satellites; by the
help of which eclipses, as we have said, the heliocentric longitudes
of that planet, and its distances from the sun, are determined."
Principia"

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

The poor guys in the mid 19th century were saddled with a Newtonian
view which locks the insight on finite light distance into Keplerian
motion notwithstanding that Keplerian motion could not be explained
until the 1930's with the recognition of the solar system's rotation
around the galactic axis and the influence on that motion on the
dominant helicentric orbital motion of planets.

Keplerian motion,pioneer 10,the perihelion advance and more
importantly the Milankovitch cycle and indeed whatever other puzzle
there is out there has now a wonderful 21st century setting by
incorporating the motion of the solar system to an inner and outer
galactic orbit by freeing up Newton's mangling Roemer's insight with
Kepler's.

Your pathetic appeal is far from the dignified position that men held
in the 1840's when they realised something was badly wrong but did not
know what.

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/ilej/image1.pl?item=page&seq=9&size=1&id=bm.1843.10.x.54.336.x.425

Without you and your relativistic cronies and the absurd backdrop you
provide,I probably would not appreceate Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer
and thank you for that.

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first
time.
T. S. Eliot

 
>
> Teach the students right when they're still young and you give them a
> fighting chance to see BS when it comes along. But, just try to cram a
> bunch of unmotivated equations down their throats as the "correct
> physics" and they are ever susceptible to the BS of the wrong way.
>
> The poster I replied to thinks that inertial reference frames are
> foreign to Newtonian mechanics and introduced spuriously in SR. Until
> you disabuse him of that misconception you are wasting your time
> trying to get through to him on anything else.
>
> You're part of the problem, Bill. You're one of the equation pushers.
>
> Patrick

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No Such Thing As "Macro" Evolution
    ... >>>You mistake appearance for reality. ... Langrangian analysis or a Newtonian analysis must be the same for any ... using the same methods of celestial mechanics developed by Laplace ... Calculation in physics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The horrible failure of science education
    ... >> this guys problem, IMHO, is trying to understand physics via surrogate ie ... > mechanics, and there was no unique way for Newton to do it. ... > Newtonian mechanics correctly. ... motion derived from Flamsteed.He patches in elliptical motion by ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is F=ma a definition or not?
    ... It is only in the case of the elliptical orbits that the ... the Newtonian equation of motion is only an approximation to the ... Force is the only foundation of physics known today, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: Why Darwinism Survives
    ... Einstein did not refute Newtonian celestial mechanics. ... Newtonian theory gets the motion of mercury wrong. ... The conception of space-time is totally at odds with absolute space and absolute time which is the basis of Newtonian physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Article: Why Darwinism Survives
    ... Einstein did not refute Newtonian celestial mechanics. ... Newtonian theory gets the motion of mercury wrong. ... The conception of space-time is totally at odds with absolute space and absolute time which is the basis of Newtonian physics. ...
    (talk.origins)