For the alternative theorists:

Actually that's a common claim by people who never took a physics class, but feel for some strange reason that they master the subject. Of course since they have no knowledge of the facts, they attack the only icons they've ever heard of. They have no idea whose research Einstein blended together: Fitzeau, Michelson & Morley; Poincare & Lorentz; and Maxwell, Gauss, Ampere, Faraday & Coulomb, just to name the central figures.

And of course to even get started understanding this, you need at least 2 yrs in a college physics curriculum just to get started. From there you need to do actual research and study the experiments that were done that led to the discoveries of the laws in question, and -- most importantly -- why this crowd of people were correct. And it's because they were all not only brilliant, but also intensely curious in collecting evidence, and digging into it to discover what it revealed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good point. You never hear people claiming that the Poynting Theorem doesn't work in specific cases, followed up by an argument based on conservation of energy. It's usually "Einstein was wrong and I can prove it with grade school math!"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because someone equated the area to the time of travel.

Got it... Newton searched for what Kepler already found and Newtons laws were not considered in Einsteins research. My schools must have been piss poor to miss that one.

I feel like I'm playing some dictionary game where I get to a word like "constitutional" and it tells me "from the constitution". For maybe a couple words. No explanation is perfect, yet the "ideas" formulated from that explanation are carried "foreword" from them are certainly a great statistical influence upon the new tangent of conceptual thought.

Probably a great history lesson for me one day. I shall remember the names I have not heard of.

Advancements and new discoveries coupled with a completely different view is hardly a reason to separate two ideas of the same "Ideology".

Sure, but you then have to contend with the initial force of mass.

Did these things become "laws" before or after the death of their idea maker? Is the advancements made to their ideas part of their ideology? Other than saying "this" is not like "that" and giving a general description of obvious differences your doing a terrible job convincing me to disregard newton's physics in favor of relativity. Or even begin to try and pick one over the other.

That sounds like a cake walk. Only there is one chair so I don't even have to move. You got a list of common myths mixed with the first confusing response?

Most people believe that ideology yet even great minds and countries alike have failed to instill moral ideology into practical applications. That might be the dream that inspires great thought, yet it is no great thought.

That tell you what the first principals "are" not what a "first principal IS"

I learn faster walking than sleeping. I also hate learning something I've already heard in a way that is "supposed to be different" when it might not be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Beaconator, you said......

Now cut the bullshit and just admit you were wrong.
As much respect as I have for Newton's work, and the fact that it is still used today in most space endeavours, the model was not perfect. GR has shown that.
It gives inaccurate answers at relativistic speeds and extreme gravity situations.

 

Einstein was 16 when he formulated his conceptual model. Sixteen is not the age, the experts will take anyone seriously, even if he is following the consensus path in terms of his approach. He was not yet published, at 16, and would work as a clerk to pay the rent. He would have been undermined by the forum process especially if he stayed esoteric too long, like the quote. I believe you need to be open and not discourage anyone trying to create, since this is not easy to do and adding all forms of stumbling blocks will discourage many good ideas. Not everyone is willing to suffer hardships when the option is the ease of conformity.

 

I see no evidence of that. Please provide a link to the paper he wrote when he was 16.

He can't follow "the consensus path" at 16 unless he's already in grad school!

Huh? At 16, he was living with his parents and going to high school. What nonsense scenario are you fabricating?

Einstein was never esoteric....are you using the right word?

No. The current process works. The one you suggest doesn't. It is as simple as that.

 

A few other points of disconnect:
Most of the resident crackpots here have histories traceable back 10+ years, so we can safely assume they are over 16.

Being thrashed repeatedly hasn't proved to be a deterrent to these crackpots.

Even Einstein followed the process, so he is not an example of where it failed.

 

Wellwisher this sounds like cobblers to me. At 16 (in 1895) he sat and failed the entrance exam for ETH in Zurich. I am unaware of any evidence he had by that time formulated any models at all. According to Wiki, his first publication was in 1901 on capillary phenomena and his ground breaking papers on the photo-electric effect (for which he got his Nobel prize, not, interestingly, for relativity) and his work on special relativity came out in 1905, when he was 26.

There is no evidence at all of him being discouraged or dismissed at any stage of his life. Indeed when he failed the ETH entrance (on the general part of the exam) the ETH prof recommended he go a particularly good school to fill out his weak areas, since he had such outstanding results in maths and physics.

Please do not use Einstein as part of some silly myth of oppression by the scientific establishment. The guy was on the road to stardom by the time he was 26 years old and an acknowledged genius by the time he was 28!

 

Once again, even more meaningless nonsense from wellwisher. Sad.

 

I agree.

Einstein addressed philosophical issues in physics (ones that Maxwell raised and addressed). As did Newton. However, the scientific greats that addressed fundamental issues in their field addressed these philosophical questions in a way that the answer produced physics: a way of describing the world that lead to predictions, measurements of the world, and a way to confront theory with evidence from the world.

Crackpots do not do this.

 

Wrong. Tycho Brahe measured the positions of the planets as a function of time to about 3 digits, without drawing any such inference. Kepler studied Brahe's results and discovered "equal areas in equal times" was one of several laws the planets obeyed. The next question was: why? You have to start here to understand Newton. Why is nature doing this? That's the question that confronted him.

No, Newton searched for the reasons the planets were obeying Kepler's laws.

No. Einstein was not addressing the laws of mechanics explained by Newton. He was addressing the laws of electromagnetics explained by Maxwell, Gauss, Ampere, Faraday and Coulomb, et al, subject to relative motion, as in the work of Fitzeau, Michelson & Morley, et al, as partly explained by Lorentz & Poincare. Einstein completed the explanation they had not quite finished.

You would be in the best position to explain what went wrong. But it's never too late to fix it.

The point you missed by going there was Kepler's laws had nothing to do with relativity, therefore, Newton's explanation, Universal Gravitation, does not account for any relativistic observations.

The point you missed here is that the work of Einstein rests on the shoulders of the people whose work he assembled into one integrated theory (two if you want to quibble), thus explaining completely the contraction and dilation of space and time which Lorentz and Poincare had only partially answered.

So far the only ideology being expressed here is that the progress in physics, from Newton to Einstein, follows some imagined trajectory you have dreamed up, outside of the actual history of events which correctly explains what happened.

No, my answer was a correction to your prior statement You can't derive the initial force from the acceleration without knowing the velocity.

They became laws when the Universe was created out of the Big Bang. There is no idea created that has anything to do with the discovery of natural laws, other than the creative minds that invented new instruments and applied them to collect data. The fact that laws are revealed in data is purely objective.

No. Advancements to physics are the result of one generation of scientists trying to answer questions handed down from the prior generation. Newton handed down the question of corpuscular light to people like Fitzeau, who discovered light speed was invariant to a moving medium. Maxwell completed the ongoing discoveries of the laws of electromagnetics, compiling them into a concise statement of the four laws we call Maxwell's equations, which more completely explained the wave nature of light. Michelson & Morley took the work of Fitzeau et al to the final stage, proving that Earth was not moving through any such medium, further invalidating the idea that light waves require any medium. Lorentz and Poincare took all of their results and showed that something once thought purely an abstraction (or artificial)--the projection of coordinates onto an observation plane, under rotation--accounted for the contraction and dilation of space and time due to the invariance of light (ie that it was not dependent upon the velocity of a medium). Einstein inherited all of the foregoing and completed the explanation Lorentz and Poincare had partly answered.

You've done a terrible job of interpreting my remarks in the plain English in which I wrote them. My goal was to convince you that you are operating with an insufficient set of facts, something you could remedy by studying the history of physics from Brahe to Kepler to Newton to Fitzeau to Maxwell et al and Michelson-Morley to Poincare and Lorentz arriving at Einstein's 1905 paper. Otherwise you would just have to take my word that these things happened. Either way, that's the road to being convinced of the facts. Otherwise you're stuck being convinced of something else.

No one said anything about disregarding anything. Mechanics and relativity are two different subjects. If I were you I would try to grasp what the scope of each of them is.

There is no "pick one over the other". Speak to the application. If you want to know your GPS coordinates, the system can provide them, but only because the data from the satellites, which is warped in space and time by their altitudes and velocity vectors, has been corrected by application of the Lorentz rotations as stated by Einstein. But the orbits of those satellites obey Kepler's laws, as further explained by Newton. Whether you "pick" one over the other is a question of whether you "picked" GPS as an engineering design project, or whether you "picked" satellite deployment as your goal. They are different tasks which require the application of different specific laws.

Responding to people's opinions about science is often a game, only one that wants to take the fun out of learning.

I've given you a template for learning the physics, from the geocentric theory through relativity. That's more than most folks have given you.

I take it you're an undercover . . . fundamentalist Christian? Change "morality" to "ethics" and you have my attention, but not in regard to physics. The only "ethics" of physics is that there are right answers and wrong answers. Kepler answered Brahe correctly, Newton answered Kepler correctly, and Maxwell et al through Einstein answered Newton correctly. The ethos then, lies in understanding and appreciating the truths revealed through this chain of questions and answers. The challenge of an ethical person is to be truthful, which is either to go discover what these Q&As were, or else at least to say "I don't know". The pathos lies in using subterfuge to bury those truths, usually just to prop up superstition, myth legend and fable--usually with the criminal intent of thwarting public policy decisions, ultimately to increase the profits of the wealthiest people on Earth. So what morality are you promoting?

Greatness is a question of contribution. The people who devoted their lives to discoveries that benefit our lives are therefore regarded as great people. In other words, they achieved that highest standard of ethic: they actually did the hard work necessary to discover the truths that most of the population never bothered to research. So, for example, we pay tribute to the greatness in scientists who cured diseases, or who taught subsistence farmers the value of crop rotation, yada yada. But for all of the physics behind the network of equipment that makes this conversation possible, you would have to thank Brahe through Einstein . . . and that's just for starters.

Unless that's a cryptic reference to God, I have no idea what you are referring to. First principals are all the foundations of math and science which lead to the answer of whether a proposition about nature is true or false. The most efficient way to learn them is with a textbook, good instructors, labs, and tons of homework, tests and papers. You can't get anywhere in science without actually studying it and developing the fluency to solve actual problems.

You learning science not by walking, but by working. It requires an education.

All of that fear and loathing ends up in the back seat as soon as you have 10 minutes to explain Kepler's laws, in order to stay in school, or else lose your place and go back to dishwashing. Kepler's laws might be worth 3 points on your first quiz. There's boatloads more to go before you're even a novice.

 

This is wonderful

".......... , or who taught subsistence farmers the value of crop rotation, ........"

The scientific literature. It belongs to everybody. A gift to help us along the path.

Great comments.

 

In Australia, we call it "tall poppy syndrome"

 

One practical problem with adding extra work to alternate theorists, is it is already easier to be a critic than to create something new. It makes little sense to make a harder job harder and it even easier for the critic. For example, we can all watch our favorite sports on TV and criticize the wrong play or the wrong call in the role of the critic. Among our friends we are as smart as the coach and his entire staff. But very few of these critics could get in the game to play. The idea of adding extra burdens on the players in the sports, so the job of the critic is easier, does not add up as the best path for understanding. Maybe the players can move slower so we can criticize them easier?

It iis not hard to criticize something, even when you don't know anything about it. There are broad questions one can ask. There are also picky requirements that make the others fetch and work for you, so the critic appear like an expert, appearing to manage the action. Even if the critic has no logical arguments, he can still be insulting and that will count as valid criticism; ends justify the means. He is helping the critic ensemble.

Creating a new idea is not as easy, even with a sympathetic audience. There may be nothing to compare to, when a new idea appear. If you recycle similar data, it will never be acceptable to critics who, for personal or political reasons wish to set up a wall. One can also asked others to fetch data again and again, but this is all a fools errand since the critics are not interested.

Since being a critic is much easier, I would recommend the opposite. Instead of making it harder of the creators, we up the standard for the critics. For example, no more just quoting the traditions (prestige effect). Rather one has to provide the logic implied by the traditions, to prove this logic is appropriate. The creator then gets to act as the critic. If he can disrupt the criticism, using logic or exception, it can't be used, further. The work load is now more balanced so understanding can be realized faster.

I remember in my earlier days of creating new ideas, I might come up with a bad idea and I should stop and change directions. But the critics would never create enough understanding, to help me stop. Instead, the criticism would be more dogmatic, subjective or insulting, not leading to any understanding for either of us. Without an adult discussion I would continue down a bad, hoping for feedback. Raising the critic standard would have been helpful.

 

Stop. Right. There.

I am not asking alternative theorists to do extra work. I'm asking them to do the work that physicists do. The bare minimum work.

 

This nonsense philosophy is creating mediocrity in the US. People shouldn't be complimented/encouraged for failing, they need to be corrected so they know they are doing something wrong and change to do better.

 

"A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:

(Inertial mass)�*(Acceleration)�=�(Intensity of the gravitational field)�*(Gravitational mass).

It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body." -Albert Einstein

The material you quoted had little to do with relativity being part of Newtons or Kepler's work. But the ideology of the reverse.

I highly doubt Einstein would have made anything that accounted for Poincare and Lorentz yet left out Newton and Kepler as false theories.

WRT newton's laws... is the end of that sentence.

Ideology doesn't always follow factual "historical" information. Especially when ideology becomes a separate entity than history and someone screws up a timeline.

If you know the acceleration the velocity is easy to find. Confused? Plug and chug my friend.

This is by far your best objective critic. Yet it is still arguable truly objective studies rely only upon the properties of the material without interpretation. Though it is more philosophical than practical at the standing moment.

Then answered it in a Newtonian appeal before he furthered his objective research.

Ah yes. I do enjoy taking interpretations to many extremes. Seems more expansive and it leaves someone else the opportunity to fill in blanks.

So was Newton's laws and lorentz's abstractions before somebody decided to create their own subject.

Hey! I didn't make this thread.

 

No, I did. And I did it to cast the spot light on the lack of scientific methodology, peer review and rambling nonsense by people such as yourself.

 

Oh, excuse me. I thought this was the men's room, instead I have found myself in a chaise lounge of a spa.

If you made this bit of objective opinion just for little old me I suggest you bark up a different tree. The only possibility here is to give me more credence than I deserve over so many alternatives at this premature juncture.

 

except you don't want to hear the truth, even when it comes from a respected source.
you would rather label it as some kind of "creationist shit" instead.
bury that head, hope for the best.