The refusal of the concept of simultaneity is only possible because relativists are positivists.
Positivists are people who deny that the real exists and moves outside of their perception.
As a result, they deny that there is a reality that works with its OWN LAWS.
So they can not DISCOVER existing laws of an objective world.
Relativists positivists DENY this world.
And so they INVENT ideas - what they claim to call "science"!
Go read this
http://revolisationactu.blogspot.fr/2014/09/mach-poincare-and-einstein-as-ennemies.html
8 Ernst Mach: The General Laws of Physics Are Summaries of Observations Organized in Simple Forms 38
9 Henri Poincaré: The General Laws of Physics Are Free Creations of the Human Mind 40
10 positivistic and Pragmatic Movements 42
La relativité est une absurdité parce qu'elle refuse le concept de simultanéité.
Le refus du concept de simultanéité n'est possible que parce que les relativistes sont des positivistes.
Les positivistes sont des gens qui nient le fait que le réel existe et se meut en dehors de leur perception.
En conséquence de quoi ils nient qu'il existe une réalité fonctionnant avec ses LOIS PROPRES.
Et donc, ils ne peuvent pas DECOUVRIR les lois existantes d'un monde objectif.
Les relativistes positivistes NIENT ce monde.
Et donc ils INVENTENT des idées - ce qu'ils prétendent appeler "science" !
Allez donc lire ceci
http://revolisationactu.blogspot.fr/2014/09/mach-poincare-and-einstein-as-ennemies.html
8 Ernst Mach: The General Laws of Physics Are Summaries of Observations Organized in Simple Forms 38
9 Henri Poincaré: The General Laws of Physics Are Free Creations of the Human Mind 40
10 Positivistic and Pragmatic Movements 42
I was answering to
The conspiracy theory is not Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics are a fantastically successful and useful description of physics above the molecular scale, much slower than light and in relatively weak gravitational fields; the conditions that Newtonian physics was devised to understand. Physicists love classical mechanics. They spend at least two years teaching us classical mechanics before they really start getting into relativity and quantum mechanics and modern physics.
The conspiracy theory is somehow dismissing the evidence of relativity. If you want to dismiss the theory as inaccurate or incomplete, that's one thing, but then you have to explain the phenomenon that relativity was formulated to explain, which classical physics simply cannot do. Relativity is a very accurate theory that explains a LOT of exotic phenomenon. To dismiss the existence of that exotic phenomenon, which Newtonian physics cannot explain, is a conspiracy theory.
UNDER
De Gravitatione (written by Isaac Newton at 23) and the Scholies of Principia refuse the relative speeds of René Descartes (and..... Poincaré, Einstein etc..)
These books explain that only "objective speeds" are conceptualisables. The "relative velocities" exist only in consequence of the first.
The bodies have a motion from an objective place (absolute place) to another objective place in an absolute time.
This is the materialist reasoning (in itself) Newton. I look for allies
These books explain that only "objective speeds" are conceptualisables. The "relative velocities" exist only in consequence of the first.
The bodies have a motion from an objective place (absolute place) to another objective place in an absolute time.
This is the materialist reasoning (in itself) Newton. I look for allies
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation and classical mechanics (Langrangian/Hamilitonian mechanics superseded Newtonian mechanics, but they were just much more useful and insightful formulations rather than entirely new physics) were extremely successful at describing a wide variety of phenomenon, and are still used when Gravitational fields are relatively weak and when speeds are much slower than the speed of light.
However, relativity is a far more accurate theory. Things such as time dilation, length contraction, the expanding universe, and gravitational lensing (to name a very few), concepts alien to Newtonian physics, are explained very accurately with Special and General Relativity (it also fixed the problems trying to explain the perihelion precession of Mercury, which looks like it might be solvable in classical mechanic at first glance but required general relativity to solve). Additionally, both the classical and quantum theories of electrodynamics are relativistic theories; in fact, classical electrodynamics was formulated before relativity and turns out to have been relativistic from the start! (EM was actually the main inspiration for Einstein to develop Special Relativity, and the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics is the most accurate scientific theory humans have ever devised). Additionally, relativity reduces to Newtonian physics in 'everyday' (slower than light and away from VERY strong gravitational fields) regimes, which is why Newtonian physics is very accurate in those regimes.
I suggest that you take a look at some of the evidence yourself:
Tests of special relativity
Tests of general relativity
Precision tests of QED
However, relativity is a far more accurate theory. Things such as time dilation, length contraction, the expanding universe, and gravitational lensing (to name a very few), concepts alien to Newtonian physics, are explained very accurately with Special and General Relativity (it also fixed the problems trying to explain the perihelion precession of Mercury, which looks like it might be solvable in classical mechanic at first glance but required general relativity to solve). Additionally, both the classical and quantum theories of electrodynamics are relativistic theories; in fact, classical electrodynamics was formulated before relativity and turns out to have been relativistic from the start! (EM was actually the main inspiration for Einstein to develop Special Relativity, and the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics is the most accurate scientific theory humans have ever devised). Additionally, relativity reduces to Newtonian physics in 'everyday' (slower than light and away from VERY strong gravitational fields) regimes, which is why Newtonian physics is very accurate in those regimes.
I suggest that you take a look at some of the evidence yourself:
Tests of special relativity
Tests of general relativity
Precision tests of QED
Dear sir, no part of your answer is my question.
When you write "However, relativity is a far more accurate theory.".
It is irrelevant because positivism (which refused to accept an independent objective reality of the viewer and refuses to admit that we need to discover the science and not invent) is the conceptual basis of reality.
Philip Frank explains very well in his biography of Einstein. I suggest you read the chapter where he explains the differences between the epistemologies of Mach and Poincaré. And the influence that their two views have had on Einstein.
When you write "However, relativity is a far more accurate theory.".
It is irrelevant because positivism (which refused to accept an independent objective reality of the viewer and refuses to admit that we need to discover the science and not invent) is the conceptual basis of reality.
Philip Frank explains very well in his biography of Einstein. I suggest you read the chapter where he explains the differences between the epistemologies of Mach and Poincaré. And the influence that their two views have had on Einstein.
"...'relativity is a far more accurate theory.'".It is irrelevant". I don't see of relativity being more accurate than Newtonian physics is irrelevant as too which one we think explains reality better. It kind of odd to say "This one is less accurate and explains less, but it must be right because it fits in with my already-chosen philosophy".
I'd be happy to help you understand the differences between Newtonian mechanics and relativity if you would like; perhaps that is causing the confusion.
It seems that you did not understand that
1° For the positivists, a) the event does not exist. for them only exist
b) the signal
c) receiving the signal
Epistemology of positivism is absurd.
For years my predecessors call them "shameful solipsistic."
2° SO as positivism is not a scientific philosophy, this means, therefore, that
3° relativity can not claim to be a science.
In particular this absurd denial of the concept of simultaneity.
A group of thought claiming that reality has no existence independent of the observer can in no way usurp the name of "science."
Relativity can be a pretty fairy tale, a lullaby, a religion, whatever you want, but by no means a science.
1° For the positivists, a) the event does not exist. for them only exist
b) the signal
c) receiving the signal
Epistemology of positivism is absurd.
For years my predecessors call them "shameful solipsistic."
2° SO as positivism is not a scientific philosophy, this means, therefore, that
3° relativity can not claim to be a science.
In particular this absurd denial of the concept of simultaneity.
A group of thought claiming that reality has no existence independent of the observer can in no way usurp the name of "science."
Relativity can be a pretty fairy tale, a lullaby, a religion, whatever you want, but by no means a science.
"relativity can not claim to be a science.In particular this absurd denial of the concept of simultaneity."
Relativity makes testable predictions and has proven itself accurate in those predictions (refer to the links I provided for more a in depth discussion). I'm not sure what you call science if that's not science. Relativity can definitely be falsified, we just haven't come across any experimental evidence that does so.
Simultaneity has been experimentally shown to be relative, not absolute. I'm not sure why this is such a big issue; it seems odd because at the everyday scale we don't often see large objects moving fast enough relative to use or in deep enough gravitational fields to notice the differences, but something seeming a bit peculiar from an everyday perspective is hardly reason to object to it. Even if you come up with an alternative theory to relativity, you need to explain relative simultaneity because that is what we have observed. No amount of philosophical posturing will change or refute the empirical evidence.
Personal taste I guess. Some people don't like 'debating' outside of an echo chamber.
Good grief get over yourself. Having your scientific conpiracy theories dismissed is not Stalinism.Stalin killed people. Like, millions of people. Some people he killed because their relatives stubbed their toe and cursed in front of one his statues. And drove a country into the ground. People told you that you were a bit confused and then downvoted you once you showed all the signs of a crackpot. No one tried to have you sent to Siberia or shot execution style.
You seem not to have the grade level required to understand that what you call "Having your scientific theories conpiracy Dismissed" are the scientific theories of Isaac Newton or so to understand that criticisms of these theories of Newton were dismantled on epistemological level by Lenin in "Materialism and empiriocriticism."
No, no kidding ... you really are the psy Quora?
No, no kidding ... you really are the psy Quora?
The conspiracy theory is not Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics are a fantastically successful and useful description of physics above the molecular scale, much slower than light and in relatively weak gravitational fields; the conditions that Newtonian physics was devised to understand. Physicists love classical mechanics. They spend at least two years teaching us classical mechanics before they really start getting into relativity and quantum mechanics and modern physics.The conspiracy theory is somehow dismissing the evidence of relativity. If you want to dismiss the theory as inaccurate or incomplete, that's one thing, but then you have to explain the phenomenon that relativity was formulated to explain, which classical physics simply cannot do. Relativity is a very accurate theory that explains a LOT of exotic phenomenon. To dismiss the existence of that exotic phenomenon, which Newtonian physics cannot explain, is a conspiracy theory.
Also, sort of a blatant attention-seeking move posting the same whine on every other answer.1 ANSWER COLLAPSED (WHY?)
These answers were downvoted:
Dear Sir
There are plenty of logical holes in relativity. The main thing is that it is based on a false philosophy: positivism.
Positivists, if a star explodes, called reality the signal and the signal reception. They reject the existence of a reality "en soi" a reality independent of the observer.
Worse (reread Philip Frank explains very well the disagreement between Mach and Poincaré on the subject) they refuse to admit that science is a discovery. They believe they invent science.
These people are not scientists. And the rejection of the concept (materialistic) of simultaneity is directly related to the nature of their positivist alleged science.
I do not yet have the Nobel Prize: the sect took control in 1922.
There are plenty of logical holes in relativity. The main thing is that it is based on a false philosophy: positivism.
Positivists, if a star explodes, called reality the signal and the signal reception. They reject the existence of a reality "en soi" a reality independent of the observer.
Worse (reread Philip Frank explains very well the disagreement between Mach and Poincaré on the subject) they refuse to admit that science is a discovery. They believe they invent science.
These people are not scientists. And the rejection of the concept (materialistic) of simultaneity is directly related to the nature of their positivist alleged science.
I do not yet have the Nobel Prize: the sect took control in 1922.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire