BaalChatzaf

If modern physics is so wrong how come it is so right?

Recommended Posts

Come on Bob, you know that no one is disputing the experimental results. The issue concerns the interpretation of those results.

What causes time dilation? How does modern physics answer this question?

Shayne

Time dilation does not have a cause because it is not an event in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Time dilation is an effect. What is the cause?"

I guess I don't really disagree other than I see time dilation as a simple deduction rather than an "effect". The speed limit is an effect where the cause is interesting.

Bob

If time dilation were not an effect then there'd be no way to experimentally confirm it.

Shayne

sjw, you are confusing "events" and "observations". Time dilation is an observation that has to do with relationships among events but itself is not an event (and therefore needs no physical cause). You should educate yourself on the basiscs of the theory of relativity before attempting to criticize it and denouncing those better educated than you as frauds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a joke?

The predictions of Chaldean astronomy were incredibly accurate, and not surpassed by the Greeks or the Arabs or any observers until Tycho Brahe. The mechanisms, if any, that they posited? Various winged deities and a dragon which occasionally consumed and then vomited out the sun.

Really, Bob, this has been explained to you over and over and over. I know your memory is bad. But this sort of cluelessness as to the objections of your critics is not possible without some willful dishonesty. The fact that you post this in a new thread, rather than in the old threads or with links to the old threads where you have been corrected before, shows your intent to evade the relevant facts in an attempt to stay on message.

You should work for the DNC.

Ptolemy's ephemirises are way out of line. But the worst was every time something new was seen the epicycles and deferents had to be re-cooked.

Ptolemy's stuff had -no underlying physics- Neither did Copernicus. Kepler got the curve fit right and he was on the verge of postulating some kind of gravitational force, but it was Newton who get the Prize.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Time dilation" is nothing but the Lorentz modifier to Maxwell's wave equations being taken over to Newtonian Mechanics.

Hence, "All Newtonian mechanics are altered to now possess a third coefficient, the Lorentz"--Einstein. Therefore, F=MA(G), or special relativity.

Moreover, the discovery of the quanta by Planck as 'energy' gave the left side of the equation a real synthetic value, as opposed to an analytic outcome: (q)h =E= MAG. Padoddle this a bit with algebra and the simple expansion of h and you get E=MC^2.

Well, actually, E^2=M^2(C^4)...another story.

As for the how's, in a strictly foundational sense, yes, it's absent. That it works and predicts makes it 'coherentist'.

Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us look at the score. The physicists have enable the engineers to come up with the technology and the seekers after causality have come up empty handed.

Game, set, match.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well that's just a plain lie. Issac Newton was a causality-oriented physicist, and without him none of your concrete-bound formula-seekers would have been able to do a damn thing.

Shayne

Newton explicitly did not posit a cause for gravity.

That is because he could not figure out what it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newton hypothesized no cause for gravity. "Hypothesis non fingo" Read Scholium of Book III of -Principia-.

Newton feigned no hypotheses for physics, but he did for metaphysics (he was religious).

Isn't mass a "formal cause" (Aristotle's usage) of gravity and inertia?

Newton "feigned" an hypothesis for gravity (the discussion of which is where he makes that misleading claim) -- instantaneous action at a distance. Questions were raised about the claim before the second edition, but Newton was stubborn and insisted he meant by "hypothesis" something posited for no reason, like the Descartians. See I. Bernard Cohen's discussion in the 1999 re-translation with commentary of Newton's Principia - Amazon link.

Ellen

___

Newton laid down a set of rules that say the hypothesis should flow from the observations. Read his rules of experiment.

http://web.visionlearning.com/custom/ProcessofScience/custom/Newtons_four_rules_table.shtml

Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning

from Principia Mathematica

by Isaac Newton

Sir Isaac Newton was a significant contributor to the Scientific Revolution. Newton believed that scientific theory should be coupled with rigorous experimentation, and he published four rules of scientific reasoning in Principia Mathematica (1686) that form part of modern approaches to science:
  1. admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,
  2. to the same natural effect, assign the same causes,
  3. qualities of bodies, which are found to belong to all bodies within experiments, are to be esteemed universal, and
  4. propositions collected from observation of phenomena should be viewed as accurate or very nearly true until contradicted by other phenomena.

Newton’s rules of scientific reasoning have proved remarkably enduring. His first rule is now commonly called the principle of parsimony, and states that the simplest explanation is generally the most likely. The second rule essentially means that special interpretations of data should not be used if a reasonable explanation already exists. The third rule suggests that explanations of phenomena determined through scientific investigation should apply to all instances of that phenomenon. Finally, the fourth rule lays the philosophical foundation of modern scientific theories, which are held to be true unless demonstrated otherwise. This is not to say that theories are accepted without evidence, nor that they can’t change – theories are built upon long lines of evidence, often from multiple pieces of research, and they are subject to change as that evidence grows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

I finally ran your Yiddish signature through Google Translate.

אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

If my grandmother had testicles she would be my grandfather.

LOL...

:smile:

Michael

It is the first counterfactual definite I learned. I was 4 years old at the time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's back off a bit until someone discovers what gravity really is. Perhaps a 'gravaton'? The truth is that Newt disn't know what we still don't know.

As it is, 'gravity' is what causes objects to fall to earth at a constant rate, and can also explain most of what we know about orbits and trajectories.

In General Relativity, its mathematical form is a field that can bend the spacetime matrix. Yet because its field equations are so dissimilar to those of other particles it takes a rather complex differential geometry to make it fit within even a ten-dimensional string model.

The truth is that Newt's stuff was open to serious debate during the entirety of the 18th century. Goethe thought it to be nonsense because, despite Newt's 'principled' protests tothe contrary, he was still only describing the effects.

The real hero seems to have been Kant, who argued that science is about 'capacities', not the inclusive Four Causes of Aristotle. Prior to his philosophy, Kant, as the go-to astronomer of record (Big Bang!), taught Newt at Konigsberg.

Now to emphasize the distinction between a 'capacity', which will only give a synthetic definition, and a 'formal cause',or anayltic, consider the other Newtoniian padoddle: F=MA. Nothing is known of 'force' other the written fact that it's 'MA'.

As I mentioned, Planck's discovery of the quanta change all of that. But re gravity, we're still stuck on go. Or as by 11-year old niece says, 'gravy'...although she knows better. As I write, she just loves Peyton List more than science.

Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's back off a bit until someone discovers what gravity really is. Perhaps a 'gravaton'? The truth is that Newt disn't know what we still don't know.

As it is, 'gravity' is what causes objects to fall to earth at a constant rate, and can also explain most of what we know about orbits and trajectories.

In General Relativity, its mathematical form is a field that can bend the spacetime matrix. Yet because its field equations are so dissimilar to those of other particles it takes a rather complex differential geometry to make it fit within even a ten-dimensional string model.

The truth is that Newt's stuff was open to serious debate during the entirety of the 18th century. Goethe thought it to be nonsense because, despite Newt's 'principled' protests tothe contrary, he was still only describing the effects.

The real hero seems to have been Kant, who argued that science is about 'capacities', not the inclusive Four Causes of Aristotle. Prior to his philosophy, Kant, as the go-to astronomer of record (Big Bang!), taught Newt at Konigsberg.

Now to emphasize the distinction between a 'capacity', which will only give a synthetic definition, and a 'formal cause',or anayltic, consider the other Newtoniian padoddle: F=MA. Nothing is known of 'force' other the written fact that it's 'MA'.

As I mentioned, Planck's discovery of the quanta change all of that. But re gravity, we're still stuck on go. Or as by 11-year old niece says, 'gravy'...although she knows better. As I write, she just loves Peyton List more than science.

Eva

Kant came up with the nebula hypothesis, very similar to that of LaPlace. Big Bangs were nowhere in sight in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's back off a bit until someone discovers what gravity really is. Perhaps a 'gravaton'? The truth is that Newt disn't know what we still don't know.

As it is, 'gravity' is what causes objects to fall to earth at a constant rate, and can also explain most of what we know about orbits and trajectories.

In General Relativity, its mathematical form is a field that can bend the spacetime matrix. Yet because its field equations are so dissimilar to those of other particles it takes a rather complex differential geometry to make it fit within even a ten-dimensional string model.

The truth is that Newt's stuff was open to serious debate during the entirety of the 18th century. Goethe thought it to be nonsense because, despite Newt's 'principled' protests tothe contrary, he was still only describing the effects.

The real hero seems to have been Kant, who argued that science is about 'capacities', not the inclusive Four Causes of Aristotle. Prior to his philosophy, Kant, as the go-to astronomer of record (Big Bang!), taught Newt at Konigsberg.

Now to emphasize the distinction between a 'capacity', which will only give a synthetic definition, and a 'formal cause',or anayltic, consider the other Newtoniian padoddle: F=MA. Nothing is known of 'force' other the written fact that it's 'MA'.

As I mentioned, Planck's discovery of the quanta change all of that. But re gravity, we're still stuck on go. Or as by 11-year old niece says, 'gravy'...although she knows better. As I write, she just loves Peyton List more than science.

Eva

Kant came up with the nebula hypothesis, very similar to that of LaPlace. Big Bangs were nowhere in sight in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Okay...Kant argued againt Aristotles's Infinite past with a finite one that demanded a point of origin...yes, not necessarity a Big Bang.

Eva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd taken the time to listen to what Harriman is saying then you would not be confused. The mathematical formalisms are sound. It is quantum theory and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics not quantum mechanics that is the problem. In terms of relativity, the mathematics is also correct. The mathematics can be correct while the fundamental theory is incorrect. And in case you were unaware, physics has reached an impasse, a real crisis, progress has halted and physicist are either despairing or believing they have figured everything out. The standard model is riddled with problems and fails to predict things. Modern cosmology fails and is constantly stumped and surprised. Quantum theory being a non-physical, non-causal theory is not physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd taken the time to listen to what Harriman is saying then you would not be confused. The mathematical formalisms are sound. It is quantum theory and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics not quantum mechanics that is the problem. In terms of relativity, the mathematics is also correct. The mathematics can be correct while the fundamental theory is incorrect. And in case you were unaware, physics has reached an impasse, a real crisis, progress has halted and physicist are either despairing or believing they have figured everything out. The standard model is riddled with problems and fails to predict things. Modern cosmology fails and is constantly stumped and surprised. Quantum theory being a non-physical, non-causal theory is not physics.

Copenhagen simply says that there are two sets of equations--wave and particle--that are incommensrate with respect to the math.

Your notion of 'correct' math but 'incorrect' theory is called 'Goldilocks' within the discipline, Clever humans dream up what would justify 'just right' a reason why physical events happen the way they do. then all of the little physics bears should go around scrambling for an answer that's not to hot, not too cold.

Yeah, the 'ol standard model just took a real beating with this Higgs thing--just as Penrose predicted.

As for 'dispair' and 'true belief': Yep, that' s my dad! One day, it's the know-it all , next, I know nothing. A real Copenhagen of emotive bivalence. Thankfully mom's a psychologist!

As for Quantum not being 'real' physics, I agree. The math is simpler than that Relativity stuff. but things we don't really understand the why's of should be really, really complicated in their equations, too, yes?

EM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Quantum not being 'real' physics, I agree. The math is simpler than that Relativity stuff. but things we don't really understand the why's of should be really, really complicated in their equations, too, yes?

EM

This unreal physics predicts accurately to 12 decimal places for non-gravitational phenomena and processes. However it is busted since it does not deal with gravitation which is the force that holds the Cosmos together.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Quantum not being 'real' physics, I agree. The math is simpler than that Relativity stuff. but things we don't really understand the why's of should be really, really complicated in their equations, too, yes?

EM

This unreal physics predicts accurately to 12 decimal places for non-gravitational phenomena and processes. However it is busted since it does not deal with gravitation which is the force that holds the Cosmos together.

Ba'al Chatzaf

According to every middle schooler, including my niece, it's gravy that holds the cosmos together.

Of course, QM does deal with 'gravy'; it's just that the equations for said substance do not integrate into a general master-equation, or 'Theory of everything', short of a Lie-8.

But that's like saying that the universal geometric object, holding all coefficients by definition, can naturally enough find a differend that would correspond to any hypothetical entity. So give the Lisi model a close look , and that's what you'll find that he did.

My niece, oth, feels that Peyton List is holding out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Quantum not being 'real' physics, I agree. The math is simpler than that Relativity stuff. but things we don't really understand the why's of should be really, really complicated in their equations, too, yes?

EM

This unreal physics predicts accurately to 12 decimal places for non-gravitational phenomena and processes. However it is busted since it does not deal with gravitation which is the force that holds the Cosmos together.

Ba'al Chatzaf

According to every middle schooler, including my niece, it's gravy that holds the cosmos together.

Of course, QM does deal with 'gravy'; it's just that the equations for said substance do not integrate into a general master-equation, or 'Theory of everything', short of a Lie-8.

But that's like saying that the universal geometric object, holding all coefficients by definition, can naturally enough find a differend that would correspond to any hypothetical entity. So give the Lisi model a close look , and that's what you'll find that he did.

My niece, oth, feels that Peyton List is holding out.

No graviton in sight. Any quantum account of gravity is devoid of an empirical basis.

I am old fashioned. I do not believe in "post empirical" physics. I don't care how pretty the math is. Without laboratory corroboration what one has in nice mathematics or metaphysical speculation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Quantum not being 'real' physics, I agree. The math is simpler than that Relativity stuff. but things we don't really understand the why's of should be really, really complicated in their equations, too, yes?

EM

This unreal physics predicts accurately to 12 decimal places for non-gravitational phenomena and processes. However it is busted since it does not deal with gravitation which is the force that holds the Cosmos together.

Ba'al Chatzaf

According to every middle schooler, including my niece, it's gravy that holds the cosmos together.

Of course, QM does deal with 'gravy'; it's just that the equations for said substance do not integrate into a general master-equation, or 'Theory of everything', short of a Lie-8.

But that's like saying that the universal geometric object, holding all coefficients by definition, can naturally enough find a differend that would correspond to any hypothetical entity. So give the Lisi model a close look , and that's what you'll find that he did.

My niece, oth, feels that Peyton List is holding out.

No graviton in sight. Any quantum account of gravity is devoid of an empirical basis.

I am old fashioned. I do not believe in "post empirical" physics. I don't care how pretty the math is. Without laboratory corroboration what one has in nice mathematics or metaphysical speculation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The issue is the postulated exestence of the gravy-tron as a particle not, obviouly what it does.

It other words for the 11-D string, mathematical model to be correct, the particle must have such-and such qualities.

This working from math is not unusual, as was the case of Higgs for some 30 years or so.

That being said, the Higgs was proven by virtue of physical data; it's not old-fashioned to demand the same of gravy.

An interesting comment in this regard was made by Freeman Dyson, who worked out the math for Weinberg's 'electroweak'.

We have enough math ,said he; it's now time to experiment!

EM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is the postulated exestence of the gravy-tron as a particle not, obviouly what it does.

It other words for the 11-D string, mathematical model to be correct, the particle must have such-and such qualities.

This working from math is not unusual, as was the case of Higgs for some 30 years or so.

That being said, the Higgs was proven by virtue of physical data; it's not old-fashioned to demand the same of gravy.

An interesting comment in this regard was made by Freeman Dyson, who worked out the math for Weinberg's 'electroweak'.

We have enough math ,said he; it's now time to experiment!

EM

Exactly. Without experimental corroboration we have pretty mathematics and little more.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that Newt's stuff was open to serious debate during the entirety of the 18th century. Goethe thought it to be nonsense because, despite Newt's 'principled' protests tothe contrary, he was still only describing the effects.

Causes are a mind game, when you get right down to it. All we really have are "the Effects". Read David Hume on that matter. He got it mostly right.

The Phenomena are all we can claim with any degree of certainty. The hypothetical causes are just that --- hypothetical.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(NOTE FROM MSK: Deleted.

So what????? The predictions are right on the mark! Has anyone come up with something better?

For a scientific theory only two things matter:

1. mathematical consistency

2. correct predictions which means no empirical falsification has been observed.

Any theory that meets those bench marks is kosher.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...