On Oct 12, 8:37 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/12/12 10/12/12 8:28 AM, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 12:22 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 11:21 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2012 1:13 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>>>>> On 10/11/2012 10:57 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> You have raised a complicated and a philosophical question. Isn t it
>>>>>> astonishing that we are interchanging our roles as that of an engineer
>>>>>> and that of a physicist?
>>>> 
>>>> So despite the long response, you failed to answer my question.
>>>> What would be the form of a compelling case by which you could be
>>>> convinced that classical physics is WRONG, and that relativity is a
>>>> better fit to nature?
>>>> 
>>>> Do you have an answer to this?
>>>> Or is it the case that you have drawn a line in the sand and said that
>>>> no such case could be made to you?
>>> 
>>> As I said, I am not interested in compartmentalizing physics into
>>> classical and modern. So far as SR is concerned, I am just finding out
>>> if there are inconsistencies in the theory and if SR is wrong.
>> 
>> Again, the measure for "wrong" in ANY scientific theory is that it predicts
>> things incorrectly -- it says things cannot happen that do happen, or it says
>> that things happen that do not happen, or it gets the amounts of observed
>> variables wrong. So if you are going to look for where SR might be wrong, that's
>> where you should look.
> 
>> You can look all you want for inconsistencies in the theory. I can assure you
>> that you are preceded by a large number of people who have tackled the same
>> question on a full-time basis. I can also tell you that in order to even
>> approach that question sensibly, you FIRST have to spend some time learning what
>> exactly SR says, so that you do not squirrel around discovering potential
>> inconsistencies in loosely and casually worded popularizations that do not
>> actually reflect what relativity actually says. Satisfy your curiosity all you'd
>> like on this front, but if you don't approach it seriously, you'll just end up
>> wasting time on false boondoggles.
> 
> Yes to all that. But stronger statements can be made:
> 
> 1. The mathematics underlying SR has been proven to be as self-consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry, and also as self-consistent as is real analysis.
> 
> 2. The domain of SR is physical situations in which gravitation can be
> neglected. Within this domain, no reliable and reproducible experiment
> has ever disagreed significantly with the predictions of SR.
> IOW: Special Relativity has never been refuted.
> 
> It simply is not possible to make any stronger statements about physical
> theories. SR is as solidly established as "scientific truth" [#] as are: a) the
> atomic theory of matter, b) the germ theory of disease, c) the evolution of life
> on earth, d) the notion that the sun will rise tomorrow, etc. [@]
> 
> [#] I have often discussed my misgivings about this phrase.
> 
> [@] All theories have limited domains. For instance, (a) there is
> matter that does not consist of atoms, (b) there are diseases not
> mediated by germs, (c) it certainly could be possible for
> extraterrestrial life to arrive on earth (perhaps it did ~3
> gigayears ago), (d) the sun does not rise in other star systems.
> 
> For instance, every claim in this newsgroup about "inconsistencies in SR" are
> actually about inconsistencies in the poster's MISunderstanding of SR. If one
> wants to discuss inconsistencies and errors in SR, it is necessary to first
> understand SR correctly, and in detail. In practice, the effort to achieve such
> understanding resolves any "inconsistencies", and removes any need to look for
> them (see (1) above).
> 
> Bottom line: Tamhane's quest to find "inconsistencies in the theory" is
> completely hopeless; his asking "if SR is wrong" is already solidly answered in
> the negative.
> 
> But it appears he would rather waste time posting nonsense to the
> 'net rather than studying the science literature, so he remains
> ignorant of these facts. (Around here he is by no means alone in
> that exceedingly poor choice.)
> 
> Tom Roberts

Oh! Another post declaring Islam is the greatest.