Special Relativity is a sacred cow

[johnny rocket]

For the detailed "down-to-earth" explaination, visit

 

http://markplain.com/special_relativity.aspx

[Klaynos]

Can you post a summary?

[Severian]

So do you think it is just a coincidnece that the "missing" mass in fission is related to the energy output by [math]E=mc^2[/math]? Can you provide a better explanation of this?

 

What about the other way? We have experiments where we have created mass out of energy. Where did that come from? Are you suggesting that it was there all along and we just didn't notice it? (And that the amount of mass just coincidentally happens to be related to the newly found mass according to [math]E=mc^2[/math]?)

 

You say that the public "do not want to hear the underlying reasoning, premises, deductions, calculations, etc. because they are far too boring". Well, why don't you provide us with some alternate reasoning, premises, deductions and calculations? Maybe then your post might not be such an empty criticism.

[swansont]

Is there a difference between, "all that has been seen" and "all that can exist"? For instance, is it possible that the fission event produced such incredibly tiny particle fragments that they simply faded from everyone’s view? Is it possible that in the next millennium, our species will have developed "super-quark" microscopes that can find all these so-called "missing" pieces of spent fuel—at higher than current magnifications? What evidence is there to rule out this possibility? There is no evidence. It is an argument from silence.

 

On the contrary, it is this contention that has no evidence. It's a logical fallacy to assume that one view is true simply because it hasn't been disproven. Relativity has been confirmed in countless experiments. This conjecture has nothing to recommend it — you would need to come up with ways of testing and confirming/disproving it.

[johnny rocket]

The issue is the annihilation of matter.

 

True or False?

One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel.

 

If you answer true, then E may not equal mc2. If all the “missing” mass is found one day, then m = 0

 

If you answer false, then you are implying it is impossible for any microscope, even if we continue to enhance them ad infinitum. Many scientists once stated that it was impossible to land on the moon, impossible to break the sound barrier, etc. As a pragmatist, why should I assume they are correct about annihilation, instead of being merely shortsighted once again?

[ajb]

Did many scientists really say that it is not physically possible to go to the moon or to travel faster than sound? Or did they say it was technologically impossible at the time they said it? Or maybe they envisaged that such technology would never be possible, but still that is a very different statement to "in principle".

[swansont]

The issue is the annihilation of matter.

 

True or False?

One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel.

 

If you answer true, then E may not equal mc2. If all the “missing” mass is found one day, then m = 0

 

If you answer false, then you are implying it is impossible for any microscope, even if we continue to enhance them ad infinitum. Many scientists once stated that it was impossible to land on the moon, impossible to break the sound barrier, etc. As a pragmatist, why should I assume they are correct about annihilation, instead of being merely shortsighted once again?

 

Ah, the "scientists were wrong before" ploy. Old hat. It shows a profound lack of appreciation for scientific discovery, as it is basically implying that scientists know nothing and that relativity is merely a guess. This is not the medium for transferring the incredible amount of information that you are ignoring, but the information is pretty easily obtained on the web. Avail yourself of it, and stop trolling.

[johnny rocket]

Was that a "true" or a "false"?

 

I can't make this question any simpler.

 

Ps

By and large, scientists have made a fine contribution to humanity—however, only when they stick to their knitting, meaning the practical or empirical realm. Unfortunately, too many have wandered off the reservation by delving into more philosophical matters pertaining to the absolute realm.

[Sayonara]

By and large, scientists have made a fine contribution to humanity—however, only when they stick to their knitting, meaning the practical or empirical realm. Unfortunately, too many have wandered off the reservation by delving into more philosophical matters pertaining to the absolute realm.

Such as? Put your money where your mouth is and give a solid example.

[swansont]

Energy/mass conversion is not a philosophical matter. (Though I'm sure it could be Deepak Chopra'd into one)

[D H]

Moved to pseudoscience.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

True or False?

One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel.

We have already located the missing pieces. They come out as heat and other forms of energy that we can detect easily enough.

[johnny rocket]

This is exactly why I call it a sacred cow, because I cannot get a "true" or "false" answer to my simple question.

 

One last time:

 

One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel.

 

T or F?

[Klaynos]

This is exactly why I call it a sacred cow, because I cannot get a "true" or "false" answer to my simple question.

 

One last time:

 

One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel.

 

T or F?

 

The question is malformed, and is not suitable for a true of false answer, read the responses you've been given.

[Reaper]

Ps

By and large, scientists have made a fine contribution to humanity—

 

Part of that contribution includes giving you the ability to post your nonsense all over the net. If special and general relativity weren't true, then the internet is not possible . It is evident that you lack appreciation for the theories proposed, tested, and confirmed by scientists.

 

Unfortunately, too many have wandered off the reservation by delving into more philosophical matters pertaining to the absolute realm.

 

Science is not really a philosophy. In fact, the distinction between them was made quite clear as far back as the Age of Enlightenment, when science got started.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Reaper

[foodchain]

This is exactly why I call it a sacred cow, because I cannot get a "true" or "false" answer to my simple question.

 

One last time:

 

One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel.

 

T or F?

 

What about the Planck Scale??

[Sayonara]

This is exactly why I call it a sacred cow, because I cannot get a "true" or "false" answer to my simple question.

 

But your question is flawed. As to, I think, is your understanding of what a sacred cow is. Unless you perceive the lack of a true or false response to mean that the subject is somehow unquestionable. If so, that is not the case - the only problem here is that you demand an answer for an ill-considered question.

 

Perhaps using the answers given in the thread you can reformulate your query into a form which people will be able to discuss more easily?

[Reaper]

This is exactly why I call it a sacred cow, because I cannot get a "true" or "false" answer to my simple question.

 

One last time:

 

One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel.

 

T or F?

 

What does any of this have anything to do with special relativity? Answering that question does not in any way eliminate the burden of proof on you.

[swansont]

All science is inductive. If the right evidence came along, any part of it could be discarded or modified. But that doesn't mean abandoning things that have been confirmed by numerous tests — you need to wait until the contradictory evidence is obtained.

[John Cuthber]

I don't think any scientific theory can be a sacred cow. The point about sacred cows is that you are not meant to kill them. The point about theories is that you are meant to do your best to kill them.

Relativity hasn't been killed yet so it looks like a prety good theory, but sooner or later I hope soemone will combine it with quantum mechanics and come up with a better theory. That's the point of theories.

 

As for the question "One day we might develop a more advanced microscope, which will locate some of these so-called “missing” pieces of spent fuel.

 

T or F?"

 

The answer is "false".

Happy now?

It's like the "lost city of the Inca"; it isn't really lost (the locals always knew where it was) so you can't really find it.

We know where the missing pieces are, so no new microscope can tell us that. It would be like saying "Could a new microscope tell us where Birmingham is?".

Of course not, because we know already.

[D H]

What does any of this have anything to do with special relativity? Answering that question does not in any way eliminate the burden of proof on you.

Two very good points. The argument in the web page cited in the original post is not so much against special relativity as it is against quantum mechanics.

 

johnny rocket: The author of that web page is a philosopher, and is thus presumably versed in logic. The argument made in that page is logically invalid. Special relativity, as reaper has noted, has nothing per se to do with energy gained from Uranium 235 fission. Even if physicists do discover something wrong with the model of U235 fission, that will not falsify special relativity. Saying that it does is invoking the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.

 

Johnny, If you want to make a valid argument against special relativity you need to attack one of the axioms as invalid or attack the mathematics that underlies one of the steps made from those axioms.

 

The argument made in the cited web page uses several fallacies:

Some scientists

Poisoning the well ...

have concluded that:

• The total mass of the spent fuel is less than the original mass of the Uranium 235 sample.
  
• This small difference in mass had been converted into energy.
  
• This constitutes a proof for the annihilation of matter.
  
• E = mc²

and a straw man. In particular, step 4 is completely invalid. Einstein derived E = mc² in 1905 and preceded the discovery of U235 by 30 years.

[johnny rocket]

As usual, my ridiculously simple question has elicited wildly different responses from so-called science experts. Sadly, I found more consistency from New Ager’s (those not requiring linguistic gymnastics).

 

However...Well Done Swansont, you are the only one who got the correct answer of “True”. E may not equal mc2. At best, it might be only provisionally true. There is no evidence to suggest that it is permanently true. (I hope you don’t lose tenure over this rational position.)

 

The concept of Annihilation is a purely abstract philosophical construct in a universe that might be infinitely divisible in all directions. As such, it has no place in science. If removing this “pillar” causes other unsafe equations, theories and sacred cows to fall, I say let the shoddy edifice come crashing down. Philosophers never issued them building permits on our land in the first place.

 

The answer is "false"...We know where the missing pieces are, so no new microscope can tell us that.

 

Frankly, John Cuthber (Chemistry Expert) you have wandered too far off the reservation into pseudo-omniscience.

 

“It is impossible to transmit speech electrically. The 'telephone' is as mythical as the unicorn.” — Professor Johann Christian Poggendorrf, Germany physicist and chemist

 

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British scientist

 

One would hope by the 21st century that all scientists would be more reflective on pragmatism; that they would be less inclined to cite words like “impossible”, “no new microscope”, etc. when describing the absolute realm. Perhaps the chemistry experts from the 784TH century might dare to differ with you, upon locating some “missing” spent fuel, sextillions of times smaller than a quark. Presently, there is no evidence to rule out this possibility. As such, my advice to you is to stick to your knitting within the practical realm, where chemistry has made a fine contribution to humanity.

 

Be well

[D H]

You sir, are a terrible liar. Swansont did not say "True". He said

All science is inductive. If the right evidence came along, any part of it could be discarded or modified. But that doesn't mean abandoning things that have been confirmed by numerous tests — you need to wait until the contradictory evidence is obtained.

 

The question you presented is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. You are apparently well versed in the use of fallacies. Use of such is not appreciated at this site.

[swansont]

However...Well Done Swansont, you are the only one who got the correct answer of “True”. E may not equal mc2. At best, it might be only provisionally true. There is no evidence to suggest that it is permanently true. (I hope you don’t lose tenure over this rational position.)

 

As D H notes, you misrepresent my position here. There is evidence to suggest it is permanently true. Conservation of energy stems from the time-symmetry of physical laws and constants, and tests of those constants (such as the fine structure constant) shows they can't be changing by more than a tiny amount (i.e. zero with really small error bars)

 

 

 

“It is impossible to transmit speech electrically. The 'telephone' is as mythical as the unicorn.” — Professor Johann Christian Poggendorrf, Germany physicist and chemist

 

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British scientist

 

One would hope by the 21st century that all scientists would be more reflective on pragmatism; that they would be less inclined to cite words like “impossible”, “no new microscope”, etc. when describing the absolute realm. Perhaps the chemistry experts from the 784TH century might dare to differ with you, upon locating some “missing” spent fuel, sextillions of times smaller than a quark. Presently, there is no evidence to rule out this possibility. As such, my advice to you is to stick to your knitting within the practical realm, where chemistry has made a fine contribution to humanity.

 

Be well

 

Fallacious reasoning. "Scientists have made wrong pronouncements in the past, therefore all science is wrong." And argument from incredulity:"no evidence to rule this out" But there's no evidence to suggest it's true. You haven't ruled out invisible pink unicorns, either, but that's no reason to think they exist.

[Reaper]

I should also say this, while 19th century scientists and engineers certainly had debates on what technologies were possible and/or commercially viable, I'm pretty certain that there were no disagreements on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.