Re: Does anybody on this NG have any idea what a theory is
From: AllYou! (idaman_at_conversent.net)
Date: 01/01/05
- Next message: Richard Henry: "Re: Why not donate microwave ovens to the villagers ?"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Stowe: "Re: Does anybody on this NG have any idea what a theory is"
- Next in thread: tadchem: "Re: Does anybody on this NG have any idea what a theory is"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:01:09 -0500
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1104593219.067318.52300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Paul Stowe wrote:
> > On 31 Dec 2004 09:36:49 -0800, "reany@asu.edu" <reany@asu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Paul Stowe wrote:
> > >> On 31 Dec 2004 05:40:23 -0800, "reany@asu.edu" <reany@asu.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>
> [snip]
> > >
> > >>> Needless to say, you got it wrong. Newton saw the falling
> > >>> apple and said FORCE. Einstein saw the falling apple and
> > >>> said 'geodesics in spacetime.'
> > >>
> > >> So, the the rock fall either way. Are you a ravenous
> > >> Bug-Bladder Beast??? The point my dear Reany is the rock
> > >> always falls and that IS what we observe.
>
> Whether a rock falls or not depends on one's reference frame. Thus, the
> statement "The rock is falling" (true or false) has no intrinsic
> meaning. And no answer is possible until the subjective reference frame
> has been defined. Furthermore, the answer depends on the choice of
> frame. If you don't get the logic of this formal refutation of your
> position, you are hopeless.
Nonsense. It is valid to state that the rock and the Earth fall toward each other. Also,
using theories which have been demonstrated to *work*, as you would so eloquently say, it
is valid to say that they fall relative to each other in inverse proportion to their
relative masses. Therefore, the term *to fall* has all the intrinsic value it needs and
is not at all frame dependent.
[snip]
> Do we see or notice electrons, photons, point particles, causality,
> ether, classical fields, continuum, action, inertia, Newton's absolute
> acceration space, spacetime, etc. It's the theory that tells us how to
> build an ontology, and based on that ontology how to "observe." One
> does not ever "just see"! You see according to a theory-laden point of
> view -- and that is subjective. That theory-laden point of view you use
> will either be common sense or the scientific viewpoint or something
> else.
Make up your mind. It's either subjective or it's common sense.
> A stone is dropped by a man at rest on a train moving along a straight
> and level track. According to the man at rest on the train the path of
> the stone (ignoring air friction in our thought experiment) is a
> straight line, but to a man standing still at the embankment to the
> tract the path is a parabola. Which is the observed true path of the
> stone through space?
That's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the stone and the Earth fall toward each
other. From *that* frame of reference, the path of the fall can clearly be traced.
> > Welcome to the REAL WORLD Reany... The scientific method is:
> >
> > Observe
> > Hypothesize
> > Test
> > Conclude
> > Retest if necessary
> >
> > Note the order. Obervations are of the world AS IT IS!
>
> Before I get to cutting to pieces your naive view of the scientific
> method, you first answer this question: What is the scientific method
> designed to produce?
>
> You cannot "observe" the world "as it is"!! That has no meaning! There
> is no point-of-view-free, reference-frame-view-free way to observe the
> world. Every measurement one makes is founded on some theory about how
> that instrument itself works.
>
> Is the moon really bigger when it looms just above the horizon than
> when it is overhead?
What do you mean by observe?
- Next message: Richard Henry: "Re: Why not donate microwave ovens to the villagers ?"
- Previous message: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Maybe in reply to: Paul Stowe: "Re: Does anybody on this NG have any idea what a theory is"
- Next in thread: tadchem: "Re: Does anybody on this NG have any idea what a theory is"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
