I Simplified explanation of SR for relativity-denier

[Nugatory]

on the other hand....1+1=2 is an axiom....it can't be proven, but is accepted as being true because the probability of the outcome it being 2 is quite high. What is the possibility (not probability) of the sum of 1+1 = 11? QED is not a proof.

It is a bit of a digression here, but 1+1=2 is a theorem that can be proven from axioms of arithmetic.

This is a different situation than claims made by empirical science, which are based on experimental evidence and observations about how the world works, and are evaluated based on the accuracy and generality of their predictions. A challenge to such a theory will only be taken seriously if we either produce empirical evidence showing that the predictions are incorrect, or we advance an alternative theory that produces, to the limits of experimental accuracy, the same predictions as the existing theory and also produces correct predictions outside of the range of validity of the existing theory.

 

[Dale]

1+1=2 is an axiom....it can't be proven, but is accepted as being true because the probability of the outcome it being 2 is quite high

That is completely ridiculous. It has nothing whatsoever to do with probability.

On this forum, all posts need to be consistent with the professional scientific literature.

 

[PeroK]

This is a different situation than claims made by empirical science, which are based on experimental evidence and observations about how the world works, and are evaluated based on the accuracy and generality of their predictions. A challenge to such a theory will only be taken seriously if we either produce empirical evidence showing that the predictions are incorrect, or we advance an alternative theory that produces, to the limits of experimental accuracy, the same predictions as the existing theory and also produces correct predictions outside of the range of validity of the existing theory.

The mathematics that is used to underpin physical theories is, in a way, tested along with the theories themselves. Basic arithmetic, wherever it comes from, is tested alongside the physical postulates. The same goes for vectors, calculus, differential geometry etc. It doesn't really matter whether you can mathematically justify the real numbers. They are, in a way, physically justified by the success of the physical theories based on them!

 

[nasu]

it's like going to your math teacher and expecting them to take you seriously when you hand in a 5-page report that says 1+1 = 11.

Whereas it should be 1+1=10.

 

[PeterDonis]

Whereas it should be 1+1=10.

If you only have two fingers to count with, perhaps...

 

[FactChecker]

If you only have two fingers to count with, perhaps...

Do you suppose that is the reason that we use base 10? Because we can count on 10 fingers?

 

[PeterDonis]

Do you suppose that is the reason that we use base 10? Because we can count on 10 fingers?

AFAIK it's one hypothesis.

 

[Nugatory]

Whereas it should be 1+1=10.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who know ternary, those who don't know ternary, and those who were expecting a joke about binary.

 

[nasu]

AFAIK it's one hypothesis.

This means that the romans did not have 10 fingers?

 

[phinds]

This means that the romans did not have 10 fingers?

Oh, they had 10 fingers, but they were VERY inventive with obscene gestures requiring various combinations fingers to produce many variations of insults.

 

[ergospherical]

Your arguments are fine, but doomed to failure anyway. I would give them this link and then walk away:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Any alternative theory must explain all of these experiments. Not just Michelson Morley

I liked how he made space for a whole section just to roast people. It's like the Darwin/Razzy awards but for experimentalists:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/phys...ments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_SR

 

[Sagittarius A-Star]

I liked how he made space for a whole section just to roast people. It's like the Darwin/Razzy awards but for experimentalists:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/phys...ments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_SR

He mis-spelled the name of the anti-relativist Hartwig Thim.

Thim's dubious IEEE paper "Absence of the relativistic transverse Doppler shift at microwave frequencies":
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1240186

A counter-argument against Thim's anti-SR interpretation of his experiment:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5374026