What was done in philosophy?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

You have so much right, I think, in the conception of the workings of science in your posts in this thread, but I want to assure you from the bottom of my heart that you are mistaken about physicists---any physicist---not being willing to abandon the theory of general relativity upon its empirical disconfirmation. The most elementary conjecture of general relativity is the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass. Physicists continue to add greater precision to the measurement of those two in order to see if they continue to come out the same within smaller margins of error. And they are always interested in new ways of making those measurements to see if the results are consistent with results of their other, older ways of making the measurements. Were this most elementary conjecture of GR found false in experiment, physicists would check and independently repeat the experiment, and they would recheck the design of the experiment and its rightness for measuring what it is claimed to measure. But if, under heavy scrutiny, experiments refute the conjectured equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, all would abandon general relativity and all would move on to the quest for a new theory able to accommodate both the new experimental finding and all the earlier (by now rather spectacular array of) distinctive implications that have been drawn from GR and have been successful in experimental/observational trials. There is no loss of possible fruitful employment in fundamental physics, on account of experimental results, of such precious minds as these.

GR has always been controversial and remains so.

--Brant

Petr Beckmann: Einstein Plus Two

Yes, but it is still the best theory of gravitation we have. If it breaks, it will give way in very strong gravitational fields such as are found near and in Black Holes. It remains to be seen whether the Einstein "fudge factor" can account for the effects of Dark Energy (that mysterious something which is causing the universe to expand and accelerate in its expansions).

Beckman was a bit of a maverick. He rightly challenged both general and special relativity and was shown to be incorrect in hischallenges. Beckman also challenged the hypothesis that AIDS was caused by a virus. However Beckman was no crackpot. He did solid work in electrodynamics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Of course he was "shown to be incorrect." But that's not the same as being "incorrect." And who did this showing?

--Brant

while he was a friend of Edward Teller, Teller remained an Einsteinian and must have been the much greater genius, although that doesn't make Teller right (Teller also made some nutty pronouncements like "a shield is better than a sword" or that it wouldn't take long to recover from GTW or that Oppenheimer was something of a security risk or suffusing the country with bomb shelters was a good investment in resources (a la Nelson Rockefeller whom he admired)

The showing is done by independent experimenters coming up with falsifications to hypothesis.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The hypothesis that Einstein was wrong? And that by experiment?

--Brant

who is stuck to the tar baby: you or me?--dunno

I've pretty much come to the conclusion, though, that Einstein cannot be replaced only displaced and that Newtonian physics won't do that job (Petr said Newton was right and Einstein wrong while Einstein said he had no conflict with Newton whom he rightfully considered to be a giant)--for whatever my layman's opinion might be worth (hint: not very much)

The anomalous precession of the peri-hellion of Mercury falsifies Newtons law of gravitational force.

The anomaly had been known since the middle of the 19 th century. Einstein's General Theory correctly predicts the precession of the peri-hellion of mercury to within the resolution of the instruments used to observe mercury.

So, Einstein was just being polite?

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Petr said Newton was right and Einstein wrong while Einstein said he had no conflict with Newton whom he rightfully considered to be a giant.

What's your source, Brant, for what you say Einstein said?

Einstein considered Newton a giant, but "no conflict"? Substantively?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Petr said Newton was right and Einstein wrong while Einstein said he had no conflict with Newton whom he rightfully considered to be a giant.

What's your source, Brant, for what you say Einstein said?

Einstein considered Newton a giant, but "no conflict"? Substantively?

Ellen

I'm sorry Ellen, it was something I read a physicist said decades ago about what Einstein said. It may have been Beckmann himself, but I don't think so. I just passed it along as what I thought was common knowledge in that part of the scientific world. If you don't know it I can see why you'd be interested in the reference, but I can't give you one. The parlance as I understood it was Newton, with some exceptions (as in Mercury's orbit) was right as far as he went but Einstein took it a step further. Beckmann's position was all of what Einstein came up with in his Relativity theories was explainable by classical physics and E=MC2 while valid in itself neither confirmed nor dis-confirmed Relativity. Now the very smart but not a physicist Jack Wheeler said Einstein's mistake was calling relativity "Relativity" instead of "The Cosmological Constant" which is the speed of light. A labeling problem. Beckmann's mistake, as I understand it (and I'm not qualified to understand it, frankly) is he thought the way to deal with Einstein was to push him completely off the table respecting his relativity theories. I never thought that right or fair, for what that's worth (nothing).

I do think Petr put forth the notion--I'm not sure of this--it goes back decades for me--that the speed of light was not consistent in all media, that it was affected by gravitation. How he could know such a thing is beyond me. I generally didn't talk physics with him, but politics, economics and current events.

--Brant

I Googled "Brant Gaede Ft Freedom" and could find nothing about Einstein, nor did I expect to (the "search" function doesn't work)--it was interesting to find my pre-Internet stuff of 25 years ago (it was always a dial up site while active)--it seems I've been effectively Internet active for more than a quarter of a century now (Petr set it up and kept it running--the text appeared on your screen as if from a high speed typewriter--slowly--I still have the old Kaypro 4 computer I used; I'm sure it would run like new if I were to set it up again [the whole system, including a printer, cost me about $3000 in 1984]; journalists used to carry these things along on airplane trips--probably the Kaypro Ten with the hard drive [10 megs])

Edited October 2, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[Guyau]

.

Thanks, Ellen, for #50.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Petr said Newton was right and Einstein wrong while Einstein said he had no conflict with Newton whom he rightfully considered to be a giant.

What's your source, Brant, for what you say Einstein said?

Einstein considered Newton a giant, but "no conflict"? Substantively?

Ellen

I'm sorry Ellen, it was something I read a physicist said decades ago about what Einstein said. It may have been Beckmann himself, but I don't think so. I just passed it along as what I thought was common knowledge in that part of the scientific world. If you don't know it I can see why you'd be interested in the reference, but I can't give you one. The parlance as I understood it was Newton, with some exceptions (as in Mercury's orbit) was right as far as he went but Einstein took it a step further.

Einstein changed the way of approach. His basic conception differed from Newton's. Why I asked for a source is because the way you put it (the "no conflict" part) doesn't sound like a remark Einstein would have made, not in those words, which sound as if Einstein thought that his own theories merely extended Newton's.

In 1927, the 200th anniversary of Newton's death year, Einstein wrote an article titled "Isaac Newton" for the Smithsonian Annual Report.

That article is Einstein's lengthiest statement concerning the historical importance of Newton and the differences between Newton's theories and Einstein's own.

For anyone interested, the article in full, courtesy NOVA, can be found here (warning: it isn't light reading).

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Hey, thanks!

--Brant

edit: I just read it. It's beautiful.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Petr said Newton was right and Einstein wrong while Einstein said he had no conflict with Newton whom he rightfully considered to be a giant.

What's your source, Brant, for what you say Einstein said?

Einstein considered Newton a giant, but "no conflict"? Substantively?

Ellen

I'm sorry Ellen, it was something I read a physicist said decades ago about what Einstein said. It may have been Beckmann himself, but I don't think so. I just passed it along as what I thought was common knowledge in that part of the scientific world. If you don't know it I can see why you'd be interested in the reference, but I can't give you one. The parlance as I understood it was Newton, with some exceptions (as in Mercury's orbit) was right as far as he went but Einstein took it a step further.

Einstein changed the way of approach. His basic conception differed from Newton's. Why I asked for a source is because the way you put it (the "no conflict" part) doesn't sound like a remark Einstein would have made, not in those words, which sound as if Einstein thought that his own theories merely extended Newton's.

In 1927, the 200th anniversary of Newton's death year, Einstein wrote an article titled "Isaac Newton" for the Smithsonian Annual Report.

That article is Einstein's lengthiest statement concerning the historical importance of Newton and the differences between Newton's theories and Einstein's own.

For anyone interested, the article in full, courtesy NOVA, can be found here (warning: it isn't light reading).

Ellen

Yup. Newton invented physics of the kind we know and love. His theories were off a bit, but his approach is just as sound today as it was in the day he published Princiipia or Optiks

Like the article said:

The whole development of our ideas concerning natural phenomena may be conceived as an organic development of Newton’s thought.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Like the article said:

The whole development of our ideas concerning natural phenomena may be conceived as an organic development of Newtons thought.

You - like the site editor in highlighting that quote - cleverly leave out the parenthetical. And you disregard the danger warning in the rest of the paragraph.

link

The whole development of our ideas concerning natural phenomena, which has been described above, may be conceived as an organic development of Newton's thought. But while the construction of the theory of fields was still actively in progress, the facts of heat radiation, spectra, radioactivity, and so on revealed a limit to the employment of the whole system of thought, which, in spite of gigantic successes in detail, seems to us today completely insurmountable. Many physicists maintain, not without weighty arguments, that in face of these facts not only the differential law but the law of causality itself - hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science - fails.

~~~

Brant, agreed about the article's being "beautiful." It's an amazing compressed presentation and analysis of the whole history and core issues of modern physics up to 1927, written by a person whose work was a major development and direction-changer in that history.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

It's not that I really got my head around it or understood it all that well, but if I were to read up on maybe twenty different items or things mentioned therein I could achieve a proper layman's understanding sans the requisite mathematics supporting it all. He opens that door for such as myself. You can easily build a physics 101 for BA undergrads around this. Even I could, but I shouldn't if I wanted. Why? Because those in the class who would be inspired to be physicists cannot be inspired by a non-physicist who could not integrate the material with the necessary mathematics and even those not so inclined would not be all that impressed with the material aside from the article itself. So, it would only be for my selfish self and I've got so much to do!

--Brant

I didn't know Einstein swung both ways! (physics math and physics non-math)

My college bud told me this story about Einstein he had heard from--who knows?:

At Princeton Einstein became friends with a little girl, daughter of a professor. Einstein helped her with her math. The professor approached Einstein and regretted his daughter was taking up so much of his time. "That's all right," said Einstein. "I teach her math and she gives me candy."

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's a different version:

capitalcentury.com link

1933: The genius next door

By JON BLACKWELL / The Trentonian

When 8-year-old Adelaide Delong struggled over her addition and times tables, she turned to the one Princeton neighbor she figured could help -- Albert Einstein.

Clutching a plate of homemade fudge and a book of arithmetic problems, young Addie knocked on 112 Mercer St. one day in the 1930s and told the white-haired man who opened the door: "Will you show me how to do my homework?"

The world's greatest scientist could have shooed the little girl off, telling her he was at work on a theory to explain the nature of all physical forces in the universe.

But Einstein didn't do that. Instead, he smiled and accepted Addie's chocolate gift. As gently as he could, he said he would love teach her to add and subtract, but that wouldn't be fair to the other girls at school. And he gave her a cookie in return for her fudge.

"She was a very naughty girl," Einstein would later say with his distinctive, hearty chuckle. "Do you know she tried to bribe me with candy?"

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Obviously my rendition got twisted all out of shape.

--Brant

Now I like A E for I hadn't read much about his life as such

edit: see next two posts which repeat this one and the previous one

Edited October 8, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Here's a different version:

capitalcentury.com link

1933: The genius next door

By JON BLACKWELL / The Trentonian

When 8-year-old Adelaide Delong struggled over her addition and times tables, she turned to the one Princeton neighbor she figured could help -- Albert Einstein.

Clutching a plate of homemade fudge and a book of arithmetic problems, young Addie knocked on 112 Mercer St. one day in the 1930s and told the white-haired man who opened the door: "Will you show me how to do my homework?"

The world's greatest scientist could have shooed the little girl off, telling her he was at work on a theory to explain the nature of all physical forces in the universe.

But Einstein didn't do that. Instead, he smiled and accepted Addie's chocolate gift. As gently as he could, he said he would love teach her to add and subtract, but that wouldn't be fair to the other girls at school. And he gave her a cookie in return for her fudge.

"She was a very naughty girl," Einstein would later say with his distinctive, hearty chuckle. "Do you know she tried to bribe me with candy?"

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Obviously my rendition got twisted all out of shape.

--Brant

Now I like A E for I hadn't read much about his life as such

[Guyau]

The Meaning of Einstein's Equation

John Baez and Emory Bunn

Abhay Ashtekar’s Assistance
http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashtekar/articles.html

Einstein Online

[Brant Gaede]

The Meaning of Einstein's Equation

John Baez and Emory Bunn

Abhay Ashtekar’s Assistance

http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashtekar/articles.html

Einstein Online

It reads--"Relativity"--like a conglomeration of abstractions perhaps twisted as needed to correspond to somewhat meager confirming observations which might be differently explained. Take spacetime. Space is what is in space or it is nothing at all. Densities and stuff vary. Time is only a measurement of motion. Since there are different motions that can be measured taking one over the others is a matter of usefulness or convenience. All measurements beg the question measurement of what?

This is as far as this layman can deal with these subjects and it's likely lousy.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

The Meaning of Einstein's Equation

John Baez and Emory Bunn

Abhay Ashtekar’s Assistance

http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashtekar/articles.html

Einstein Online

It reads--"Relativity"--like a conglomeration of abstractions perhaps twisted as needed to correspond to somewhat meager confirming observations which might be differently explained. Take spacetime. Space is what is in space or it is nothing at all. Densities and stuff vary. Time is only a measurement of motion. Since there are different motions that can be measured taking one over the others is a matter of usefulness or convenience. All measurements beg the question measurement of what?

This is as far as this layman can deal with these subjects and it's likely lousy.

--Brant

Every time some one uses GPS to get his location correct to within ten meters, it is a confirmation of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Considering how many times a day this is done, I would say that is a lot of confirmation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

The Meaning of Einstein's Equation

John Baez and Emory Bunn

Abhay Ashtekar’s Assistance

http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashtekar/articles.html

Einstein Online

It reads--"Relativity"--like a conglomeration of abstractions perhaps twisted as needed to correspond to somewhat meager confirming observations which might be differently explained. Take spacetime. Space is what is in space or it is nothing at all. Densities and stuff vary. Time is only a measurement of motion. Since there are different motions that can be measured taking one over the others is a matter of usefulness or convenience. All measurements beg the question measurement of what?

This is as far as this layman can deal with these subjects and it's likely lousy.

--Brant

Every time some one uses GPS to get his location correct to within ten meters, it is a confirmation of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Considering how many times a day this is done, I would say that is a lot of confirmation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The technology is confirmed. The theory is valid re confirmation until it is disconfirmed. A confirmable unified theory has a lot of potential to upset a lot of apple carts, but, regardless, GPS will still work.

--Brant

[Frediano]

It doesn't seem 'fair', to me, to grade philosophy and science on similar scales. I don't think either field is quite like painting a fence of finite length, as if it was reasonable to ask in either domain, "How much fence has been painted?' Perhaps 'painting fence' is a torturous analogy, but that is also the point; what was done? How much fence has been painted?

If I stick with my tortured analog, the fences are at least orthogonal and no doubt infinitely long. Painting a fence(something that can get 'done') at some rate takes finite time. Infinitely long, unbounded fences take forever to paint, are never done.

I for sure don't view science that way. Just because gradeschool science is 'finite' over 12 grades, and for some, a few more years of university, hardly makes science like a finite fence to be painted. I for sure don't know anyone who is at least marginally involved with science who views it as a finite fence to be painted, something that they eventually glimpsed sight of the end of.

Orthogonal, infinite fences being painted by mankind.

Religion and philosophy, however, are not 'so orthogonal' to each other as science and philosophy, I suspect. I think this is apparent in the confusion evident at many universities, where a past battle to classify each has clearly been aborted and someone long ago concluded "just call it the Dept of Religion and Philosophy."

I've found the following meta-definition of 'religion' useful(to me): religion: any conscious consideration of the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a consequence of that why?" I qualify with 'conscious' because in a free country, any one of us answers those questions implicitely simply by living our lives; in the end, our lives are the answers to those questions, whether we consciously asked the questions or not, but when any of us consciously ponders the questions, then to me, we are engaged in 'religion.'

Or philosophy. And I don't find the difference between 'religion' and 'philosophy' particularly meaningful; it seems to be more a poltiical construct, artificial, as part of past leg-lifting exercises by humans pondering the 'we' forms of those questions instead of 'I' forms of those questions. (ie, "Why are we here, and what are we supposed to all be doing now as a consequence of that why?" The fertilzer of True Believer Totalitarianism.)

What are any of us engaged in when we ask a fundamental question about those meta questions, such as: "Is there 'a' single answer to those fundamental questions, applicable to all entities for all of time and space, such that, the task of philosophy/religion could ever be 'done?'"

Or, is the attempt to assert that there are universal/singular answers to those questions itself just a political act-- an assertion?

I suspect, when we ponder the above questions, we are engaged in polite philosphy, and when we assert that the answers are the same for all of us, we are engaged in impolite politics.

So my bias is, there are no singular 'the' answers to those (for me) fundamental questions of religion/philosophy, and so, those fences can never be 'done.'

As well, ditto 'science.'

No end in sight of either orthogonal fences. Feel free to keep painting, for as long as we might.

regards,

Fred

[Nerian]

Philosophy is without parallel in historical and practical importance in the world. Philosophy is an extremely practical field of study, and it is the prime mover of society.

[Brant Gaede]

Philosophy is without parallel in historical and practical importance in the world. Philosophy is an extremely practical field of study, and it is the prime mover of society.

You said it.

Support it.

--Brant

[jts]

Philosophy is without parallel in historical and practical importance in the world. Philosophy is an extremely practical field of study, and it is the prime mover of society.

What was done since Socrates in this extremely practical field of study and prime mover of society?

[Frediano]

I've never confused "The Department of Philosophy and Religion" with those who philosophize or practice religion.

Indeed, those who philosophize and/or practice religion have actually accomplished much.

Is that even a mildly controversial assertion?

It is the kind of assertion that would be perfectly at home in The Department of Philosophy and Religion.

Does actively pondering the questions "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a consequence of that?" -really- require intense study at some Dust Bunny U in order to arrive at an answer? Or, would some politicos prefer that everyone subject themselves to some heavy 'guidance' before shepherding everyone on earth to the same tiny subset of answers, not to be confused with reaching their own answers?

Hell, I thought the purpose of all of it -- everything going on in our schools and universities -- was about exactly that.

History of Philosophy and Religion? Sure, why not. Interesting as Hell. A guided tour of past cul de sacs and meanderings and wonderings, as if through a dead wax museum of Other Peers Answers.

Deliverer of 'The' answers to those questions? Are these the dusty archives from which we select our permitted answers? Hardly. That is what humans do simply by living their lives. Even, humans who never consciously ponder the questions.

Those fundamental questions are never finally answered; they are individually answered every day, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

regards,

Fred

[Frediano]

Not to be confused with the sudden existential terror of someone who just spent a lifetime gazing at their naval, and suddenly looking up into the void and screaming "Surely I didn't just waste my life naval gazing???? It must have been for something!!!!!

See, it is at such moments of doubt that we need our philosophy/religion the most.