Why is there a universal speed limit, c, and why is it what it is?

DaleSpam

Such as what? There are ancillary things such as the scientific community, the scientific literature, and the philosophy of science. But the core of science is the scientific method. Other pursuits (e.g. law) have a community, literature, and philosophy. What distinguishes science from other such pursuits is the scientific method. That is the center of science so if a question cannot be addressed experimentally using the scientific method then it is not a scientific question.

This is a good example. The only way that science can answer this is by pointing to a mathematical model which accurately predicts the observation. Science cannot tell you why that mathematical model works. Remember, your original post in this thread was specifically looking for some explanation beyond the mathematical model:And this "why bit", why the model works, is what science cannot provide.

CosmicVoyager

I disagree that it is a common misunderstanding. What I do think is a frequent recurring problem in these forums is DaleSpams point of view.

What many if not most of the people asking questions here want to know is why. And it seems the group of people replying are satisfied not to know, don't care why, and discourage people from asking why.

Regarding "Does the mathematical model X correctly predict the observation Y in experiment Z to within experimental error?"", if there is a ball, with a mechanism inside, that moves in different ways under different conditions, and by observing the ball one can create equations that predict how the ball will move, that is insufficient and not what people asking questions want to know. They want to know about the mechanism inside. And if you can come up with a design of the mechanism that works, then it will also be accurately predicting observations.

The problem is too many people are satisfied with only going as far as has already been gone. As long as they can predict what the ball will do, they are satisfied without knowing what is inside. Other people want to not only know what we know so far, but go farther and deeper. It is said that there are things we have understood for a hundred years such as relativity. The more I am reading, the more it seems that is not the case. Either the questions are not being answered well, or we really do not understand relativity yet, and it should not be claimed that we do, and questioning further or even questioning what is claimed to be well established should not be discouraged.

DaleSpam

Then prove me wrong by showing me how you can use the scientific method to answer questions of some other form.

CosmicVoyager

I think the problem may be that the people I am referring to are claiming that questions are not scientific when they are. That is, that the answer could be a "mathematical model X correctly predicting the observation Y in experiment Z to within experimental error", but that current equations already do that. In other words, there is a mechanism inside the ball, which we could develop a mathematical model for that would predict observations, but because a model already exists that predicts without a complete description of all structure, they have no interest in doing so. That is sufficient for practical applications, but people want to fully understand the structure of the universe.

Advice to people asking question: Many contributors here have an allergic reaction to the word "why". Instead say something such as "How is it that...". I have discovered that by actually simply avoiding using the word "why" while still asking essentially the same question, you get better responses, and avoid the negative reponses to "why" that we are so annoyed with.

DaleSpam

That is fine. If you or pip1974 can re-phrase the question into that form then I would heartily agree that the question is scientific.

What you are suggesting here is that people use a more complicated mathematical model than is necessary to explain the data. I do not, in principle, have any problem with that. It does violate Occham's razor, but it is not contrary to the scientific method.

Excellent advice.

CosmicVoyager

I anticipated bringing up Occam's razor, and almost included that. LOL I don't think it is the simplest answer because questions still remain. Why is it moving that way? What is inside the ball? And I don't think there will be an infinite regression of why questions. I think a point can be reached where it finally all makes sense. Where the picture is complete. Where apparent contradictions are resolved rather than just being adjusted for.


David Bowman in 2010: "You see, it's all very clear to me now. The whole thing. It's wonderful."

DaleSpam

You obviously don't have any four-year-old kids.

nitsuj

CosmicVoyager "Advice to people asking question: May contributors here have an allergic reaction to the word "why". Instead say something such as "How is it that...". I have discovered that by actually simply avoiding using the word "why" while still asking essentially the same question, you get better responses, and avoid the negative reponses to "why" that we are so annoyed with."

I couldn't agree with you more Cosmic. It seems the issue is the one answering cannot (i hope this is a word) contextualize a response.

Questions like "What makes the sun hot"
seems to be a world apart from "Why is the sun hot", for some people. (Note:dalespam I dont literaly mean one world distance between the two questions, thats merely a figure of speech, such as the question why)

Kids, perfect example. With no use of the scientifc method, your kids will grow up to develope an "understanding" of things of allsorts (and probably,thanks to you, better then most). Im sure observing your kids you see their understanding of the world around them "evolves". There are prerequisites in this evolution. When the question "where do babies come from" comes up, Im sure you will provide an edited explination. One that your kid is satisfied with and is congruent with their understanding in general.

To sum it up, a question, one human to another (providing context for you) is the same as asking "help me understand xyz so that it fits with my current understanding in general".

It's no wonder that after 18+ years of developing an understading (whether concious or not) of time, that when one crosses paths with the idea of relativity many more questions come up, as we rework our "general understanding" so that everything fits together in a way we are comfortable with.

Perhaps, dalespam, that is why you have no issue with there being a universal speed limit, because you have seen so many equations and graphs that you have "seen" how there is a universal speed limit. You have a "feel" for this speed limit. It fits into your "general understanding", quite simply you accept it.

Your "why" question has been answered.

DaleSpam

I believe that my responses have "properly contextualized" the question that I responded to:The above question is not akin to your "what makes the sun hot" vs "why is the sun hot" example. I think that you are the one having trouble "properly contextualizing" the question. He is specifically rejecting answers of the form that science can provide. If you disagree then kindly re-phrase the question in the form I have mentioned above, because I am obviously too stupid to see the rephrasing which is so clear to you.

jtbell

I think it's legitimate to hope for something like that. The problem is, what do you do if there are competing theories which all "explain" a currently "incomplete" theory, but there is no way to distinguish between them experimentally, even in principle? We actually have that situation in quantum mechanics right now, with its various interpretations.

Dmitry67

Meanwhile, I will attempt to give an example of scientific "WHY"

Q: Why CKM mixing angles are not = 0?
A: Because if they were equal 0, there wont be any difference between matter and antimatter. After the annnihilation, there would be just light, no matter, and no conscious observers.

nitsuj

DaleSpam "The above question is not akin to your "what makes the sun hot" vs "why is the sun hot" example. I think that you are the one having trouble "properly contextualizing" the question. He is specifically rejecting answers of the form that science can provide. If you disagree then kindly re-phrase the question in the form I have mentioned above, because I am obviously too stupid to see the rephrasing which is so clear to you."

I don't know what the question was but if "He is specifically rejecting answers of the form that science can provide" that should help you "contextualize" your response, no?

Don't ever pose me with "If you disagree then kindly re-phrase the question in the form I have mentioned above, because I am obviously too stupid to see the rephrasing which is so clear to you" it's insulting to both of us. You couldn't convience me, despite you trying, that you are "stupid". In fact I think the issue is somewhat the opposite, you need to stop being so "smart".

pip1974

Dmitry67 and DaleSpam. Scientific method is a tool, a method in fact, that allows us to answer questions about the natural world.
If someone asked me why the sky is blue, I would be able to understand their question and give them an answer based on my knowledge of science. It's a shame you claim you wouldn't be able to do the same thing.
I wonder what certain people's motives are for trying to answer questions here. Seems to be a rather egotistical activity to me, in which the prime motive is to demonstrate knowledge rather than share it.
Here's a challenge. Suppose someone were to ask "why can't a spaceship go faster than the speed of light", I bet I could give a really good answere that would satisfy most inquisitive people, and I would be able to pitch it at the appropriate level without trying to show off how clever I am. I bet you couldn't.

Calrid

As usual in these arguments its about semantics and isn't really important. Some people are restricting the language to a more pure form of science and some are not, it's all basically correct though, it just depends on how you phrase it. We all know the difference between why does the Universe exist at all, philosophy, and why is the sky blue. It would be couched in a proof in science, such as: I can show how scattering in an a atmosphere favours some wavelengths, with x experiment, that would show y results, or, we could say the reason why it is blue is because of the above because we already accept as an axiom that the reasoning is solid and is self evident.

The fact remains science at the research level does not deal in whys so much as hows. It only deals in whys when the facts are taken for granted. One is pure science the other is science explanation. Why do men walk on two legs is a valid question only if it is appropriately asked and answered. How did men come to walk on two legs would be the basis of research, why wouldn't unless it was a weaker more philosophical form of science, like anthropology and even then it would probably not be couched in too many whys if it was a research paper.

nitsuj

Calrid It's not simply semantics, and it is really important that people don't piss on other people's pursuit of "why" something is simply because an f-ing graph doesn't translate to their accepting it as the answer "why".

If someone has their head so far into the scientific method that they cannot translate it back to the "real" world, then the purpose of the scientific method in the "real" world is lost.

Calrid

Oookay, we'll have to agree to differ. I think it is semantics you don't.

Semantics is a vast part of philosophical debate that has impact on all areas of reason, it is highly important. I did not mean to demean it but I think that overall it is unimportant in this context because of the way ideas are formulated, or theories, the more solid science. Just meant to say that it is a matter of connotation, how you use language and in which way becomes deeply significant in logic and reason. Ultimately though just be careful you are not just saying the same thing with different words. We can dispense with whys in science at certain levels: the cutting edge for example.

Why is more often a philosophical question, how is more often in the remit of science. That's not to say they don't have a utility in both, I just question if there is all that much of a difference in how and why in certain ways of saying things and in certain fields.

nitsuj

I'm convinced.

I admit poor understanding of the meaning (and in turn importance) of semantics.

"I did not mean to demean..." clarifies it for me, and I retract my claws :)

Calrid, your second post almost has me understanding dalespam's point of view. A seemingly impossible task just a few posts ago.