EINSTEINIANA, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, HONESTY

Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends
special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates.
Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean
the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it
possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even
in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding,
tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme
situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at
all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before
or after another."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?


I'm guessing, but I would assume its because they believe the light
postulate to be true.

Which makes me wonder why you are quoting them when you are trying to
establish the exact opposite.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| ...
| Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
| and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
| postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
| could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
| step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
|
|
| I'm guessing, but I would assume its because they believe the light
| postulate to be true.
|
| Which makes me wonder why you are quoting them when you are trying to
| establish the exact opposite.
|
Einstein established the light postulate was false immediately after working
with his Principle of Idiocy.
He said "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".

Einstein's three principles are
1) (Principle of Relativity) or relative motion
2) (Principle of Aether) or light speed relative to "empty space"
3) (Principle of Idiocy) or dickering with time.

Nobody can make all three work together, and only the first one is valid.
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle." -- Einstein. Of
course he doesn't say who these "prominent theoretical physicists" are, he
was lying ******* as well as a bombastic self-serving idiot.
Why are you guessing, Webb?

On Aug 24, 1:56*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends
special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates.
Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean
the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it
possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even
in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding,
tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme
situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at
all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before
or after another."

Pentcho Valev


xxein: They are still in a cloud. They both don't get it.

Don't start believing what you want to believe. Look for the
objective reality instead of the subjectiveness of the observations
measured by us.

On Aug 25, 12:16*am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message

u...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
....
| Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
| and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
| postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
| could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
| step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
|
|
| I'm guessing, but I would assume its because they believe the light
| postulate to be true.
|
| Which makes me wonder why you are quoting them when you are trying to
| establish the exact opposite.
|
Einstein established the light postulate was false immediately after working
with his Principle of Idiocy.

WRONG .. it has never been proven wrong

He said "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".

That's correct and what SR says .. separation velocity.

Einstein's three principles are
1) (Principle of Relativity) *or relative motion
2) (Principle of Aether) or light speed relative to "empty space"

WRONG .. No aether involved. You are lying by calling it that.

3) (Principle of Idiocy) or dickering with time.

Only idiot is you.

Nobody can make all three work together,

No .. you mean everyone BUT YOU can make all three work together.
You're just bitter because you're such a moron that you can't
understand even basic math and physics. What a sad pathetic little
clown you are.

Ten years ago an influential philosopher of science informed the world
that the version of the second law of thermodynamics popularly known
as "Entropy always increases", the version that holds, according to
Arthur Eddington, "the suppreme position among the laws of Nature", is
"actually a RED HERRING":

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
JOS UFFINK: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."

What was the world's reaction? There was no reaction at all. Uffink
himself abandoned the issue and is now making less dramatic statements
about laws holding no suppreme position.

This could be regarded as a symptom of a postscientific reality where
a new form of realism has established itself. Realism's classical
question:

Is the theory, law, axiom true?

has imperceptibly become irrelevant. The new realism rhetorically
asks:

Who cares if the theory, law, axiom is true?

and leaves it at that. So philosophers of science (theoreticians in
general) are encouraged to claim anything - the more "heretical" the
claim, the better for one's career (this of course does not mean that
the persecution of true heretics has abated):

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion
Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next
assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity.
According to his special theory of relativity, what events are
happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true
arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two
observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an
event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time
are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who
had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared,
"are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse
in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends
special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates.
Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean
the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it
possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even
in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding,
tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme
situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at
all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before
or after another."

Pentcho Valev

"Androcles" wrote in message
news:ZvQco.2153$r24.1725@hurricane...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
|
...
| Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John Norton
| and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
| postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
| could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next obvious
| step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
|
|
| I'm guessing, but I would assume its because they believe the light
| postulate to be true.
|
| Which makes me wonder why you are quoting them when you are trying to
| establish the exact opposite.
|
Einstein established the light postulate was false immediately after
working
with his Principle of Idiocy.
He said "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".

Einstein's three principles are
1) (Principle of Relativity) or relative motion
2) (Principle of Aether) or light speed relative to "empty space"
3) (Principle of Idiocy) or dickering with time.

Nobody can make all three work together, and only the first one is valid.
"Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
been found which were contradictory to this principle." -- Einstein. Of
course he doesn't say who these "prominent theoretical physicists" are, he
was lying ******* as well as a bombastic self-serving idiot.
Why are you guessing, Webb?



I'm "guessing" because you haven't answered my question, so I have to guess.

Are there any experimental predictions of SR with which you disagree, or do
you believe all the experimental predictions of SR?

As you haven't answered with any experimental predictions of SR with which
you disagree, I am *guessing" that you must agree with all of them.

If you don't, which experimental predictions of SR do you disagree with?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| news:ZvQco.2153$r24.1725@hurricane...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| u...
| |
| | "Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
| |
|
...
| | Judging from the quotations below, philosophers of science John
Norton
| | and Craig Callender reject the consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
| | postulate known as "the passage of time is an illusion". Then what
| | could possibly prevent both philosophers from making the next
obvious
| | step and inferring that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false?
| |
| |
| | I'm guessing, but I would assume its because they believe the light
| | postulate to be true.
| |
| | Which makes me wonder why you are quoting them when you are trying to
| | establish the exact opposite.
| |
| Einstein established the light postulate was false immediately after
| working
| with his Principle of Idiocy.
| He said "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when
| measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v".
|
| Einstein's three principles are
| 1) (Principle of Relativity) or relative motion
| 2) (Principle of Aether) or light speed relative to "empty space"
| 3) (Principle of Idiocy) or dickering with time.
|
| Nobody can make all three work together, and only the first one is
valid.
| "Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject
| the
| principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had
| been found which were contradictory to this principle." -- Einstein. Of
| course he doesn't say who these "prominent theoretical physicists" are,
he
| was lying ******* as well as a bombastic self-serving idiot.
| Why are you guessing, Webb?
|
|
|
| I'm "guessing" because you haven't answered my question, so I have to
guess.

Guess away, the answer was given.
|
| Are there any experimental predictions of SR with which you disagree, or
do
| you believe all the experimental predictions of SR?

Yes.

|
| As you haven't answered with any experimental predictions of SR with which
| you disagree, I am *guessing" that you must agree with all of them.

You lying *******.

| If you don't, which experimental predictions of SR do you disagree with?

Put your head up your arse so as not to read this:
The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would report.
Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid ****.

On 25/08/2010 09:20, Androcles wrote:

"Peter wrote in message
...

| If you don't, which experimental predictions of SR do you disagree with?

Put your head up your arse so as not to read this:
The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would report.
Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid ****.

Oh dear. The demented Androcles has escaped my killfile somehow
Still as foul mouthed as ever I see.

It is worth pointing out that in proximity to the gravitational field of
a gas giant like Saturn the Cassini probe signal propagation times need
to use both SR and GR corrections to get the right answer.

This does *not* invalidate SR in any way. It merely shows that SR is
insufficient for this particular problem. The Cassini probe has been
used for some sensitive tests of GR as reported in the literature.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
| On 25/08/2010 09:20, Androcles wrote:
|
| "Peter wrote in message
| ...
|
| | If you don't, which experimental predictions of SR do you disagree
with?
|
| Put your head up your arse so as not to read this:
| The time Cassini reports differs from the time SR predicts it would
report.
| Ok, now pretend I haven't answered you, you stupid ****.
|
| Oh dear. The demented Androcles has escaped my killfile somehow
| Still as foul mouthed as ever I see.

Oh dear, I cleaned out my killfile and forgot to put bigot Brown back in it.
Never mind.
*plonk*