Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

The Speed of Light, is it a relative thing?


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Delasaurus said:

I think that is exactly what I am trying to portray. I don't mean to be offensive to any one, but yes, science and physics puts itself out on the line as being untouchable, unchallengable and only open to those with some kind of higher intellect than others challenging it. The Art's on the other hand are constantly being challenged, shaped and reformed.

In the old days...ah the old days.. Science was part of the Arts. It had philosophical arguments as well. But today if we challenge science philosophically it seems that we are blithering idiots to the scientific community and don't know what we are talking about. So that makes us unworthy to talk to.

That is very, very, wrong. I think that the most common mistake is, as you say, people believing that science is the be all and end all and is absolute, it isn't.

 

I profoundly disagree with this. To be science it must be possible to challenge it via observation. 

I used to study philosophy but gave it up as it seemed to me to just be a play on words.

I do agree that modern science is difficult to approach as it is based on mathematics which most people find unapproachable. Also, unfortunately, even prominent scientist mislead when writing for popular science journals or in their popular books.

Science like art or any undertaking needs to be challenged in its own frame of reference if we wish to make a sensible contribution.

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Delasaurus said:

So, you would agree then that it is a concept, Because as you say, it does not need our permission or acceptance?

No, it would exist without us, it belongs to the universe. All we have done is recognised it. :)

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible to see the merits of BOTH sides / protagonists of an argument: 
https://youtu.be/_2Aw9UGYNsA (Tyson versus Dawkins) ;)
Warning: Contains Swearing! :eek:

But Tyson gives voice to a lot of my circumspection re. "Popularising Science".
And, for his part, Dawkins notes that it could be far Worse? (And often is!) :p

Heheh. I avoided all "Philosophical Discussion"... Too "thick"? But I preferred 
to go "Mess with the Hardware".... The random fun arguing with Engineers... 
enduring playful taunts of the Technicians... Minorly *worry* as some French 
Crane driver skimmed my head with 75T concrete blocks after a "good lunch"! :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are talking about relativity, i would argue that the term "popular" is relative. The number of people that like popular science is small when compared to the number of people that like popular music, but, in both cases, the number is large relative to the number of people that actually practice the thing, scientists and musicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andrew s said:

I profoundly disagree with this. To be science it must be possible to challenge it via observation. 

I used to study philosophy but gave it up as it seemed to me to just be a play on words.

I do agree that modern science is difficult to approach as it is based on mathematics which most people find unapproachable. Also, unfortunately, even prominent scientist mislead when writing for popular science journals or in their popular books.

Science like art or any undertaking needs to be challenged in its own frame of reference if we wish to make a sensible contribution.

Regards Andrew 

1 hour ago, andrew s said:

 

This is exactly what I mean Andrew. Those who work or trained in a scientific, technical or engineering field are generally aware of the changing position of science.  Look at how our view of the electron has changed over the years.  The problem, if there is one,  is projected;  a large proportion of the public have the false understanding that science delivers absolute truths. It's then open season to be knocked when old theories make way for new - the tall poppy syndrome I mentioned. Fair enough, but the trouble arises when the challenge is ill disciplined and this jars with the very discipline upon which science rests, hence the friction between the professionals and the popularists/media.  You described this well when you said "needs to be challenged in its own frame of reference".  

I can well understand why some folk are simply turned off science. Physics in particular can be a very pedantic subject - especially at the hands of national examination bodies! This puts a lot of pupils off the subject, its mathematical content and precise vocabulary are just too much for some. This is a great shame because I believe strongly that scientific literacy is important. Look at the disastrous interpretation by a large percentage of the public regarding the MMR vaccination. Or more recently the befuddled press when the particle physics at CERN eschewed their taunts of failure by saying it would be more exciting if they could not find the Higgs boson. Of course it would be disastrous if the disconnect between the public and professional worked to undermine confidence in the field. That shouldn't stop the professionals in their respective fields batting down ill disciplined challenge when it arises - compared to other professions, I think the scientific community are a pretty mild-mannered  bunch. :) 

 

Jim

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, George Jones said:

Since we are talking about relativity, i would argue that the term "popular" is relative. The number of people that like popular science is small when compared to the number of people that like popular music, but, in both cases, the number is large relative to the number of people that actually practice the thing, scientists and musicians.

Well said.

Jim

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, George Jones said:

Since we are talking about relativity, i would argue that the term "popular" is relative. The number of people that like popular science is small when compared to the number of people that like popular music, but, in both cases, the number is large relative to the number of people that actually practice the thing, scientists and musicians.

Where should we draw the line though? Should the general public have a say in Brexit when only a small minority are professional economists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Another question I've often wondered about! That of passive fandom.
Reflecting wry comments re. popular Cookery Programs on UK TV. :p
But there could (well) be a LEGION of frenetic "Bun Bakers" out there!

I'm guilty of that Chris, there my reach definitely exceeds my grasp.  On holiday at the moment and have discovered the Hairy Bikers :) 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, goodricke1 said:

Where should we draw the line though? Should the general public have a say in Brexit when only a small minority are professional economists?

The issue of Brexit it is not just an economic one it is foremost  a political one. In this case our representative MPs decided that we all should vote on it.

With science the correct judge of correctness (in the sense of making good predictions) is observation. We might all vote for a weather forecast that was always set fair but it would not be accurate very often and not help if we wanted to avoid getting wet!

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, andrew s said:

I profoundly disagree with this. To be science it must be possible to challenge it via observation. 

I used to study philosophy but gave it up as it seemed to me to just be a play on words.

I do agree that modern science is difficult to approach as it is based on mathematics which most people find unapproachable. Also, unfortunately, even prominent scientist mislead when writing for popular science journals or in their popular books.

Science like art or any undertaking needs to be challenged in its own frame of reference if we wish to make a sensible contribution.

Regards Andrew 

Does science become 'proper science' only when it is observationaly challenged? Because that means that it has to be absolute and concrete. And as we both know that simply is just not the case. From your point of view as a knowledgable person on the subject, the mathematical and researched 'absolutes' have changed along with time and from my point of view, which is perhaps more philosophical and without number, (and that's not because I can't do the maths) I believe there are no absolutes.

In my opinion, I don't think philosophy is just a play on words, as good philosophy also has it's methodology within it's own framework.

It's more a case, I think, of a certain type of mindset. Some people have a naturally very disciplined mindset that lends itself to math, engineering, science etc.

Other people have an unruly mind if you like, that lends itself to Punk Rock, theatre and philosophy etc.

All disciplines though can contribute to each other. In the movies, there have been some fantastic sci-fi themes that whilst not perhaps absolutely true to scientific observation have made for tremendous viewing, aka Star Trek for one. The input has been both scientific and philosophical.

A sensible contribution? Does that mean that if we do not verbalise in mathematical science that our contribution to science is unworthy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I referred to a personal view of philosophy.  I am sure it has a valid role to play in many areas including science. In fact an early critic of Newtonian physics argued against absolute space and time.

I think a modern take on physical theories is that they have a range of applicability and I would expect them to provide accurate predictions for phenomenon within its scope and range. Obviously there will be limits and sometimes exceptions which prompt new developments and a better theory .

In my view calls by some theorists to abandon the need for testable prediction is totally misguided. Some string theorists fall into this category. 

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, andrew s said:

 

In my view calls by some theorists to abandon the need for testable prediction is totally misguided. Some string theorists fall into this category. 

 

Now that is where I would draw the line. I can't think of anything more profound!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/10/2017 at 14:41, Stub Mandrel said:

FWIW I spent three years studying a scientific discipline at university and I would still venture to call myself a scientist, having taken a scientific approach in much of my professional work. I really don't recognise the criticism of academia you make as valid.

 

 

I raise your 3yrs by 7yrs Open University (science and math), 3yrs Fine Arts, 1yr Design and a lifetime of electrical,electronic and mechanical engineering. And still feel quite valid to criticise any academia I choose. Even though after all that study I know I know very little about the world I inhabit.

It's very very healthy and comes with the upmost surprise of results.

To give up criticism and challenge, in my opinion, leads to a very fascist and dangerous path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Delasaurus said:

I raise your 3yrs by 7yrs Open University (science and math), 3yrs Fine Arts, 1yr Design and a lifetime of electrical,electronic and mechanical engineering. And still feel quite valid to criticise any academia I choose. Even though after all that study I know I know very little about the world I inhabit.

It's very very healthy and comes with the upmost surprise of results.

To give up criticism and challenge, in my opinion, leads to a very fascist and dangerous path.

To paraphrase Voltaire, I defend your right to make a critique, but I don't have to accept it (and I have the right to criticise it myself, as you may mine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

To paraphrase Voltaire, I defend your right to make a critique, but I don't have to accept it (and I have the right to criticise it myself, as you may mine).

So now we are all on a level playing field... fancy a game of chess? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Delasaurus said:

Does anyone have a picture of time.. I've googled for one but nothing seems to come up! :)

 

You will find it next to the photographs of gravity, but stay away from one hand clapping and trees falling in woods else you will have wasted that which you seek. :) 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, saac said:

You will find it next to the photographs of gravity, but stay away from one hand clapping and trees falling in woods else you will have wasted that which you seek. :) 

Jim

And what is wrong with the philosophy of one hand clapping?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.