Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #580720 > unrolled thread

Epistemology

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Epistemology The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-21 23:48 -0700
    Re: Epistemology Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 00:27 -0700
    Re: Epistemology The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-22 01:23 -0700
      Re: Epistemology Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 07:18 -0700
        Re: Epistemology The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-22 11:43 -0700
        Re: Epistemology Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 09:10 +0100
    Re: Epistemology Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-22 10:47 +0100
      Re: Epistemology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 14:51 +0000
        Re: Epistemology patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-22 08:56 -0700
          Re: Epistemology Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 16:18 +0000
        Re: Epistemology Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 01:54 -0700
      Re: Epistemology patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-22 08:51 -0700
        Re: Epistemology Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-03-23 08:44 +0100

#580720 — Epistemology

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's
relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of
knowledge? 

Is that another word for the theory of relativity?



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#580721

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 3:48:22 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's 
> relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of 
> knowledge? 
> 
> Is that another word for the theory of relativity? 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, 
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
> and challenge 
> the unchallengeable.

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge and deals with how knowledge is gathered and from which sources. 
Any researcher is influenced by its view of the world and of knowledge, which strongly influences the way the researcher
interpretates data. 
Because of these fundamentals, the researcher's philosophical standpoint should be made clear from the beginning.

The cretin failed on every single point of the above, because he was a miserable plagiarist and deceiver who hide his intention
to became famous by challenging the entire body of knowledge of physics through his deviated concepts of what is TIME and
what is DISTANCE/LENGTH. He saw an opportunity on Lorentz's 1904 paper on relativity, AND UNDER STRICT SUPERVISION,
co-wrote the 1905 paper by doing what many others claimed in that epoch: get rid of ether (the young generation of imbeciles).
His handler was called Willy Wien, and his enabler was called Paul Drude (who was Wien's puppet at Analen der Physik). Wien
main objectives were: 1) get even with Planck (this was the drive for the first paper in 1905); 2) Erase the influence of French
physics (Poincaré) through Lorentz, because Wien was a German patriot who, as many, hated French nationals. Planck joined
the team 1 year later, after being left behind by Wien on the field. Both colluded to manage the Annalen for the next 22 years (1928).

Relativity is void of epistemology, because it was just a countermeasure to Poincaré support to Lorentz.

The gaps were filled by the receptors themselves (young german physicists) in the next years, as they were looking for a new field
at wich they could prosper and be "trendy", along with other movements that wanted to break up with victorian physics (as in musics,
arts, philosophy, literature,  sex, LGTBQ, communism, etc.). The degeneracy of thought and moral was born in the first years of XX 
century and caused, among other things, two war worlds.

Relativity is based on Ontology, not on Epistemology. For this, it poses no real value STILL. 

And this is because relativity RELIES ON PERCEPTION of things BY HUMANS. It's metaphysics, not a true science.

Everything is a human perception in relativity, so IT'S SUBJECTIVE instead of being OBJECTIVE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580724

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's
> relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of
> knowledge?
> 
> Is that another word for the theory of relativity?


"When I think of the most able students I have encountered in my teaching - 
I mean those who have distinguished themselves not only by skill but by independence of thought - then 
I must confess that all have had a lively interest in epistemology."

"Albert Einstein insists that his epistemology made his discovery of relativity possible." 





> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>  to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
>  the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580735

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:22:51 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:

 <snip>

> "When I think of the most able students I have encountered in my teaching - 
> I mean those who have distinguished themselves not only by skill but by independence of thought - then 
> I must confess that all have had a lively interest in epistemology." 
> 
> "Albert Einstein insists that his epistemology made his discovery of relativity possible."

He was an inept even as a teacher. He was kicked out of his first real teaching position at Vienna in 1912, where he
lasted 15 months. The previous one, since 1909, was a complete disaster even when he had THREE students and all
the support of the FUCKING CABAL!

And as  for epistemology, he didn't give a flying fuck for it. His 1905 papers on SR proof it, as he only mentioned Maxwell
as a source. And THAT is not an epistemological reference.

The cretin was the king of deceivers, thefts, plagiarists, backstabbers, misogynists, communists and sexual degenerates.
He corrupted physics forever, thanks to his chosenite support from cabal.

He, actually, is an illusion. Never existed as a person, but as a zionist symbol. 

But he HAD TO PAY BACK DEARLY for that support, that portrayed the asshole as the "Newton of XX century".

Give me a break! He was a fucking collective corporation of NWO thought!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580758

Richard Hertz wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:22:51 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>  <snip>
> 
> > "When I think of the most able students I have encountered in my teaching -
> > I mean those who have distinguished themselves not only by skill but by independence of thought - then
> > I must confess that all have had a lively interest in epistemology."
> >
> > "Albert Einstein insists that his epistemology made his discovery of relativity possible."
> 
> He was an inept even as a teacher. He was kicked out of his first real teaching position at Vienna in 1912, where he
> lasted 15 months. The previous one, since 1909, was a complete disaster even when he had THREE students and all
> the support of the FUCKING CABAL!
> 
> And as  for epistemology, he didn't give a flying fuck for it. His 1905 papers on SR proof it, as he only mentioned Maxwell
> as a source. And THAT is not an epistemological reference.
> 
> The cretin was the king of deceivers, thefts, plagiarists, backstabbers, misogynists, communists and sexual degenerates.
> He corrupted physics forever, thanks to his chosenite support from cabal.
> 
> He, actually, is an illusion. Never existed as a person, but as a zionist symbol.
> 
> But he HAD TO PAY BACK DEARLY for that support, that portrayed the asshole as the "Newton of XX century".
> 
> Give me a break! He was a fucking collective corporation of NWO thought!

He was only trying to understand the mind of God...His thoughts..not the details.

Even the day he died there is a new Philosophy book on his desk..
https://static.life.com/wp-content/uploads/migrated/2014/10/the-day-einstein-died-02.jpg

(of course he also kept an interest in all things atomic bombs as one can see on his book shelf behind him)
(he wants to read what people are saying about him...you'll never guess who the author is)
(clue...a woman????)
A WOMAN WRITING ABOUT ATOMIC BOMBS?? WHO THE FUCK DOSE SHE THINK SHE IS???
Once you know her name then you say..."Oh, yeah, she knows everything!"
[WHISPER]she's Jewish.
oye vey!





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580800

Am 22.03.2022 um 15:18 schrieb Richard Hertz:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:22:51 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>   <snip>
>
>> "When I think of the most able students I have encountered in my teaching -
>> I mean those who have distinguished themselves not only by skill but by independence of thought - then
>> I must confess that all have had a lively interest in epistemology."
>>
>> "Albert Einstein insists that his epistemology made his discovery of relativity possible."
>
> He was an inept even as a teacher. He was kicked out of his first real teaching position at Vienna in 1912, where he
> lasted 15 months. The previous one, since 1909, was a complete disaster even when he had THREE students and all
> the support of the FUCKING CABAL!
>
> And as  for epistemology, he didn't give a flying fuck for it. His 1905 papers on SR proof it, as he only mentioned Maxwell
> as a source. And THAT is not an epistemological reference.
>
> The cretin was the king of deceivers, thefts, plagiarists, backstabbers, misogynists, communists and sexual degenerates.
> He corrupted physics forever, thanks to his chosenite support from cabal.

After analysing Einstein's paper for some time, I came to the 
conclusion, that it contains simply too many errors.

The number is actually so large, that it would be hard to put that many 
in a paper, if you try that intentionally.

These errors fall into different categories, but are mainly something I 
would call 'bad habits' rather then physical errors.

The theory itself is roughly correct, but not derived properly.

So, what was actually wrong with that paper?

There are several categories:

formal errors
wrong methods
inconsitency
intellectual theft
weak language
'mathematism'
materialism
hostility to the reader

Among the formal errors I would count the actual form of the text, the 
missing quotes, the lack of footnotes, the used symbols, the missing 
equation numbers, the wrong numbers of the chapters, the missing 
definition of variables, the lack of illustrations, the lack of any kind 
of calculation with real values, the inconsistent use of typographical 
attributes.

'Wrong methods' would include things like how a conclusion was drawn for 
a certain input and how this was generalised.

'Inconsistency' means, that the same concept or definition or meaning of 
symbols was not maintained throughout the entire text.
E.g. the meaning of the term 'electron' changed or energy was symbolized 
by 'E' and by 'W'.

Plagiarism or intellectual theft is difficult to prove, but I found 
equations which were seemingly 'inspired' by Poincare (but no reference 
provided).

Linguistic weakness of is more visible in the German version. But that 
version is actually worse then the English and has a relatively low 
level in terms of language as an art.

'Mathematism' is kind of desease and means the habbit, to 'prove' how 
nature should behave by mathematical methods, but without experimental 
confirmation.

Einsteins text is actually extremely materialistic, because almost 
everything is a material object in his view, like points, electricity or 
coordinate systems.

'Hostility to the reader' was my impression, because Einstein made very 
little attempts to clearify his arguments. In most cases he simply 
requirred, that the reader would know anyhow, what he had in mind.


In total I would call it a very bad paper, which is not entirely 
incorrect. But the style and methods were mainly wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580728

Am 22.03.2022 um 07:48 schrieb The Starmaker:
> Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's
> relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of
> knowledge?
>
> Is that another word for the theory of relativity?
>
Mind and reality are not the same thing.

If we observe the world from our own point of view and with our own 
eyes, we are actually receiving an image, which we usually take for 
reality itself.

But it is actually wrong to call our mental image 'real', because a 
picture is only a certain subset from what can possibly be seen.

The 'real thing' is not necessarily visible, hence real things are often 
regarded as imaginary.

Now we could talk about our mental images or about the real world, but 
have to do that seperately.

These images are based on light, because that is actually what we see.

Since light moves with finite velocity, the images change if we would move.

Now the theory covering the change of images is called 'relativity theory'.

This theory is therefore about the changes which occur in the mental 
images in connection to relative movement.

The movement itself is actually real, hence not a subject to such 
changes, hence not covered by relativity theory in its current form, 
because that is based on light and observers.

Relative motion is actually real and possible, hence its other effects 
(rather than distortion of images) should be discussed, if there are any.

But most likely there are not too many of such effects.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580737

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 22.03.2022 um 07:48 schrieb The Starmaker:
>> Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's
>> relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of
>> knowledge?
>> 
>> Is that another word for the theory of relativity?
>> 
> Mind and reality are not the same thing.
> 
> If we observe the world from our own point of view and with our own 
> eyes, we are actually receiving an image, which we usually take for 
> reality itself.
> 
> But it is actually wrong to call our mental image 'real', because a 
> picture is only a certain subset from what can possibly be seen.
> 
> The 'real thing' is not necessarily visible, hence real things are often 
> regarded as imaginary.
> 
> Now we could talk about our mental images or about the real world, but 
> have to do that seperately.
> 
> These images are based on light, because that is actually what we see.
> 
> Since light moves with finite velocity, the images change if we would move.
> 
> Now the theory covering the change of images is called 'relativity theory'.
> 
> This theory is therefore about the changes which occur in the mental 
> images in connection to relative movement.
> 
> The movement itself is actually real, hence not a subject to such 
> changes, hence not covered by relativity theory in its current form, 
> because that is based on light and observers.
> 
> Relative motion is actually real and possible, hence its other effects 
> (rather than distortion of images) should be discussed, if there are any.
> 
> But most likely there are not too many of such effects.
> 
> 
> TH
> 
> 
> 

Epistemology has a specific set of insights into science. All knowledge is
on a scale of certainty, with essentially nothing occupying the extremes.
The question is fundamentally what methods are used to move a claim to the
right or left on that scale. Science invokes a method of “dispassionate
consultation of nature” via experiment, where the presumption is that
nature behaves a certain way consistently, regardless of the hypothesis or
the internal bias of the inquirer. Care must be taken not to make the
inquiry less dispassionate and more passionate. 

The fact that the model might or might not actually represent reality is
somewhat immaterial. The only thing that matters is whether the methodology
for validation moves a claim into greater or lesser certainty. It’s the
increment that counts, not any absolute certainty evaluation. 

Why I can tell you for sure is that relativity is NOT about illusions or
false appearances. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580743

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 7:51:36 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: 
> > Am 22.03.2022 um 07:48 schrieb The Starmaker: 
> >> Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's 
> >> relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of 
> >> knowledge? 
> >> 
> >> Is that another word for the theory of relativity? 
> >> 
> > Mind and reality are not the same thing. 
> > 
> > If we observe the world from our own point of view and with our own 
> > eyes, we are actually receiving an image, which we usually take for 
> > reality itself. 
> > 
> > But it is actually wrong to call our mental image 'real', because a 
> > picture is only a certain subset from what can possibly be seen. 
> > 
> > The 'real thing' is not necessarily visible, hence real things are often 
> > regarded as imaginary. 
> > 
> > Now we could talk about our mental images or about the real world, but 
> > have to do that seperately. 
> > 
> > These images are based on light, because that is actually what we see. 
> > 
> > Since light moves with finite velocity, the images change if we would move. 
> > 
> > Now the theory covering the change of images is called 'relativity theory'. 
> > 
> > This theory is therefore about the changes which occur in the mental 
> > images in connection to relative movement. 
> > 
> > The movement itself is actually real, hence not a subject to such 
> > changes, hence not covered by relativity theory in its current form, 
> > because that is based on light and observers. 
> > 
> > Relative motion is actually real and possible, hence its other effects 
> > (rather than distortion of images) should be discussed, if there are any. 
> > 
> > But most likely there are not too many of such effects. 
> > 
> > 
> > TH 
> > 
> > 
> >
> Epistemology has a specific set of insights into science. All knowledge is 
> on a scale of certainty, with essentially nothing occupying the extremes. 
> The question is fundamentally what methods are used to move a claim to the 
> right or left on that scale. Science invokes a method of “dispassionate 
> consultation of nature” via experiment, where the presumption is that 
> nature behaves a certain way consistently, regardless of the hypothesis or 
> the internal bias of the inquirer. Care must be taken not to make the 
> inquiry less dispassionate and more passionate. 
> 
> The fact that the model might or might not actually represent reality is 
> somewhat immaterial. The only thing that matters is whether the methodology 
> for validation moves a claim into greater or lesser certainty. It’s the 
> increment that counts, not any absolute certainty evaluation. 
> 
> Why I can tell you for sure is that relativity is NOT about illusions or 
> false appearances. 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Bodkin, you have been shown repeatedly that relativity leads to physical antinomy; for instance Kepler's third law of planetary motion vs. Einstein's first postulate, or the contradiction of the muon and the lab clock.  And yet your *passion* for relativity blinds you to this state of affairs.  You I have passion too.  My passion is for the excluded middle.  My passion is the only passion worth having.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580746

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 7:51:36 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote: 
>>> Am 22.03.2022 um 07:48 schrieb The Starmaker: 
>>>> Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's 
>>>> relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of 
>>>> knowledge? 
>>>> 
>>>> Is that another word for the theory of relativity? 
>>>> 
>>> Mind and reality are not the same thing. 
>>> 
>>> If we observe the world from our own point of view and with our own 
>>> eyes, we are actually receiving an image, which we usually take for 
>>> reality itself. 
>>> 
>>> But it is actually wrong to call our mental image 'real', because a 
>>> picture is only a certain subset from what can possibly be seen. 
>>> 
>>> The 'real thing' is not necessarily visible, hence real things are often 
>>> regarded as imaginary. 
>>> 
>>> Now we could talk about our mental images or about the real world, but 
>>> have to do that seperately. 
>>> 
>>> These images are based on light, because that is actually what we see. 
>>> 
>>> Since light moves with finite velocity, the images change if we would move. 
>>> 
>>> Now the theory covering the change of images is called 'relativity theory'. 
>>> 
>>> This theory is therefore about the changes which occur in the mental 
>>> images in connection to relative movement. 
>>> 
>>> The movement itself is actually real, hence not a subject to such 
>>> changes, hence not covered by relativity theory in its current form, 
>>> because that is based on light and observers. 
>>> 
>>> Relative motion is actually real and possible, hence its other effects 
>>> (rather than distortion of images) should be discussed, if there are any. 
>>> 
>>> But most likely there are not too many of such effects. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> TH 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> Epistemology has a specific set of insights into science. All knowledge is 
>> on a scale of certainty, with essentially nothing occupying the extremes. 
>> The question is fundamentally what methods are used to move a claim to the 
>> right or left on that scale. Science invokes a method of “dispassionate 
>> consultation of nature” via experiment, where the presumption is that 
>> nature behaves a certain way consistently, regardless of the hypothesis or 
>> the internal bias of the inquirer. Care must be taken not to make the 
>> inquiry less dispassionate and more passionate. 
>> 
>> The fact that the model might or might not actually represent reality is 
>> somewhat immaterial. The only thing that matters is whether the methodology 
>> for validation moves a claim into greater or lesser certainty. It’s the 
>> increment that counts, not any absolute certainty evaluation. 
>> 
>> Why I can tell you for sure is that relativity is NOT about illusions or 
>> false appearances. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> Bodkin, you have been shown repeatedly that relativity leads to physical
> antinomy; for instance Kepler's third law of planetary motion vs.
> Einstein's first postulate, or the contradiction of the muon and the lab clock.  

Don’t be silly. 

Einstein’s first postulate does not say that the laws of mechanics as
understood in 1800 would be frame independent. It says that the RIGHT laws
of mechanics are frame independent. Einstein recognized right away that
Newton’s law of gravity could not be compatible with that postulate, and in
fact this was a key driver for the development of a covariant theory of
gravity (general relativity). Your complaint, “Waah, it breaks Kepler’s
third law!” is unmoving. 

And there is no contradiction between muon and laboratory clocks. You have
consistently shown that you do not know how to use Lorentz transforms, and
incorrectly apply length contraction and time dilation formulas, to the end
result that your complaint is only that it’s confusing to you. To keep you
from backing another expensive car into a tree and blaming the car, you
agreed to work through three or four chapters of a real textbook and then
got stuck halfway through the second section of the first chapter. I don’t
know what you think you demonstrated with such drawn-out fumbling. 


> And yet your *passion* for relativity blinds you to this state of
> affairs.  You I have passion too.  My passion is for the excluded middle.
>  My passion is the only passion worth having.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580803

On Tuesday, 22 March 2022 at 15:51:36 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Epistemology has a specific set of insights into science. All knowledge is 
> on a scale of certainty

And the knowledge of a poor idiot woodworker is the
highest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580741

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 2:47:19 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.03.2022 um 07:48 schrieb The Starmaker: 
> > Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's 
> > relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of 
> > knowledge? 
> > 
> > Is that another word for the theory of relativity? 
> >
> Mind and reality are not the same thing. 
> 
> If we observe the world from our own point of view and with our own 
> eyes, we are actually receiving an image, which we usually take for 
> reality itself. 
> 
> But it is actually wrong to call our mental image 'real', because a 
> picture is only a certain subset from what can possibly be seen. 
> 
> The 'real thing' is not necessarily visible, hence real things are often 
> regarded as imaginary. 
> 
> Now we could talk about our mental images or about the real world, but 
> have to do that seperately. 
> 
> These images are based on light, because that is actually what we see. 
> 
> Since light moves with finite velocity, the images change if we would move. 
> 
> Now the theory covering the change of images is called 'relativity theory'. 
> 
> This theory is therefore about the changes which occur in the mental 
> images in connection to relative movement. 
> 
> The movement itself is actually real, hence not a subject to such 
> changes, hence not covered by relativity theory in its current form, 
> because that is based on light and observers. 
> 
> Relative motion is actually real and possible, hence its other effects 
> (rather than distortion of images) should be discussed, if there are any. 
> 
> But most likely there are not too many of such effects. 
> 
> 
> TH
It is claimed that Bergson played a pivotal role in seeing to it that Einstein was denied the Nobel for Relativity:

https://www.meetup.com/The-Philosophy-Club/events/283106532/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580799

Am 22.03.2022 um 16:51 schrieb patdolan:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 2:47:19 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.03.2022 um 07:48 schrieb The Starmaker:
>>> Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's
>>> relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of
>>> knowledge?
>>>
>>> Is that another word for the theory of relativity?
>>>
>> Mind and reality are not the same thing.
>>
>> If we observe the world from our own point of view and with our own
>> eyes, we are actually receiving an image, which we usually take for
>> reality itself.
>>
>> But it is actually wrong to call our mental image 'real', because a
>> picture is only a certain subset from what can possibly be seen.
>>
>> The 'real thing' is not necessarily visible, hence real things are often
>> regarded as imaginary.
>>
>> Now we could talk about our mental images or about the real world, but
>> have to do that seperately.
>>
>> These images are based on light, because that is actually what we see.
>>
>> Since light moves with finite velocity, the images change if we would move.
>>
>> Now the theory covering the change of images is called 'relativity theory'.
>>
>> This theory is therefore about the changes which occur in the mental
>> images in connection to relative movement.
>>
>> The movement itself is actually real, hence not a subject to such
>> changes, hence not covered by relativity theory in its current form,
>> because that is based on light and observers.
>>
>> Relative motion is actually real and possible, hence its other effects
>> (rather than distortion of images) should be discussed, if there are any.
>>
>> But most likely there are not too many of such effects.
>>
>>
>> TH
> It is claimed that Bergson played a pivotal role in seeing to it that Einstein was denied the Nobel for Relativity:
>
> https://www.meetup.com/The-Philosophy-Club/events/283106532/
>
Never heard of Bergson.

But that is an interesting quote from that page:

" Mathematicians and physicists, Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz 
aligned with Bergson against Einstein. Bergson was cited among the 
greatest thinkers of all time, along with Plato, Descartes, Hume and Kant."

Interesting is actually Poincare, who had ignored Einstein mainly.

anothoer quote

"His understanding of time as duration, at the heart of his thought, was 
considered revolutionary. Duration is what it feels like to experience 
time."

I don't think, that idea is revolutionary, but obvious.

Einstein had the idea of a 'calender like' time, but didn't see, that 
the universe has no calender, which we could eventually read.

Instead time is and always was measured as duration between a certain 
reference point in time and an event.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web