- #1
Rationalise
- 1
- 0
Why??
What makes it the only constant in the universe?
What makes it the only constant in the universe?
Originally posted by EL
Basically no one knows why the laws of nature look like they do. Physics just describes them...
But c is not the only constant. (Others are h-bar, G...)
I think he meant, "only constant speed...".But c is not the only constant. (Others are h-bar, G...)
To take this a step further, some people seek the answers to some unanswerable questions in religion, but unfortunately there are always unanswerable questions, even in religion. The 'why?' of many things can be answered by citing God, but what about 'why?' questions on God himself?Originally posted by ahrkron
I agree with EL and Russ in that, ultimately, there are things in the universe that "just are", regardless of how much they make our neural circuitry feel "comfortable".
Originally posted by russ_watters
To take this a step further, some people seek the answers to some unanswerable questions in religion, but unfortunately there are always unanswerable questions, even in religion.
Originally posted by ahrkron
My take on it is that this is a limitation of all representation systems, and that intelligence and reason are unavoidably based on representations, implying that no matter how "smart" any species becomes, it will always have unanswerable questions.
I didn't know that GR had been formulated in terms of 'an 11 Dimensional super cloud', I thought that was super-gravity, or String Theory, or M-Theory. I am also unaware of any experimental results which indicate a need for any such theories; GR has passed all its tests with flying colours.Originally posted by Terry Giblin
Is the speed of light traveling through a pure uniform rain droplet within a cloud, the same in every direction?
Is it therefore not logical to assume that the speed of light traveling through uniform 3-Dimensional droplet within an 11 Dimensional super cloud will also be the same in every direction?
Originally posted by ahrkron
Another piece of evidence for SR comes in the fact of the electricity bill for accelerators.
The higher the speed, the higher the mass (as measured in the lab's frame), which means that you need to have a higher magnetic field to keep your protons on track. All this numbers (from the mass to the measured field to the amount in dollars needed to keep all working) agree with SR.
sees their rational professionalism as superior to intuition, reason and simplicity
They don't.
However, to some people (yourself included, it seems):
intuition = what I learned from parents / TV / elementary school
reason = logic (and illogic) that supports what I think
simplicity = little to no deviation from what I think it should be
and they have grounds to think "rational professionalism" is superior to these
I'm something much worse. I'm a mathematician.
The problem with arguing that something must be correct because it is "intuitive" is that you are the only person in the world who has the same intuition as you do. And even then, your intuition will change as you learn new things. (Assuming you care to)
The other problem is that intuition is gained from experience. If you have little to no experience with something, your intuition is likely to be very poor. And be honest with yourself, you have little to no experience dealing with facts about velocities over 100,000 MPH and objects smaller than a nanometer in diameter.
Thus, it is extremely arrogant of you to think your intuition about such things has any sort of reliability. And it is this arrogance that earns you (and others like you) the "attitude" you get from others.
I'm willing to admit that I have little to no intuition about such things. Until you do too (or demonstrate that your intuition really is accurate), you will be forever a crackpot.
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I made the point that my "intuition" came from the depths of my inward mental and [spiritual] self. Ever heard the words, "Eurecka!"
And you are the only person who had this Eureka moment. It means nothing to anybody else, and it isn't eveidence of anything but your internal brain states.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth tnan lies.
Originally posted by mhernan
Are we to throw out Cartesian systenms because Rene Descarte had a flash of insight, intuition that was the senminal event of his brillaint career?
Originally posted by ahrkron
No, he is saying that "Eureka moments", although being nice personal experiences, need to be followed by a lot of detailed math work in order to produce anything in science.
As Integral and Hurkyl point out, intuition has not been a reliable guide since, at least, the beginning of last century. In order to develop a useful intuition for modern physics, you absolutely need to go through a lot of math; without it, intuition cannot help you understand what has been discovered and (extremely well) measured in physics in the last hundred years or so.
intuition >= mathematics
Rationalise said:Why??
What makes it the only constant in the universe?