George Hrabovsky wrote "Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.".
George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence
"George Hrabovsky Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.".
Your answer is a series of mistakes and wrong about.
It focused on the concept of "simultanéity" you refuse.
1° "Because it has nothing to do with reality,"
Specifically, the concepts of "reality" and "simultaneity are twins. On the gnoseological level the simultaneous existence of billions of events is what is reality.
2° "and that is what science is all about."
Yes, true science is the study of reality.
It is THE DISCOVERY OF THE REAL "SCIENTIFIC LAWS" INTERNAL TO THE MATTER.
But the pseudo-science of the relativists refuses to study reality.
These people claim to invent themselves scientific laws from the signals.
Those who think like Mach "The General Laws of Physics Are Summaries of Observations Organized in Simple Forms" or as Poincare "The General Laws of Physics Are Free Creations of the Human Mind" are donkeys or solipsists thinking themselves alone in the world.
Mach, Poincaré and Einstein as ennemies of materialism and campaigning against the heirs of Isaac Newton
3° " If we try to impose our philosophy "
Materialism is a scientific philosophy.
But positivism (and therefore relativity who is his daughter) and idealism are only nonsense made by crooks.
And materialism obviously imposes its laws to science since science can not exist without these laws.
The materialist gnoseology is the foundation of all science.
And all science must respect the laws of the materiology.
Claim to found a science that transgress the first law of dialectics (transformation quantity quality) is nonsense as huge as to pretend inventing oneself the laws of science .
4 Whereby the rest of the sentence becomes an absurdity or a tautology
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature
5 ° What makes the totally humorous end of the sentence when it is handed down by a relativistic enemy positivist materialism, science and therefore of reality itself
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science"
YOU ARE NO LONGER DOING SCIENCE!
YOU ARE NO LONGER RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE OF THE REALITY!
Simultaneity of ONE OF THESE evidence !
6° "Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury"
Newton forgot to take into account the delay of the signal.
7 ° "Einstein's general relativity Predicts it EXACTLY. Period."
This is not science but positivist rantings!
George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence
George Hrabovsky
Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.
George Hrabovský vous niez la simultanéité, la réalité objective, le matérialisme, la science et donc l'intelligence
Votre réponse est une succession d'erreurs et de propos faux.
Elle portait sur le concept de "simultanéitéé" que vous refusez.
1° "Because it has nothing to do with reality,"
Précisément, les concepts de "réalité" et de "simultanéité sont jumeaux. Sur le plan gnoséologique l'existence simultanée de milliards d'événements est ce qui est la réalité.
2° "and that is what science is all about."
Oui , la science véritable consiste à étudier la réalité.
Elle consiste à DECOUVRIR QUELLES SONT LES VERITABLES LOIS INTERNES A LA MATIERE.
Mais la pseudo-science des relativistes refuse d'étudier la réalité.
Ces gens prétendent inventer eux-mêmes des lois scientifiques à partir des signaux.
Ceux qui pensent comme Mach " The General Laws of Physics Are Summaries of Observations Organized in Simple Forms " ou comme Poincare " The General Laws of Physics Are Free Creations of the Human Mind " sont des ânes ou des solipsistes se croyant seuls au monde.
http://revolisationactu.blogspot.fr/2014/09/mach-poincare-and-einstein-as-ennemies.html
3° " If we try to impose our philosophy "
Le matérialisme est une philosophie scientifique.
Mais le positivisme (et donc la relativité qui est sa fille) et l'idéalisme ne sont que des stupidités énoncées par des escrocs.
Et le matérialisme impose évidemment ses lois à la science puisque la science n'existe pas sans ces lois.
La gnoséologie matérialiste est le fondement de toute science.
Et toute science doit respecter les lois de la matériologie.
Prétendre fonder une science qui transgresserait la première loi de la dialectique (transformation quantité qualité) est une absurdité aussi énorme que de prétendre inventer soi-même les lois de la science.
4° en conséquence de quoi, le reste de la phrase devient une absurdité ou une tautologie
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature"
5° Ce qui rend totalement drôlatique la fin de la phrase quand elle est prononcée par un positiviste relativiste ennemi du matérialisme, de la science et donc de la réalité elle-même
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science"
YOU ARE NO LONGER DOING SCIENCE !
YOU ARE NO LONGER RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE OF THE REALITY !
Simultaneity is ONE of that evidence !
6° "Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury"
Newton oubliait de prendre en compte le délai du signal.
7° "Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period."
Cela n'est pas de la science mais des élucubrations positivistes !
THE BEGINNING
Why
do the relativists pretend that Isaac Newton disregarded their
arguments while he had already answered all of them by demolishing the
relative speeds of René Descartes in his De Gravitatione (1665-1666) at
the age 23 ?
source SIR ISAAC NEWTON'S DE GRAVITATIONE ET AEQUIPONDIO FLUIDORUM translated by W. B. Allen*
Page on williambarclayallen.com
source SIR ISAAC NEWTON'S DE GRAVITATIONE ET AEQUIPONDIO FLUIDORUM translated by W. B. Allen*
Page on williambarclayallen.com
Cannot add comment if you are logged out.
This
question requires more context to be comprehensible. Who are the
relativists? What arguments were they making? How did Newton respond?
Who accused him of disregarding the arguments of relativists?
Have
you tried to read the book written by Isaac Newton De Gravitatione or
do you ask such a question without doing any effort to know the real
theories of Isaac Newton .?If you want explanations about the text of this book.... ASK YOUR QUESTIONS but..... by quoting Newton
Don't
try to shame me for asking a question. If I had the knowledge to
contextualize your question and answer it, I'd answer it instead of
asking this question. And I'm not going to read a whole bloody book
just so I can understand what you're asking. Nor is anyone else.
"And I'm not going to read a whole bloody book just so I can understand what you're asking. Nor is anyone else."????
If
you are referring to Einstein in his development of special, then
general, relativity you are wrong. Newton derived a system of absolute
space and absolute time, where velocity and position were allowed to
change. This is consistent with the relativity principle and
transformations of Galileo. If one attempts to do Maxwellian
electrodynamics with the same transformations it does not work. You need
the Lorentz transformations for that to work; when you make classical
mechanics obey the Lorentz transformations then you get special
relativity. In terms of gravitation Newton is completely wrong,
Newtonian gravitational theory in no way explains the perihelion
precession of Mercury; the only successful gravitational theory we have
is general relativity. If you doubt it, then you need to know that it is
the basis for the GPS system, so we know that general relativity is
accurate to 8 meters in 20,000,000 meters, or 1 part in two and a half
million at worst. These calculations are performed millions of times per
second.
"Newtonian gravitational theory in no way explains the perihelion precession of Mercury; "Nor EInstein......
Why ?
Because Einstein dont make science but "FREE CREATIONS OF HUMAN MIND" as Poincaré did it and "SUMMARIES OF DATA COLLECTIED" as Mach did it.
That is not science :
Science is the DISCOVERY OF THE INTERNAL LAWS OF UNIVERSE.
When I see the SUN, THE PLACE WHERE THE SUN IS is not where I see it......
To analyze the movements of planets we must begin to know WHERE ARE THE PLANETS at each moment..... but, this question is HERETICAL for a positivist relativist einsteinist....
The
relativistic solution for Mercury's perhelion shift can be found on
p287 in Bernard Schultz's "A first course in general relativity", 2nd
edition, Cambridge University Press, 2009. Why do you pretend that you
know what you are talking about?
As a former relativist, I can put myself in your shoes. But you relativists are too condescending. It's a bit painful! I was not like that once!
Just a question for you help "raise awareness your status":
When you look at the Sun, his image has traveled the empty space for 500 seconds.
OK
But where is it when you see it?
Left? right?
You do not know anything ...
And to calculate the REAL perihelion, that is not enough to know FROM WHAT DIRECTION comes an image, you have to know where the objects are CURRENTLY.
All I did was apply your own language to yourself - and I'm the one that is condescending? Your argument that relativity is wrong because Einstein is a so-called 'positivist' is as irrelevant as the argument that relativity is wrong because Einstein was a Jew. Or Newton was wrong because he was an alchemist. The person is dead. Only the math remains. If you don't like the theory, attack the theory, not the author.
So far, you have not provided any objective argument against relativity.
Relativity is part of science, not philosophy. You are posting your questions under the wrong tags.
The concept of simultaneity is one of the fundamental concepts of materialist science. How could we do without it?
Because
it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all
about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided
by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics
fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's
general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.
George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence "George Hrabovsky Because it has nothing to do with reality, and that is what science is all about. If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science. Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. Einstein's general relativity predicts it exactly. Period.".
Your answer is a series of mistakes and wrong about.
It focused on the concept of "simultanéity" you refuse.
1° "Because it has nothing to do with reality,"
Specifically, the concepts of "reality" and "simultaneity are twins. On the gnoseological level the simultaneous existence of billions of events is what is reality.
2° "and that is what science is all about."
Yes, true science is the study of reality.
It is THE DISCOVERY OF THE REAL "SCIENTIFIC LAWS" INTERNAL TO THE MATTER.
But the pseudo-science of the relativists refuses to study reality.
These people claim to invent themselves scientific laws from the signals.
Those who think like Mach "The General Laws of Physics Are Summaries of Observations Organized in Simple Forms" or as Poincare "The General Laws of Physics Are Free Creations of the Human Mind" are donkeys or solipsists thinking themselves alone in the world.
Mach, Poincaré and Einstein as ennemies of materialism and campaigning against the heirs of Isaac Newton
3° " If we try to impose our philosophy "
Materialism is a scientific philosophy.
But positivism (and therefore relativity who is his daughter) and idealism are only nonsense made by crooks.
And materialism obviously imposes its laws to science since science can not exist without these laws.
The materialist gnoseology is the foundation of all science.
And all science must respect the laws of the materiology.
Claim to found a science that transgress the first law of dialectics (transformation quantity quality) is nonsense as huge as to pretend inventing oneself the laws of science .
4 Whereby the rest of the sentence becomes an absurdity or a tautology
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature
5 ° What makes the totally humorous end of the sentence when it is handed down by a relativistic enemy positivist materialism, science and therefore of reality itself
" If we try to impose our philosophy against the evidence provided by nature, then we are no longer doing science"
YOU ARE NO LONGER DOING SCIENCE!
YOU ARE NO LONGER RESPECTING THE EVIDENCE OF THE REALITY!
Simultaneity of ONE OF THESE evidence !
6° "Newtonian mechanics fails to predict the advance of the perihelion of Mercury"
Newton forgot to take into account the delay of the signal.
7 ° "Einstein's general relativity Predicts it EXACTLY. Period."
This is not science but positivist rantings!
George Hrabovsky you deny simultaneity, objective reality, materialism, science and therefore intelligence
Einstein when he looked at Mercury had absolutely no idea of the place where the real point of the perihelion of Mercury!
This
is an incomplete statement. Are you saying that he had no idea of where
the point of the perihelion was? Which point of the perihelion are you
talking about? The perihelion precesses around the Sun. There might be a
focal point that remains the same, but that has little to do with the
problem. Newtonian gravitational theory failed to predict the measured
data. The Einstein theory did. End of story.
I see that you are "Software Engineer"If you want to have a constructive dialogue with me (or any other scientific materialism), I'll give you some advice.
1 programming a body in orbit around the Sun (the Sun motionless yet)
2 Then you program an OBSERVER on this body .... by calculating where in the sky he sees the Sun (you can even imagine three fixed stars that would have the kindness not to move during the experiment ..... 2 be sufficient if both axes belong to the ecliptic plane)
3 When it's done and we agree, you will give a translation speed of 250 km / second to the Sun
and you tell me what the observer sees # 2
THANKS TO BUILD
That
depends on the proposed motion of the observer relative to the
coordinate system you set up. And what difference does it make if Mr.
Livesay is a software engineer. That smacks of an ad-homonym attack.
Okay, I am a theoretical physicist, and so far he is making good
physically-based arguments and you are not. I have done models similar
to the one you suggest many times, and it is completely consistent with
whatever equations of motion I use to model the system—that is the
limitation of computer modeling.
As structured, this is rather unclear. It also sounds bombastic, which is odd for a debate allegedly hundreds of years old.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire