geordief

Arguing from personal ignorance (as is appropriate here ) to take the trampoline analogy-which is widely described as flawed . If we physically jump up and down on one we land in a different spot to where we jumped off - depending on the curvature of the trampoline and our speed or momentum. Is there anything in general relativity that corresponds -or could correspond -to that displacement? If there was it might show that I (with help from someone else) could learn something by using an analogy .(even though the theory was already formed)

If it can be shown (by "proving" or just demonstrating a negative) that these examples do not exist -a set of zero- that would be an interesting* result. It would show that analogies only occur after and "never" before the formulation of models or theories You cannot actually prove this but can demonstrate it statistically (if no examples are forthcoming) . * only "interesting" perhaps.

You are not just talking about the way we learn from our life experiences in an undefined and seemingly amorphous way.? You seem perhaps to be trying to shoehorn a method onto this ad hoc way of learning about things.

Pretty off topic but Ada Lovelace took to backing the horses to finance Babbage's machine. With all her skills she still managed to lose her bets and her project. Something must have trumped her method and it turned out badly http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-famous-mathematician-ada-lovelace-and-the-horse-named-after-her-1.2460532 and http://www.math.wichita.edu/history/women/ada.html "The correspondence of Lady Lovelace and Charles Babbage continued for eighteen years, the last of which were full of scandal, tragedy and failure. The two devised a fool-proof system of betting on the horses while working on mathematical theories of probability. Lady Lovelace, who had always had a passion for horse racing, became badly in debt, forcing her to sell the family"

possibly the point

Fun and excitement is all around but you will not find it in method. The method is the prelude (literal meaning of prelude is a clue -"before games" ) to the fun and excitement. "Work and play " is another meta analogy here.

As I see it science works better (not perfectly) when we take the human/subjective element out of it (it is one of the scientific method's principle tasks,surely) Of course to enjoy and to a degree appreciate science we have to reintroduce the human/subjective element. There should also be a (objective) science of the subjective element but this may be a contradiction in terms... Can we go through life improving our understanding of our own nature ,feelings and actions? I like to think so but I cannot say it is so -especially as we are all tending to dissolution and degradation....

I have had the idea in the past that there were two ways of looking at a situation .One was to analyse it and the other to look at it in the round (woods and trees and all that). I also wondered (in my mental wanderings ) whether "form" had its own primal existence (as opposed , I wondered) to "content". But I came up (in my own mind) with no actual examples to show that this existed in any meaningful way. I don't know if (as another meta -parasitic?-analogy ) this has any bearing on the "analogy" vs "nuts and bolts" question I think MSC has brought up.

whew, apology accepted

Perhaps you have misinterpreted my post . The last thing I wanted to be was speculative. I thought I was rejoining scientific orthodoxy after 50 years in the wilderness (I now accept there must be a universal speed limit -before I had an unconscious acceptance of a no speed limit universe). I am not trying to reformulate anything -I am just a slow learner trying to understand SR. The error I was referring to was my own (is that where you misinterpreted me?)

I thought that was just an experimentally observed fact rather than an axiom

I have held a long time (50 year!)inclination to believe that there should be no universal speed limit.I feel that I have seen the error of this (unconscious) disposition. Let's hope this sticks☺

Semantics just or can you say rather that the speed of light is relative to everything equally ? It seems that the speed of light is just one example of the speed limit of everything,isn't it? Do we need a speed limit of some kind just so as not to break causality and does light (and massless particles )just fill that slot?

You are quite right. It is right up my street even though I anticipate struggling badly with it(I have already read bits of it on the computer) . It would probably complement the other book that ydoaPs suggested. I rarely read books but when I do they are much more pleasurable (and hopefully effective) than looking at a computer screen.

Are relativistic (or any ) collisions covered by SR?(that is not the domain of GR -or do they overlap to an extent?) By the way ,do you happen to know in a historical way if these spacetime diagrams result from the arrival of film making technology? They seem ,in my mind to dovetail almost perfectly with that technology: the way you can stack celluloid frames one on top of each other to show how an object moves through space and time in an objectively measurable way. Was the development of these diagrams (and their geometry) facilitated by this new way of looking at things? I apologize if it has taken me so long to work out the bleeding obvious:-) EDIT:apparently 1889 was the year of the "first true motion picture" ( or something that could be so called)

Thanks for that. Looks like a good present for myself.

thanks ,yes I have learned a bit about that minus sign. That is great .Knowing that these diagrams are completely compatible with SR should provide me with an alternative approach to that theory -which could be useful for slow learners

Specifically these Minkowski diagrams. It has taken me a (long) time to realise that these are actually"correct" models of "reality". (I thought they looked too "childish" to be for real) but I have since come to understand that they are fully predictive (am I right now?) Anyway I have a specific question about them. Are there any circumstances when these diagrams do not "work" (within the theory of Special Relativity) ? In other words is their applicability fully co-extensive with that theory?

I wasn't going to comment but I can see I (and other newish posters) have been specifically asked to do so (by ajb). Now I know that other members are more insightful into others' motives and abilities but this (in a general ,probably bland way) is how I see the situation. I come first and foremost to hopefully learn something from the assembled community and realistically this can only be done one small step at a time (if I am lucky -sometimes I will learn nothing ,for various reasons) Now I know that responders have their own reasons for responding to others' input but , for my part I welcome any reponse at all , even bad tempered so long as the end result is that I have an opportunity to learn something.* There are other forums where there is no moderation and that is also fine but I prefer a moderated forum since that allows pipsqeaks the opportunity to have their voice heard provided the moderators are good people(I have a sad history in the education system of being at times a teacher's pet which may explain my attitude) . So ,although I appreciate moderators , I also appreciate that they are human and do this in a voluntary capacity. I don't know why Oph seems to think there is a huge problem on this site (he does say that it is widespread over the internet, mind you) but I do respect his opinion as I am familiar with his postings and know their genuineness of approach and application. So basically I feel he sets the bar too high. I feel that if mods do err in terms of lack of patience with new posters ,then it is also incumbent on new posters to try and fit in with the environment as is. *I wish I was in a position to actually impart helpful information and advice but unfortunately this is not often possible for a non scientist on a science forum.

Was the part of my post where I said "acceleration does not curve space-time" also incorrect?

Showing off some new knowledge I was given recently , it seems that acceleration does not curve space-time -.Acceleration (as distinct from gravity) ,apparently can be modeled just using Special Relativity as only flat space-time is involved. If I have understood my lesson correctly of course.

Going ,with permission slightly off topic I heard recently (in relation to the recent Black Hole detection) that these BH s were not filled with matter but filled with spacetime (or a similar term). Does that sound like a scientific description of what is happening or was it just pop speak for the viewers?

It is in the philosophy section of http://www.thescienceforum.com/forum.php

It is a question of "laugh or cry". On another forum I visit there is a thread where some one is advocating that all predators should be prevented from predating prey. It is a similar mindset I feel and really beggars belief .

I accept that "peace of mind" can have different contexts. I don't accept noseyness being the main motivator here. Where it is , then I agree it should not be placated as I do place a(extremely) high value on privacy. Again perhaps we agree in that we both seem to be looking for a proportionality. I am hoping the court cases pending will prove enlightening as , in my opinion that is where some of the finest minds are to be found(certainly far finer than mine) .