ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark matter

View Poll Results: Deleted, Rule 6
Deleted 0 0%
Deleted 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Old 16th February 2016, 11:45 AM   #4801
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
and
Do cosmologists take in account that the whole galactic system (as a whole) has a influence on our clock too?

Not only a planet, a star (sun), a group of stars but the whole galactic system has an influence on the clock of an observer. The cluster of galaxies has an influence on that clock, the supercluster has an influence on that clock etc.

I would say: The mass of every piece of matter in the universe has some influence on our clock.

This statement sounds like an obvious consequence of Machs Principle. Maybe you should credit either Einstein or Mach or both with the idea. If your idea isn’t equivalent to Mach’s Principle, then you should tell us how.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture[1]) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. The idea is that local inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter, as exemplified by this anecdote:
You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?
Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force. There are a number of rival formulations of the principle. It is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here". A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."[2]

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
There is no 'absolute clock' in the universe.
So, there is no absolute observable orbital speed of stars in an 'observed' galaxy.

(And with 'observed' I mean: reference frame dependent. Not some optical illusion.)
This may be a translation problem rather than your science. I am not sure what your native language is. However, the English word 'speed' has a slightly different meaning than the English word for 'velocity'.

The words in German for speed and velocity are not different in most languages including German. Einstein wrote his first articles in German. Some translations of Einstein's articles use the word velocity where Einstein meant speed. Of course, I suspect that Einstein did some of his own translation.

As an English-speaking physicist, I would say that there is an 'absolute' speed implicit in relativity. One can set the mathematical expression for centripetal acceleration equal to the proper acceleration of an observer. Then one can solve for the parameter 'speed'. One could call this the 'absolute speed', as it is objective. One can also call it the 'proper speed'.

Because the proper acceleration is determined by the mechanical force, and because the mechanical force can be defined in an objective way, the

There is also a 'proper velocity' which is defined in a similar way. The proper velocity is a vector with units of speed that is defined in terms of the proper acceleration. Thus, proper velocity is defined in terms of mechanical force.

Different observers in different inertial frames will determine the same proper velocity regardless of the inertial frame. There is also a coordinate velocity which is subjective. Note that coordinate velocity can be relative if the mechanical force is undefined.

You haven't addressed my posts that discuss mechanical force and proper acceleration. Relativistic dynamics is important. If you ever make the claim that the mechanical force is absent in relativity, then I am done with this thread!
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 11:47 AM   #4802
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,731
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
My point is:

There is no absolute time flow. There is no standard for time, but the standard ruler of an observer. (a reference frame).
So, there is no absolute orbital speed of an observed galaxy.
That simply doesn't matter. Pick any observer, and they can still test galactic rotation curves. And those tests will provide the same answer for any observer: galaxies rotate too fast (and with the wrong radial dependence) to be held together by the gravitational force of visible matter.

We know how to adjust things to account for relative motion. We know how to adjust things to account for differences in clock speeds. And none of it will change that conclusion. As I already said, you keep assuming astronomers are stupid, but they aren't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 11:49 AM   #4803
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I wanted to think about 'how do we observe space and how do we experience time?'.
That's a philosophical question. It's a phenomenological question, actually. "What is time and space for an observer?"

But when you think about observers and time and space, you can't ignore Einstein.
He was talking about the relativity of the observations of time and of space.

So, using another 'starting position' by asking a phenomenological question, it generates other answers about observations of time and space then physics.

It generates the answer that:

- observers are crucial for time- and spacecoördinates of observed objects.
- The observer will always experience a normal timeflow and will use this as a standard to talk about 'timedilation' or 'timecontraction' of other clocks.
- The observer has his particular idea of an uncurved and un-expanded ruler (space).
- The observer will always see spacedistortions somewhere else (of the other ship, redshifting galaxies which are far away from us, etc.)
- etc.

Phenomenology of space and time generates different answers about time and space then physics does.
I am aware of the various meanings of the word "phenomenology", but what do you mean with that word?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 12:44 PM   #4804
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,082
Ok, thank you for the feedback. I'm learning. I will read it more carefully and will answer later, if I can.


Follow my following reasoning:

Axioma: every observer has his/her/its own particular idea of a straight uncurved and un-expanded path/line in his own referenceframe.

Ergo: what he/she/it will call 'a curved path' or 'expanded space' elsewhere (in the other ship, far away from Earth...) is therefore also a particular notion of an observer.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously in past, present and future.(Einstein) Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 16th February 2016 at 12:54 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 12:57 PM   #4805
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 45,731
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, thank you for the feedback. I'm learning. I will read it more carefully and will answer later, if I can.


Follow my following reasoning:

Axioma: every observer has his/her/its own particular idea of a straight uncurved and un-expanded path/line in his own referenceframe.

Ergo: what he/she/it will call 'a curved path' or 'expanded space' elsewhere (in the other ship, far away from Earth...) is therefore also a particular notion of an observer.
No. Whether a worldline is a geodesic or not is invariant. All observers will agree about that.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 01:41 PM   #4806
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, thank you for the feedback. I'm learning. I will read it more carefully and will answer later, if I can.


Follow my following reasoning:

Axioma: every observer has his/her/its own particular idea of a straight uncurved and un-expanded path/line in his own referenceframe.

Ergo: what he/she/it will call 'a curved path' or 'expanded space' elsewhere (in the other ship, far away from Earth...) is therefore also a particular notion of an observer.
I think that you are is talking about philosophical phenomenology rather than the mathematical phenomenology. He is actually talking about non reductionist strategies of science rather than reductionist styles of science.

It may be better if Maartenn comments himself. He can confirm or deny what I am saying. However, I conjecture that he is trying to figure out the difference between a symmetry principle and phenomenology. I too have wondered about that. So maybe you can discuss it.

I think you may explain your point a little better if you get away from cosmology and start discussing more mundane parts of physics. The idea of symmetry permeates all of physics. Is this phenomenology as you understand it?

Links on philosophical phenomenology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)
‘Phenomenology (from Greek phainómenon "that which appears" and lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. As a philosophical movement it was founded in the early years of the 20th century by Edmund Husserl and was later expanded upon by a circle of his followers at the universities of Göttingen and Munich in Germany. It then spread to France, the United States, and elsewhere, often in contexts far removed from Husserl's early work.

Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. Phenomenology can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.’

http://www.researchproposalsforhealt...nomenology.htm
‘In its broadest sense, 'phenomenology' refers to a person's perception of the meaning of an event, as opposed to the event as it exists externally to (outside of) that person.
The focus of phenomenologic inquiry is what people experience in regard to some phenomenon or other and how they interpret those experiences.
A phenomenological research study is a study that attempts to understand people's perceptions, perspectives and understandings of a particular situation (or phenomenon).
In other words, a phenomenological research study tries to answer the question 'What is it like to experience such and such?'.
By looking at multiple perspectives of the same situation, a researcher can start to make some generalisations of what something is like as an experience from the 'insider's' perspective.’

Link on symmetry principles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_(physics)
In physics, a symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is preserved or remains unchanged under some transformation.

Continuous spacetime symmetries are symmetries involving transformations of space and time. These may be further classified as spatial symmetries, involving only the spatial geometry associated with a physical system; temporal symmetries, involving only changes in time; or spatio-temporal symmetries, involving changes in both space and time.’

A little thought shows how the spacetime symmetries can to a large extent explain how distance and time are perceived. So I think the real topic is how symmetries in general are related to consciousness.


The confusion here may be the difference between a symmetry principle and phenomenology. Symmetry principles, or invariance principles, are theories are based on what transformations leave a system physically unchanged. A physical quantity that is unchanged by a transformation in can be considered objective since different observers, linked by the same transformation, would observer the same physical phenomena.

I propose that what a scientist would call a symmetry principle roughly corresponds to what a philosopher would call phenomenology. Machs Principle was used by Einstein as a sort of symmetry principle. However, Machs Principle is often seen as a special case of phenomenology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach
‘According to Alexander Riegler,[22] Ernst Mach's work was a precursor to the influential perspective known as constructivism. Constructivism holds that all knowledge is constructed rather than received by the learner. He took an exceptionally non-dualist, phenomenological position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
’In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture[1]) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach.

This concept was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity. Einstein realized that the overall distribution of matter would determine the metric tensor, which tells you which frame is rotationally stationary. ‘

See how Mach’s Principle in one considered part of a reductionist physics theory (relativity) and at tye same time a part of nonreductionist philosophical conjecture (phenomenology).

The boundary between a symmetry principle in science and phenomenology in philosophy can easily get blurred. A. Riegler though of Ernest Mach’s work as being opposed to reductionism. Yet, Einstein incorporated Mach’s work into a scientific theory which is basically reductionist.

Symmetry principles are important parts of physics, chemistry and even biology. Even the most-hands on engineer has to use symmetry principles somewhere in his profession. However, symmetry principles are based on repeat patterns. Repeat patterns are not reductionist in that they characterize a whole rather than parts.

Maybe we would understand you better if you talk to us about symmetry in the universe. Is that what you mean by phenomenology?
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 01:47 PM   #4807
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
I am aware of the various meanings of the word "phenomenology", but what do you mean with that word?
I conjecture that Maartenn is talking about this.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)
‘Phenomenology (from Greek phainómenon "that which appears" and lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. As a philosophical movement it was founded in the early years of the 20th century by Edmund Husserl and was later expanded upon by a circle of his followers at the universities of Göttingen and Munich in Germany. It then spread to France, the United States, and elsewhere, often in contexts far removed from Husserl's early work.

Phenomenology, in Husserl's conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. Phenomenology can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.’

http://www.researchproposalsforhealt...nomenology.htm
‘In its broadest sense, 'phenomenology' refers to a person's perception of the meaning of an event, as opposed to the event as it exists externally to (outside of) that person.
The focus of phenomenologic inquiry is what people experience in regard to some phenomenon or other and how they interpret those experiences.
A phenomenological research study is a study that attempts to understand people's perceptions, perspectives and understandings of a particular situation (or phenomenon).
In other words, a phenomenological research study tries to answer the question 'What is it like to experience such and such?'.
By looking at multiple perspectives of the same situation, a researcher can start to make some generalisations of what something is like as an experience from the 'insider's' perspective.’
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 01:54 PM   #4808
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
This statement sounds like an obvious consequence of Machs Principle. Maybe you should credit either Einstein or Mach or both with the idea. If your idea isn’t equivalent to Mach’s Principle, then you should tell us how.
He is talking specifically about gravitational time dilation not about the relativity of inertia, so not sure that Mach's Principle is relevant?
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 02:50 PM   #4809
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,435
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Axioma: every observer has his/her/its own particular idea of a straight uncurved and un-expanded path/line in his own referenceframe.
Sorry, Maartenn100, but that is more like follow your ignorance .
It is the geometry of spacetime that sets what a "straight line" (a geodesic) is. Every observer agrees what a geodesic is.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 02:54 PM   #4810
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,435
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Darwin123. Reality-Check, The man, DuvalHMFIC, Ziggurat and others:
A fantasy is not a thought experiment, Maartenn100.
A vague description not a thought experiment, Maartenn100.
Your galaxies do not have "orbital speeds" because they do not orbit around each other.

A thought experiment is applying the known laws of physics to a coherently described hypothetical situation to explore the consequences.

The trivial fact that each observer has their own clock ("different clocks") means nothing.

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th February 2016 at 02:57 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 03:03 PM   #4811
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,435
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It would explain what we call 'caused by dark matter'.
A vague fantasy cannot explain anything, Maartenn100.
There is no evidence for dark matter from "orbital speeds" of galaxies which seems to be their overall rotation speed.
There is overwhelming evidence of dark matter. One bit of evidence is that the orbital speeds of star within galaxies (velocity rotation curves) cannot be explained using Newtonian graviton without introducing dark matter or modifying Newtonian dynamics (MOND). The velocity rotation curves of galaxies have been calculated for many galaxies of many sizes at many distances from one galaxy not multiple galaxies. That galaxy is called the Milky Way.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 03:10 PM   #4812
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,435
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Do cosmologists take in account that the whole galactic system (as a whole) has a influence on our clock too?
Do you think that astronomers are ignorant about astronomy, Maartenn100 !
Any one who learns about physics knows that gravitation redshift or time dilation is negligible except in experiment designed to detect it or observers orbiting a black hole. The measurement of the Doppler shifts that give the velocity rotation curves is not measurably affected by gravitation redshift. That is the accounting of gravitation redshift or time dilation. It would be like someone measuring the mass of the Earth trying to account for a dust grain falling onto the Earth!

Last edited by Reality Check; 16th February 2016 at 03:13 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 04:13 PM   #4813
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
I am aware of the various meanings of the word "phenomenology", but what do you mean with that word?
What do you mean with "phenomenology", Maartenn100?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 05:06 PM   #4814
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,082
Darwin123, (and others)

what do you I mean with phenomenology?

It all comes down to the sort of question you ask yourself.
It's all about a certain question, which generates certain answers:

what is time and space to an observer? (phenomenology)

It's not: what is time in itself and what is space in itself? (physics)

And my philosophical question generated some answers:

1. An observer always experience a normal timeflow,and his ruler is straight, uncurved or unstretched locally. The laws of newton work just fine in his own referenceframe. The local experience of a normal timeflow of the clock of an observer (in his own referenceframe) is associated with the local experience of a straight uncontracted or unexpanding ruler.
2.An observer always 'sees' the distortions of space (and time) somewhere else (the length of the other ship is contracting, space is expanding far away from the observer, the clocks of the (other) moving frame are dilating ...)

3.The observation of spacedistortion is associated with the measurement of timedistortions. When we observe something strange going on with space somewhere else, there is something strange going on with time over there too. ( f.e. lengthcontraction is associated with timedilation, space-expansion associated with (gravitational) timecontraction).
An observation of a disturbance of space (somewhere else), means: a distortion of time. (somewhere else)
4.When you observe a region of space some where else with the same time flow as your clock, you will observe a flat uncurved and unexpanding space over there. (curvature can be measured with lasertriangulation) Equal clocks, equal spaces.
6. When there is a difference with your clock, the observed space (somewhere else) will be 'curved' (measurable with a triangle of lasers) or 'expanding'.
7. In reality, an existing observer (a person, an animal, a clock, a ruler, a telescope, a measuring device) is different from a theoretisised referenceframes. There is a lawful relationship between a real existing observer (a measuring device, we, animals, camera's,...) and the observation of space- and timecoördinates of an object.


'laws of observation':
1.Wherever you are, time is flowing normal in your experience and there is nothing strange going on with your ruler (contracting or stretching or bending), therefore: the observed distortions (expansion f.e.) of space are always somewhere else, wherever you go.
2. An observer will always use his own clock as a reference for the amount of timedilation or timecontraction of another clock (with another gravitational potential or with another speed). (=reference frame for time)
3. Curvature or expansion of lengths (spaces) depends on the standard idea of a straight uncontracted/unstetched/not bended ruler of an observer. (=reference frame for space)


So, it's all about: what will an observer measure/see about space and time. (phenomenology)

It's not about time itself nor the study of space itself. (physics)
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously in past, present and future.(Einstein) Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 16th February 2016 at 06:00 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 08:23 PM   #4815
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
He is talking specifically about gravitational time dilation not about the relativity of inertia, so not sure that Mach's Principle is relevant?
Machs Principle is not specifically about inertia. Machs Principle is far more general than that. Machs Principle is a property of all physical laws that are local. The set of 'local physical laws' includes both the law of inertia and gravitational time dilation.

A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." So the gravitational time dilation should depend on the large scale structure of the universe.

The gravitational time dilation will vary with a local speed of light, c, and a local gravitational constant, G. However, there is no guarantee that c and G should be absolutely constant over all space and time. These parameters could vary. If Mach's Principle is the most strongest sense is true, the values of c and G could vary in way that is determined by the large scale structure of the universe.

I think that Maarteen's comments about dilation being different in different galaxies is a reference to the 'large scale structure of the universe'. He thinks that the observation of time dilation will vary with the mass of the galaxy, or super cluster, in which these measurements are performed.

I have been doing some googling based on Maarteens question. It appears there is some controversy over whether Machs principle (physics) is equivalent to phenomenology (philosophy). So maybe that is related to the OP topic.

I am leaving the thread for a while. I suggest that someone look into Machs Principle as it relates to phenomenology in order to break the circularity of the discussion
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 08:38 PM   #4816
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Be aware of the fact: I'm a philosopher. I don't do science or math.
Now I am curious. What is your philosophical position on dishonest post edits?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 08:48 PM   #4817
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,403
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Now I am curious. What is your philosophical position on dishonest post edits?
Phenomenal?
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2016, 08:56 PM   #4818
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,674
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Phenomenal?
To be serious for a mo, I am harbouring a slight notion that he isn't even aware that he is doing it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 07:50 AM   #4819
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,490
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, thank you for the feedback. I'm learning.
Based upon the data at hand, I don't believe you.
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 09:29 AM   #4820
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
Machs Principle is not specifically about inertia. Machs Principle is far more general than that.
Can I request that you give me a reference for this assertion? Mach's Principle, although it is not very well defined, and can be stated in many ways, was from the beginning and is now a postulate that refers inertia to the mass-energy of the universe. In every source that I can find from MTW to Wikipedia, from Ciufolini and Wheeler to Rindler, Mach's Principle refers to the origin of inertia and in terms of GR to the gravitomagnetic dragging of frames.
Quote:
A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe."
Not in any source that I can find.
Quote:
The gravitational time dilation will vary with a local speed of light, c, and a local gravitational constant, G. However, there is no guarantee that c and G should be absolutely constant over all space and time. These parameters could vary. If Mach's Principle is the most strongest sense is true, the values of c and G could vary in way that is determined by the large scale structure of the universe.
If G and c are dynamic variables that depend on the flow of mass-energy in the universe, then aren't we talking about some other theory than GR? Wouldn't that be a tensor-scalar theory?
Quote:
I think that Maarteen's comments about dilation being different in different galaxies is a reference to the 'large scale structure of the universe'. He thinks that the observation of time dilation will vary with the mass of the galaxy, or super cluster, in which these measurements are performed.
Yes, but I think Maarten's confusion is not based on any normal interpretation of Mach's principle, but on his ignorance of the meaning of gravitational potential and the predictions of gravitational time dilation. He simply doesn't know how little, according to GR, gravitational time dilation will be affected by the mass of the galaxy or cluster from which the observation is made. He is trying to explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies as an observational effect caused by gravitational time dilation.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 09:39 AM   #4821
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Darwin123, (and others)

what do you I mean with phenomenology?
...
6. When there is a difference with your clock, the observed space (somewhere else) will be 'curved' (measurable with a triangle of lasers) or 'expanding'.
7. In reality, an existing observer (a person, an animal, a clock, a ruler, a telescope, a measuring device) is different from a theoretisised referenceframes. There is a lawful relationship between a real existing observer (a measuring device, we, animals, camera's,...) and the observation of space- and timecoördinates of an object.
...

So, it's all about: what will an observer measure/see about space and time. (phenomenology)

It's not about time itself nor the study of space itself. (physics)
This may belong more to a philosophy forum than a science forum. However, the OP title seems to imply an overlap between science and philosophy. Therefore, I conjecture that you are really want to discuss the boundary between ‘pure’ science (positivism) and ‘pure’ philosophy (phenomenology). So I googled ‘Machs principle’ (physics) and phenomenology (philosophy). What I found was an interesting controversy regarding Mach (physicist) and Husseri (philosopher).

Maybe there is an internal contradiction to your questions that bothers other people. There is supposedly a conflict between positivism and phenomenology. However, there may also be an overlap. The large scale structure of the universe can fit into a reductionist strategy of investigation.

I found an abstract to an article that may help characterize the problem.

Link with paywall
http://link.springer.com/article/10....516-011-9159-7
‘Abstract:
How do we reconcile Husserl’s repeated criticism of Mach’s phenomenalism almost everywhere in his work with the leading role that Husserl seems to attribute to Mach in the genesis of his own phenomenology? To answer this question, we shall examine, first, the narrow relation that Husserl establishes between his phenomenological method and Mach’s descriptivism.

Our working hypothesis is that the apparent contradictory comments of Husserl regarding Mach’s positivism can be partially explained by the double status he confers to his own phenomenology—as a philosophical program radically opposed to positivism, and as a method akin to Mach’s descriptivism.’

I haven't gone over the paywall. However, the abstract is informative enough. I think you aretaking a Husseri-type position while most of the respondents are taking a Mach-like position.

Does this help?
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 09:42 AM   #4822
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,082
Darwin123, in my opinion it's sometimes difficult to see a pure boundery between some concepts in physics and philosophy. Concepts like time and space are both subject to physics and to philosophy.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously in past, present and future.(Einstein) Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 09:44 AM   #4823
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,082
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
This may belong more to a philosophy forum than a science forum. However, the OP title seems to imply an overlap between science and philosophy. Therefore, I conjecture that you are really want to discuss the boundary between ‘pure’ science (positivism) and ‘pure’ philosophy (phenomenology). So I googled ‘Machs principle’ (physics) and phenomenology (philosophy). What I found was an interesting controversy regarding Mach (physicist) and Husseri (philosopher).

Maybe there is an internal contradiction to your questions that bothers other people. There is supposedly a conflict between positivism and phenomenology. However, there may also be an overlap. The large scale structure of the universe can fit into a reductionist strategy of investigation.

I found an abstract to an article that may help characterize the problem.

Link with paywall
http://link.springer.com/article/10....516-011-9159-7
‘Abstract:
How do we reconcile Husserl’s repeated criticism of Mach’s phenomenalism almost everywhere in his work with the leading role that Husserl seems to attribute to Mach in the genesis of his own phenomenology? To answer this question, we shall examine, first, the narrow relation that Husserl establishes between his phenomenological method and Mach’s descriptivism.

Our working hypothesis is that the apparent contradictory comments of Husserl regarding Mach’s positivism can be partially explained by the double status he confers to his own phenomenology—as a philosophical program radically opposed to positivism, and as a method akin to Mach’s descriptivism.’

I haven't gone over the paywall. However, the abstract is informative enough. I think you aretaking a Husseri-type position while most of the respondents are taking a Mach-like position.

Does this help?
Thank you for your feedback about Husserl' and Mach.
In my opinion it's sometimes difficult to see a pure boundary between some concepts in theoretical physics and philosophy. These days, concepts in physics are also a subject to philosophers. The category 'theoretical physical concept' and the category 'philosophy' are sometimes not so seperated. The answer from theoretical physics (i.c. relativity of time and observers) touches the deep philosophical questions philosophers have about the universe.
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously in past, present and future.(Einstein) Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of the unfolding of these events, moment by moment.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 17th February 2016 at 10:02 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 10:19 AM   #4824
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Can I request that you give me a reference for this assertion? Mach's Principle, although it is not very well defined, and can be stated in many ways, was from the beginning and is now a postulate that refers inertia to the mass-energy of the universe. In every source that I can find from MTW to Wikipedia, from Ciufolini and Wheeler to Rindler, Mach's Principle refers to the origin of inertia and in terms of GR to the gravitomagnetic dragging of frames.
Not in any source that I can find.
If G and c are dynamic variables that depend on the flow of mass-energy in the universe, then aren't we talking about some other theory than GR? Wouldn't that be a tensor-scalar theory?

Yes, but I think Maarten's confusion is not based on any normal interpretation of Mach's principle, but on his ignorance of the meaning of gravitational potential and the predictions of gravitational time dilation. He simply doesn't know how little, according to GR, gravitational time dilation will be affected by the mass of the galaxy or cluster from which the observation is made. He is trying to explain the flat rotation curves of galaxies as an observational effect caused by gravitational time dilation.
I already gave references in post # 4806. However, I will copy one of the links that I already presented in this reply. Here is a link and relevant quote.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
’In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture[1]) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach.

This concept was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity. Einstein realized that the overall distribution of matter would determine the metric tensor, which tells you which frame is rotationally stationary. ‘

The metric tensor is more general that merely inertia or time dilation. Einstein may have used it chiefly to analyze inertia. However, inertia is intimately connected with space and time.

Note that general relativity, including Mach Principle, has been used by astronomers to investigate the far reaches of the universe in space and time. So Mach Principle has been used in investigating the flow of energy and momentum in the universe.

As you can see, a weak form of Mach's Principle was used by Einstein as a constraint on his metric tensor. Einstein interpreted the weak form of Mach's Principle as a boundary condition for the observable universe. The boundary condition can also be expressed as a symmetry principle.

Other physicists (yes, real ones) have worked on extensions of Einstein's general relativity using stronger version of Mach's Principle. Bertolli and Barbour (probably mispelled, sorry) did quantitative calculations using the strong version of Machs principle. The result was an alternative to Einstein's GR that treats the universal constants as dynamic variables.

Some scientists have even applied the strong version of Mach's Principle to inflation theory. Quantitative treatments. One 'problem' with inflation theory is that it requires some universal 'constants' to be dynamical variables. Slowly varying dynamic variables, but varying none the less.

Whether or not these theories turn out to be valid, it appears that Machs principle is commonly accepted as a plausible hypothesis in science.

Most scientists take a moderately positivist (empirical) approach to their research even when using Machs Principle. Mach himself did experiments on the border of experimental psychology and theoretical physics.

Mach did an experiment, for instance, literally spinning people in a room to show that the perception of spin sometimes varied with the state of the observer. In this experiment, the observer was literally the observer. I suppose that a philosopher would call this philosophical phenomenology, because the experiment was about the subjects consciousness. As a committed reductionist, I would say the opposite. The unaided human body is being used as a sensor, and the unaided human brain is being used to analyze data. So this would make it an experiment in physics.

I have been staying away from deep time cosmology so I don't want to discuss it on a deep level. So I am not going to do a committed google search to find articles that I read in my personal deep past. However, I am very interested in the boundaries between psychology and physics.

There are many problems in practical physics and engineering that involve psychology in some way. Pattern recognition, machine learning, and image processing are all valuable technologies that have arisen by contemplating the way animals perceive physical reality. So in my view, Mach was doing good science when he 'spun' his human subjects. I would gladly take part in a discussion of these experiments that Mach performed.


This is a wildly popular thread. It may be the longest and most visited thread on ISF. The fact that you and i are still discussing it proves that Maarteen did strike a nerve. Face it! So I have promised myself to treat Maarteen with more respect. However, this does not mean I won't disagree with him 97% of the time
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 11:07 AM   #4825
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
It all comes down to the sort of question you ask yourself.
It's all about a certain question, which generates certain answers:

what is time and space to an observer? (phenomenology)

It's not: what is time in itself and what is space in itself? (physics)
...
So, it's all about: what will an observer measure/see about space and time. (phenomenology)

It's not about time itself nor the study of space itself. (physics)
Yeah, that doesn't really answer the question.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 11:10 AM   #4826
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
... Therefore, I conjecture that you are really want to discuss the boundary between ‘pure’ science (positivism) and ‘pure’ philosophy (phenomenology). ...
It's not such boundary itself Maartenn100 wants to discuss, he wants to 'discuss' his own 'ideas' as if such boundary does not exist ..... between science and his 'ideas'.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 11:11 AM   #4827
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
To be serious for a mo, I am harbouring a slight notion that he isn't even aware that he is doing it.
He has acknowledged that he knows he's doing it, he has claimed more than once that it is due to language issues.
It has become clear that this is quite incorrect.

He is quite aware.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 17th February 2016 at 12:37 PM. Reason: "langue" > "language"
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 05:08 PM   #4828
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 750
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
I already gave references in post # 4806. However, I will copy one of the links that I already presented in this reply. Here is a link and relevant quote.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
’In theoretical physics, particularly in discussions of gravitation theories, Mach's principle (or Mach's conjecture[1]) is the name given by Einstein to an imprecise hypothesis often credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach.

This concept was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity. Einstein realized that the overall distribution of matter would determine the metric tensor, which tells you which frame is rotationally stationary. ‘
I don't see anything there that supports your statement 'A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." '

In fact the Wikipedia article specifically states that Mach's Principle is about the origin of inertia: "The idea is that local inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter...Mach's principle says that this [a description of an equivalent to Newton's bucket thought experiment] is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force." This is just what I said earlier. I can provide more references to other good sources such as MTW etc.

Quote:
The metric tensor is more general that merely inertia or time dilation. Einstein may have used it chiefly to analyze inertia. However, inertia is intimately connected with space and time.
Well, yes, but that doesn't tell you what Mach's Principle is - it tells you something about the the consequences of the theory that Einstein developed with one motivation being to satisfy what he called "Mach's Principle". I am still failing to see any source that claims that Mach's Principle is more than the idea that the matter-energy distribution in the universe determines inertia.
Quote:
As you can see, a weak form of Mach's Principle was used by Einstein as a constraint on his metric tensor. Einstein interpreted the weak form of Mach's Principle as a boundary condition for the observable universe. The boundary condition can also be expressed as a symmetry principle.
Yes, but as I understand it, Einstein himself became disillusioned with the idea that GR embodied Mach's Principle when it became clear that initial conditions, or the boundary conditions at infinity would still influence the compass of inertia, even in a Minkowski space.

Quote:
Other physicists (yes, real ones) have worked on extensions of Einstein's general relativity using stronger version of Mach's Principle. Bertolli and Barbour (probably mispelled, sorry) did quantitative calculations using the strong version of Machs principle. The result was an alternative to Einstein's GR that treats the universal constants as dynamic variables.
I think it's Bertotti. What would be helpful would be a reference to the notion that Mach's Principle includes the influence of the matter-energy in the universe over the universal constants. While these scalar-vector theories obviously exist, I don't see that they are influenced by a strong form of Mach's Principle - at least not one that was envisaged by Mach himself or by Einstein when he coined the phrase.

Quote:
Some scientists have even applied the strong version of Mach's Principle to inflation theory. Quantitative treatments. One 'problem' with inflation theory is that it requires some universal 'constants' to be dynamical variables. Slowly varying dynamic variables, but varying none the less.
Only if the dynamical variables (normally taken as universal constants) depend in these theories on the total mass-energy distribution in the universe would this be even an analogue to Mach's Principle.

So I continue to contend that the common, almost universal understanding of Mach's Principle is restricted to the origin of inertia in the matter-energy of the universe. As far as Mach was concerned, it was all about banishing absolute space, and hence it is limited to those variables which seem to depend on absolute space.

Quote:
This is a wildly popular thread. It may be the longest and most visited thread on ISF. The fact that you and i are still discussing it proves that Maarteen did strike a nerve. Face it! So I have promised myself to treat Maarteen with more respect. However, this does not mean I won't disagree with him 97% of the time
I commend you for these thoughts. It's a great attitude. But, sadly, I feel the thread's popularity can be ascribed to nothing more than the desire of many posters to refute obvious misconceptions and errors (as indeed is the case with the popularity of many other similar threads with other OPs), and its length to the fact that Maarten must post his ideas in this one thread, and to Maarten's irrepressible desire to communicate, well, something.

Last edited by hecd2; 17th February 2016 at 05:17 PM. Reason: clarification
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2016, 09:08 PM   #4829
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
I don't see anything there that supports your statement 'A very general statement of Mach's principle is "Local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe." '

In fact the Wikipedia article specifically states that Mach's Principle is about the origin of inertia: "The idea is that local inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter...Mach's principle says that this [a description of an equivalent to Newton's bucket thought experiment] is not a coincidence—that there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would make it so you would feel a centrifugal force." This is just what I said earlier. I can provide more references to other good sources such as MTW etc.

Well, yes, but that doesn't tell you what Mach's Principle is - it tells you something about the the consequences of the theory that Einstein developed with one motivation being to satisfy what he called "Mach's Principle". I am still failing to see any source that claims that Mach's Principle is more than the idea that the matter-energy distribution in the universe determines inertia.
Yes, but as I understand it, Einstein himself became disillusioned with the idea that GR embodied Mach's Principle when it became clear that initial conditions, or the boundary conditions at infinity would still influence the compass of inertia, even in a Minkowski space.

I think it's Bertotti. What would be helpful would be a reference to the notion that Mach's Principle includes the influence of the matter-energy in the universe over the universal constants. While these scalar-vector theories obviously exist, I don't see that they are influenced by a strong form of Mach's Principle - at least not one that was envisaged by Mach himself or by Einstein when he coined the phrase.

Only if the dynamical variables (normally taken as universal constants) depend in these theories on the total mass-energy distribution in the universe would this be even an analogue to Mach's Principle.

So I continue to contend that the common, almost universal understanding of Mach's Principle is restricted to the origin of inertia in the matter-energy of the universe. As far as Mach was concerned, it was all about banishing absolute space, and hence it is limited to those variables which seem to depend on absolute space.



Einstein may have applied Machs Principle only to mass and inertial. However, Machs conjecture is more general than that. Einstein may have focused on inertia. However, other scientists have used Mach Principle in a broader sense. So I will post some links to articles referring to Machs Principle in the broadest sense.

Here is an article that claims that the electromagnetic coupling constant may vary with the total charge distribution of the universe, if Machs conjecture is true in its strongest form.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5661.pdf
Electromagnetic Mach principle
We will introduce a gauge model which an electromagnetic coupling constant and local mass are related to all the charge in the universe. we will use the standard Dirac action ,but where the mass and the electromagnetic coupling constant are a function of the sum of all the charge in the universe, which represent Mach principle for electromagnetic coupling constant. The formalisation is not manifestly Lorentz invariant, however Lorentz invariance can be restored by performing a phase transformation of the Dirac field.


Here is an article showing that the gravitational Lagrangian may vary with the mass distribution of the universe, if Machs conjectrue is true in its strongest form.

415649-2.pdf
‘Gravitational Lagrangians, Mach’s Principle, and the Equivalence Principle in an Expanding Universe
Hanno Essén
We start by presenting the gravitational Lagrangians that form the basis of the present formalism in Section 2. A er that we point out how the local equations of motion for a particle will be a ected by the long range interactions with the other particles in the universe. Consistency demands that the only quantities that enter are velocities and accelerations relative to the rest of the universe. is is Mach’s principle. A er that, in Section 4, the long range e ects are calculated by integration over the universe as a whole out to the Hubble radius, where the expansion velocity reaches the speed of light. ‘


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.5608.pdf
‘Gravitational Lagrangians, Mach’s principle, and the equivalence principle in an expanding universe
The gravitational Lagrangian based on special relativity and the as- sumption of a fourth rank tensor interaction, derived by Kennedy (1972), is used to check Mach’s principle in a homogeneous isotropic expanding universe. The Lagrangian is found to be consistent with Mach’s princi- ple when the density is the critical density and inertial mass is suitably renormalized.’

Please note that the Lagrangian describes the dynamics of the system. As I said before, the real physics is always in the dynamics not the kinematics.


http://cds.cern.ch/record/590210/files/0211021.pdf
‘SCALE-INVARIANT GRAVITY: PARTICLE DYNAMICS
by Julian Barbour
….
Nevertheless, Einstein would probably still have had reservations, since in Dirac’s theory (which is a form of Brans–Dicke theory [7]) the coupling constants of the various forces of nature are epoch and location dependent. The strong equivalence principle (SEP), according to which the laws of nature, including the values of coupling constants, must be exactly the same everywhere and at every epoch, is violated.’



http://www.platonia.com/barbour_bert...s1982_scan.pdf
Machs Principle and the structure of dynamical theories
by Barbour and Bertotti


http://www.k1man.com/Lucas130819A.pdf
'In theoretical physics, especially in inertial and gravitational theories, Mach’s Principle is the name given by Einstein to a general principle credited to the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. A very general statement of Mach’s Principle is
Local physical laws are determined by the large scale structure of the universe. [2]
…'

I am not posting all this because I am a champion of Machs Conjecture. I am merely pointing out that the Mach's Principle is often used in a wider context than inertia. I am not trying to be Maartenns champion, either.

Some of the threads here, not just this one, seem to be objections to reductionism in science. Reductionism is the idea that the whole is the sum of its parts. One can always understand a complex system through understanding the interaction of simple subsystems. The whole is the sum of the parts.

However, Machs Principle superficially seems to contradict this. The large scale structure influences the behavior of the subsystems.So how could one use a reductionist strategy if the large scale structure influences the small scale structure.

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that 'simple' is not equivalent to small. The large scale structure of the universe as hypothesized by Einstein is actually very simple. The variations caused by the subsystems average to zero.

So actually the large scale structure can be part of the small scale structure. There is a bunch of simple rules that add up to the behavior of the a subsystem. However, the large scale structure is 'part' of the small scale structure.

One can reduce the behavior of the small scale structures to their simpler components plus a simple rule about the large scale structure. So Mach was a reductionist.

His version of reductionism may be a bit sophisticated. However, it is reductionist.

The 'philosophy' of Mach is reductionist, positivist and extremely pragmatic. However, it is also anti-intuitive. It looks weird. Phenomenology is eclectice, hoilistic, mystic and intuitive. Therefore, some would conflate phenomenology with common sense!

So anyway, I hope this critique helps Maartenn, you and everyone else who reads it. I have proposed my philosophical and scientific opinion. Everyone else can dispose it.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th February 2016, 04:19 AM   #4830
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,228
Mod Info This thread has become long, so a continuation thread has been opened here.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.