Science > Physics > Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Peter Kinane" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2005 10:55:00 AM |
| Object: |
Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid
The absolutist world having collapsed, let's not get flustered and allow the
philosophy of the relativity of value to become a haven-religion underlying
Physics - at least not without seeking- -considering alternative
formulations. Thereby, this group, and perhaps the field of Physics
generally, may evolve to a higher, or more coherent, level. (Subsequently,
perhaps 'the philosophers' can be dragged up).
To look at the, apparently popular, principle that there is "empirical
evidence" or that "the theory accords with experiment- -observation", as
weight of a model:
* Theory: Day follows night repeatedly. So, if the Earth is flat, it means
that the Sun or suns rise, travel over the Earth and set.
Expt.- -Observation: It does or they do. *
Based on such theory in accord with expt.- -observation principle, it may be
worthwhile to seek an alternative measure of the rigour of value. I like the
premise that all concepts are features of a model, and that such a model 'in
itself' has no weight - no rigour of value - and so, models should be
brought into relationship with other models, thereby determining, according
to whatever criteria one fancies, which to espouse.
(The (flat Earth) ancients could predict the course of the Sun, for everyday
of the year, with centimetre accuracy, (thousands of years ago), as shown
by, for example, New Grange, Ireland. It works regardless of whether the
Earth was seen as stationary or round and rotating. Yet, the difference of
connotations of the models is important).
So, I am proposing bringing The Physics of the Relativity of Value into
relationship with The Physics of the Relational (Effectuationist) Nature of
Value - the better to see the difference of connotations of the models.
(Don't be surprised if the former collapses- -disintegrates).
Relativity Physics: The speed of light is constant (c) across frames of
reference, but time ('and' matter) ( - time through which, in part, c
arises - ) changes. This, in a sense, means that c changes across frames of
reference.
Note: C is essentially the combined principles "conservation of momentum"
and "physical laws are the same for all observers".
Emphasising: In perceiving- -inferring that time- -matter contracts or
expresses different electromagnetic force- -form in perceived- -inferred
different conditions (and to whatever extent in accord with the degree of
difference), and that consequently transformations of time- -matter data
across conditions is necessary, it would seem that thereby c is not constant
but in effect varies, and necessarily is in effect being transformed in
accordance with such inference.
This may be unnecessarily cumbersome and counter intuitive. If so, the
underlying philosophy may reward attention, which philosophy apparently
informed- -burdened Einstein's postulate, involving "space-time", "c" and
multiple observers: "The laws by which the states of physical systems
undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred
to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform
translatory motion". Relativity may be the problem of Relativity Physics.
Effectuationist- -Relational Physics would seem clearer, more coherent and
intuitive, through featuring the concepts of extrapolation of data across
conditions, employing the concepts of standard event speed (SES) and of
matter contraction.
If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or extrapolates,
to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket then the measuring
process aboard same will be different (co-ordinates and gamma factors) and
the data will have to be transformed when transferred back to - received
by - the selected standard FoR. Also, the duration of the transference
process should also be computed.
Thereby, the concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time", "constant (c)"
and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of
reference, etc., at the philosophy level.
See TECCS as a support to what I'm saying:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
'Anyone like to think about an equation for the change in energy of a
society if haze is replaced with light?'
In effect, bringing Effectuationism Philosophy to bear on macro Physics
would seem to make it more compatible with, approximation to Copenhagen
Interpretation, Quantum Mechanics.
Wouldn't all that be grand and unificatory?
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
03 Jan 2005 08:21:30 PM |
|
|
Peter Kinane:
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid
Considering you're posting that to a physics newsgroup, your
statement takes on personal meaning for you.
[...]
To look at the, apparently popular, principle that there is "empirical
evidence" or that "the theory accords with experiment- -observation", as
weight of a model:
* Theory: Day follows night repeatedly. So, if the Earth is flat, it means
that the Sun or suns rise, travel over the Earth and set.
Expt.- -Observation: It does or they do. *
My 10 year old niece would realize your concept of a theory is
a non-sequiter. It's amazing that you can't figure that out and
still breath unassisted.
[...]
In effect, bringing Effectuationism Philosophy to bear on macro Physics
would seem to make it more compatible with, approximation to Copenhagen
Interpretation, Quantum Mechanics.
Wouldn't all that be grand and unificatory?
Dirac beat you by 75 years and one real theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
04 Jan 2005 01:16:54 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnctk5ac.gam.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Peter Kinane:
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the
philosophy,
stupid
Considering you're posting that to a physics newsgroup, your
statement takes on personal meaning for you.
[...]
To look at the, apparently popular, principle that there is "empirical
evidence" or that "the theory accords with experiment- -observation", as
weight of a model:
* Theory: Day follows night repeatedly. So, if the Earth is flat, it
means
that the Sun or suns rise, travel over the Earth and set.
Expt.- -Observation: It does or they do. *
My 10 year old niece would realize your concept of a theory is
a non-sequiter.
You seem shy about elaborating on your point - as usual.
http://groups.google.ie/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=d8097fcc.0412200136.16cb5a6b%4
0posting.google.com
It's amazing that you can't figure that out and
still breath unassisted.
[...]
In effect, bringing Effectuationism Philosophy to bear on macro Physics
would seem to make it more compatible with, approximation to Copenhagen
Interpretation, Quantum Mechanics.
Wouldn't all that be grand and unificatory?
Dirac beat you by 75 years and one real theory.
Again, you are shy to elaborate.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
04 Jan 2005 02:47:22 PM |
|
|
Peter Kinane:
Bilge:
Dirac beat you by 75 years and one real theory.
Again, you are shy to elaborate.
I i didn't think it should be necessary to point out that relativistic
quantum mechanics is relativity + quantum mechanics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
05 Jan 2005 09:14:51 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnctm63t.gam.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Peter Kinane:
Bilge:
Dirac beat you by 75 years and one real theory.
Again, you are shy to elaborate.
I i didn't think it should be necessary to point out that relativistic
quantum mechanics is relativity + quantum mechanics.
I didn't doubt that you are not more intellectually advanced than an eleven
year old - and blissfully content.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
11 Jan 2005 03:37:20 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:creqdk$qai$2@kermit.esat.net...
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
Dirac beat you by 75 years and one real theory.
Again, you are shy to elaborate.
Why do you post to sci.physics if yout ignorance of physics is as deep
seated as that?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
04 Jan 2005 02:46:51 AM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:crbtnd$vgh$1@kermit.esat.net...
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid
The absolutist world having collapsed,
Nonsense. The absolutist world only got out of fashion. As pupils are taught
what is fashionable in the name of "science", it takes them years (in my
case even decennia!) to find out.
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
03 Jan 2005 04:23:46 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:crbtnd$vgh$1@kermit.esat.net...
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid
The absolutist world having collapsed, let's not get flustered and allow
the
philosophy of the relativity of value to become a haven-religion
underlying
Physics - at least not without seeking- -considering alternative
formulations. Thereby, this group, and perhaps the field of Physics
generally, may evolve to a higher, or more coherent, level. (Subsequently,
perhaps 'the philosophers' can be dragged up).
Science is concerned about correspondence with experiment. And on that
count relativity passes with flying couloirs. Let me repeat it again - it
is concerned about correspondence with experiment. Your prattling that it
is a philosophy of value and other rot is irrelevant - because that is
precisely what it is not. However for what it is concerted about and why it
is preferred to other theories see an ancient post by Tom Roberts:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
Not that it will do you any good - you have been posting the same rubbish
for some time, been given the same answers yet continue to post. And
despite the fact sc.physics.relativity was set up for the precise purpose to
discuss relativity you maliciously cross post to sci.physics. However you
are not only one - it is rather common practice amongst cranks.
Bill
To look at the, apparently popular, principle that there is "empirical
evidence" or that "the theory accords with experiment- -observation", as
weight of a model:
* Theory: Day follows night repeatedly. So, if the Earth is flat, it
means
that the Sun or suns rise, travel over the Earth and set.
Expt.- -Observation: It does or they do. *
Based on such theory in accord with expt.- -observation principle, it may
be
worthwhile to seek an alternative measure of the rigour of value. I like
the
premise that all concepts are features of a model, and that such a model
'in
itself' has no weight - no rigour of value - and so, models should be
brought into relationship with other models, thereby determining,
according
to whatever criteria one fancies, which to espouse.
(The (flat Earth) ancients could predict the course of the Sun, for
everyday
of the year, with centimetre accuracy, (thousands of years ago), as shown
by, for example, New Grange, Ireland. It works regardless of whether the
Earth was seen as stationary or round and rotating. Yet, the difference of
connotations of the models is important).
So, I am proposing bringing The Physics of the Relativity of Value into
relationship with The Physics of the Relational (Effectuationist) Nature
of
Value - the better to see the difference of connotations of the models.
(Don't be surprised if the former collapses- -disintegrates).
Relativity Physics: The speed of light is constant (c) across frames of
reference, but time ('and' matter) ( - time through which, in part, c
arises - ) changes. This, in a sense, means that c changes across frames
of
reference.
Note: C is essentially the combined principles "conservation of momentum"
and "physical laws are the same for all observers".
Emphasising: In perceiving- -inferring that time- -matter contracts or
expresses different electromagnetic force- -form in perceived- -inferred
different conditions (and to whatever extent in accord with the degree of
difference), and that consequently transformations of time- -matter data
across conditions is necessary, it would seem that thereby c is not
constant
but in effect varies, and necessarily is in effect being transformed in
accordance with such inference.
This may be unnecessarily cumbersome and counter intuitive. If so, the
underlying philosophy may reward attention, which philosophy apparently
informed- -burdened Einstein's postulate, involving "space-time", "c" and
multiple observers: "The laws by which the states of physical systems
undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be
referred
to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform
translatory motion". Relativity may be the problem of Relativity Physics.
Effectuationist- -Relational Physics would seem clearer, more coherent and
intuitive, through featuring the concepts of extrapolation of data across
conditions, employing the concepts of standard event speed (SES) and of
matter contraction.
If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or extrapolates,
to co-ordinates, of, for example, a travelling rocket then the measuring
process aboard same will be different (co-ordinates and gamma factors) and
the data will have to be transformed when transferred back to - received
by - the selected standard FoR. Also, the duration of the transference
process should also be computed.
Thereby, the concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time", "constant
(c)"
and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
It is a matter of changing the frame of reference of the frame of
reference, etc., at the philosophy level.
See TECCS as a support to what I'm saying:
http://www.effectuationism.com/forum/messages/27/27.html?1071620499
'Anyone like to think about an equation for the change in energy of a
society if haze is replaced with light?'
In effect, bringing Effectuationism Philosophy to bear on macro Physics
would seem to make it more compatible with, approximation to Copenhagen
Interpretation, Quantum Mechanics.
Wouldn't all that be grand and unificatory?
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
03 Jan 2005 03:55:15 PM |
|
|
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:crbtnd$vgh$1@kermit.esat.net...
[snip]
If you were to apply the trick of making one word do for three or
four, I might consider reading your contribution.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
03 Jan 2005 01:31:40 PM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid
[snip crap]
It's self-consistency and empiricism, ignorant idiot. In the case of
Special Relativity, a straightforward hyperbolic geometry is a subset
of nonlinear hyperbolic elliptic General Relativity with Newton's G
set to zero.
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
03 Jan 2005 11:57:20 AM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the
philosophy,
stupid
The absolutist world having collapsed, let's not get flustered and
allow the
philosophy of the relativity of value to become a haven-religion
underlying
Physics - at least not without seeking- -considering alternative
formulations.
That effort has been ongoing on this NG for ten years.
Thereby, the concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time",
"constant (c)"
and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
You only want one observer in your universe?
Patrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
04 Jan 2005 01:16:50 PM |
|
|
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1104775040.254753.31180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the
philosophy,
stupid
The absolutist world having collapsed, let's not get flustered and
allow the
philosophy of the relativity of value to become a haven-religion
underlying
Physics - at least not without seeking- -considering alternative
formulations.
That effort has been ongoing on this NG for ten years.
Fair point. Pity about the degree of success.
Thereby, the concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time",
"constant (c)"
and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
You only want one observer in your universe?
How many observers did you need to form your assessment and post it? How
many do you, and other organisms that you perceive, require to get on with
life?
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
04 Jan 2005 02:37:35 PM |
|
|
Peter Kinane wrote:
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1104775040.254753.31180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity,
the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the
philosophy,
stupid
The absolutist world having collapsed, let's not get flustered
and
allow the
philosophy of the relativity of value to become a haven-religion
underlying
Physics - at least not without seeking- -considering alternative
formulations.
That effort has been ongoing on this NG for ten years.
Fair point. Pity about the degree of success.
Why is it a pity?
Thereby, the concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time",
"constant (c)"
and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
You only want one observer in your universe?
How many observers did you need to form your assessment and post it?
How
many do you, and other organisms that you perceive, require to get on
with
life?
My opinion is both personal and singular. However, science isn't; it is
instead intersubjective. Observers observe from reference frames. All
scientists are not going to fit in just one reference frame. The
quesion is: How should humans frame the "laws of physics" so that they
are applicable in the largest set of reference frames possible? (I
admit it -- the consideration is pragmatic. Shame on me.)
I guess you just don't see a connection between reference frames and
the laws of physics.
Patrick
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
05 Jan 2005 09:14:38 AM |
|
|
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1104871055.198292.131030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1104775040.254753.31180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity,
the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the
philosophy,
stupid
The absolutist world having collapsed, let's not get flustered
and
allow the
philosophy of the relativity of value to become a haven-religion
underlying
Physics - at least not without seeking- -considering alternative
formulations.
That effort has been ongoing on this NG for ten years.
Fair point. Pity about the degree of success.
Why is it a pity?
Because the philosophy of the relativity of value still rules.
* (Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid *
Thereby, the concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time",
"constant (c)"
and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
You only want one observer in your universe?
How many observers did you need to form your assessment and post it?
How
many do you, and other organisms that you perceive, require to get on
with
life?
My opinion is both personal and singular. However, science isn't; it is
instead intersubjective.
Yeah, if the philosophy of the relativity of value rules. I am proposing an
alternative model, and further proposing, in case you missed the point, that
different models should be brought into relationship.
* I like the premise that all concepts are features of a model, and that
such a model 'in
itself' has no weight - no rigour of value - and so, models should be brough
t into relationship with other models, thereby determining, according to
whatever criteria one fancies, which to espouse. *
Perhaps you should consider that perhaps you are trapped in a model, and
like many others here, blissfully unaware of your condition.
Observers observe from reference frames. All
scientists are not going to fit in just one reference frame.
How many reference frames would "all scientists" fit in?
The
quesion is: How should humans frame the "laws of physics" so that they
are applicable in the largest set of reference frames possible? (I
admit it -- the consideration is pragmatic. Shame on me.)
That may be "the question" for you, with the philosophy of the relativity of
value breaking through - perhaps unable to see your condition.
"The question" for me is how should one frame onself in the interest of
coherence, coherence, coherence ...; how to effect expressing coherence,
coherence, coherence ...
I guess you just don't see a connection between reference frames and
the laws of physics.
Patrick
I guess you don't see that my post rather exclusively addresses the
conncetion between philosophical reference frames and 'the laws of physics':
* (Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid *
Perhaps you should get someone to read my posts to you, or else smarten-up
to the pathetic limitations of your understanding of "a model".
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
05 Jan 2005 09:39:01 AM |
|
|
................ ...The intuitive mind is our gateway to the infinite.
The rational mind is a useful Rolodex that we have filled with personal
data. Hunched over our Rolodex, we've forgotten our gateway to the
infinite!!!!!!!!!!.............. ...
-- Albert Einstein
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> kirjoitti viestissä
news:crh0jt$e9i$1@kermit.esat.net...
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1104871055.198292.131030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
<reany@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:1104775040.254753.31180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Kinane wrote:
(Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity,
the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the
philosophy,
stupid
The absolutist world having collapsed, let's not get flustered
and
allow the
philosophy of the relativity of value to become a haven-religion
underlying
Physics - at least not without seeking- -considering alternative
formulations.
That effort has been ongoing on this NG for ten years.
Fair point. Pity about the degree of success.
Why is it a pity?
Because the philosophy of the relativity of value still rules.
* (Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid *
Thereby, the concepts of "multiple observers", "space-time",
"constant (c)"
and, effectively, "Relativity" itself, become redundant.
You only want one observer in your universe?
How many observers did you need to form your assessment and post it?
How
many do you, and other organisms that you perceive, require to get on
with
life?
My opinion is both personal and singular. However, science isn't; it is
instead intersubjective.
Yeah, if the philosophy of the relativity of value rules. I am proposing
an
alternative model, and further proposing, in case you missed the point,
that
different models should be brought into relationship.
* I like the premise that all concepts are features of a model, and that
such a model 'in
itself' has no weight - no rigour of value - and so, models should be
brough
t into relationship with other models, thereby determining, according to
whatever criteria one fancies, which to espouse. *
Perhaps you should consider that perhaps you are trapped in a model, and
like many others here, blissfully unaware of your condition.
Observers observe from reference frames. All
scientists are not going to fit in just one reference frame.
How many reference frames would "all scientists" fit in?
The
quesion is: How should humans frame the "laws of physics" so that they
are applicable in the largest set of reference frames possible? (I
admit it -- the consideration is pragmatic. Shame on me.)
That may be "the question" for you, with the philosophy of the relativity
of
value breaking through - perhaps unable to see your condition.
"The question" for me is how should one frame onself in the interest of
coherence, coherence, coherence ...; how to effect expressing coherence,
coherence, coherence ...
I guess you just don't see a connection between reference frames and
the laws of physics.
Patrick
I guess you don't see that my post rather exclusively addresses the
conncetion between philosophical reference frames and 'the laws of
physics':
* (Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid *
Perhaps you should get someone to read my posts to you, or else smarten-up
to the pathetic limitations of your understanding of "a model".
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
05 Jan 2005 06:02:15 PM |
|
|
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed.ouahi@welho.com> wrote in message
news:crh1mt$u54$1@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
............... ...The intuitive mind is our gateway to the
infinite.
The rational mind is a useful Rolodex that we have filled with personal
data. Hunched over our Rolodex, we've forgotten our gateway to the
infinite!!!!!!!!!!.............. ...
-- Albert Einstein
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
It seems to have some ring of sense, so, thanks - to you both.
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
05 Jan 2005 06:09:35 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jan 2005 12:37:35 -0800, "reany@asu.edu" <reany@asu.edu> wrote:
My opinion is both personal and singular. However, science
isn't; it is instead intersubjective. Observers observe from
reference frames. All scientists are not going to fit in
just one reference frame. The quesion is: How should humans
frame the "laws of physics" so that they are applicable in
the largest set of reference frames possible? (I admit it --
the consideration is pragmatic. Shame on me.)
I guess you just don't see a connection between reference
frames and the laws of physics.
The laws of physics don't give a monkey's or rat's ***** about
observers or their so-called reference frames. There IS no
connection!
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
06 Jan 2005 09:13:39 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gmvot019pc9avjvavrornd29sru4ghplm1@4ax.com...
On 4 Jan 2005 12:37:35 -0800, "reany@asu.edu" <reany@asu.edu> wrote:
My opinion is both personal and singular. However, science
isn't; it is instead intersubjective. Observers observe from
reference frames. All scientists are not going to fit in
just one reference frame. The quesion is: How should humans
frame the "laws of physics" so that they are applicable in
the largest set of reference frames possible? (I admit it --
the consideration is pragmatic. Shame on me.)
I guess you just don't see a connection between reference
frames and the laws of physics.
The laws of physics don't give a monkey's or rat's ***** about
observers or their so-called reference frames. There IS no
connection!
Paul Stowe
I suggest that there is a conncetion between your statement and your
(primal) concept or model of value. Perhaps you would like to follow up on
your dogmatic post with an attempt at argument; taking a close look at your
definition of value may smarten you up on this matter? Want to try it?
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
06 Jan 2005 08:23:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:13:39 -0000, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gmvot019pc9avjvavrornd29sru4ghplm1@4ax.com...
On 4 Jan 2005 12:37:35 -0800, "reany@asu.edu" <reany@asu.edu> wrote:
My opinion is both personal and singular. However, science
isn't; it is instead intersubjective. Observers observe from
reference frames. All scientists are not going to fit in
just one reference frame. The quesion is: How should humans
frame the "laws of physics" so that they are applicable in
the largest set of reference frames possible? (I admit it --
the consideration is pragmatic. Shame on me.)
I guess you just don't see a connection between reference
frames and the laws of physics.
The laws of physics don't give a monkey's or rat's ***** about
observers or their so-called reference frames. There IS no
connection!
Paul Stowe
I suggest that there is a connection between your statement and
your (primal) concept or model of value. Perhaps you would
like to follow up on your dogmatic post with an attempt at
argument; taking a close look at your definition of value
I and the so-called 'laws of physics' have no 'definition of
value'. Observers & participants define the 'view' of values.
Nature doesn't change it when one chanes perspective. You're
trying to set up a strawman.
may smarten you up on this matter? Want to try it?
Yup, go ahead, 'smarten' us up...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Kinane" |
|
| Title: Re: Intuitivity of Rel. Phy. - It's the philosophy, stupid |
07 Jan 2005 05:47:56 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:iqrrt05pr3rl2tlpmihs7mlsi1hv9g4iq3@4ax.com...
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 15:13:39 -0000, "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote:
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:gmvot019pc9avjvavrornd29sru4ghplm1@4ax.com...
On 4 Jan 2005 12:37:35 -0800, "reany@asu.edu" <reany@asu.edu> wrote:
My opinion is both personal and singular. However, science
isn't; it is instead intersubjective. Observers observe from
reference frames. All scientists are not going to fit in
just one reference frame. The quesion is: How should humans
frame the "laws of physics" so that they are applicable in
the largest set of reference frames possible? (I admit it --
the consideration is pragmatic. Shame on me.)
I guess you just don't see a connection between reference
frames and the laws of physics.
The laws of physics don't give a monkey's or rat's ***** about
observers or their so-called reference frames. There IS no
connection!
Paul Stowe
I suggest that there is a connection between your statement and
your (primal) concept or model of value. Perhaps you would
like to follow up on your dogmatic post with an attempt at
argument; taking a close look at your definition of value
I and the so-called 'laws of physics' have no 'definition of
value'. Observers & participants define the 'view' of values.
Nature doesn't change it when one chanes perspective. You're
trying to set up a strawman.
"Observers & participants define the 'view' of values. [] Nature [is
independent of observer's] perspective": (I could urge you to "go on; take
an even closer look at that"). I suggest that there-in _is expressed the_
connection between your theory of value and your theory of "the laws of
physics". (Philosophically, you see "the observer" and "Nature" as
independent of each other - that is the connection between your "The laws of
physics" and your philosophical frame of reference).
You wrote: "The laws of physics don't give a monkey's or rat's ***** about
observers or their so-called reference frames. There IS no connection!"
may smarten you up on this matter? Want to try it?
Yup, go ahead, 'smarten' us up...
:) So, it is very much about one's perspective; about one's philosophical
frame of reference.
* (Counter) Intuitivity of Relativity Physics (Special Relativity, the
Principle of Relativity, c, space-time, Relativity) - It's the philosophy,
stupid
[]
So, I am proposing bringing The Physics of the Relativity of Value into
relationship with The Physics of the Relational (Effectuationist) Nature of
Value - the better to see the difference of connotations of the models.
(Don't be surprised if the former collapses- -disintegrates). *
(Do you think "empirical" Al is able to catch-on to any of this?)
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
