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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #606011 > unrolled thread

Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism?

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

Contents

  Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-04-03 19:32 -0700
    Re: Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-03 19:34 -0700
    Re: Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-04-04 21:50 -0400
      Re: Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-04-04 20:30 -0700
        Re: Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-04-04 20:46 -0700
          Re: Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-04 21:37 -0700
      Re: Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-04-04 21:35 -0700
    Re: Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2023-04-05 15:24 +1000

#606011 — Is there a middle ground between einstenianism and newtonianism?

Just while watching a movie where the cliché "you are with me or against me",
like Bush said after 9/11 regarding the USA stance, I thought that this extreme
demand is applied to the dissemination of einstenian relativity since 1907.

It happens that an apparently irreconcilable abyss between both positions
exist, in particular with strong advocates on each side. And I have to add
Maxwell to the newtonian stance, as a solid complimentary modelling of
the physical reality,

Relativists, mainly the "die hard" kind, are always pushing the limits so that
relativity cover all the basis of the opposite conception of the physical world,
and are proud to claim that newtonian theories are old stuff, being that a
perfect relativistic explanation can be found for any of the huge amount of
specific newtonian theories, which include optics and electromagnetism.


I wonder if there are knowledgeable people with a balanced mind, free of
doctrines or biases, who operate in the middle ground between both 
conceptions.

Do you think that such kind of people exist and can work in academic
position, being tolerated and respected, or the abyss can't be surpassed?

I'm inclined to think that, due to the trend in human nature to perceive black
and white only (which is mentally satisfactory as it simplifies life), very few
scientist (or none) are working on the middle ground: newtonianism from
there up to here, and einstenianism since this point up to the end.

The parameters, for me, are magnitudes of length, time duration and gravity.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#606012

On Monday, April 3, 2023 at 7:32:42 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Just while watching a movie where the cliché "you are with me or against me", 
> like Bush said after 9/11 regarding the USA stance, I thought that this extreme 
> demand is applied to the dissemination of einstenian relativity since 1907. 

Nonsense. A sick mind's fantasy.

--
Jan

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

#606092

On 4/3/2023 10:32 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Just while watching a movie where the cliché "you are with me or against me",
> like Bush said after 9/11 regarding the USA stance, I thought that this extreme
> demand is applied to the dissemination of einstenian relativity since 1907.
> 
> It happens that an apparently irreconcilable abyss between both positions
> exist, in particular with strong advocates on each side.

Don't be stupid. There is no "us vs. them" war, no "irreconcilable 
abyss" or anything like that, except in the minds of many cranks.
Newtonian mechanics, SR and GR are all *models* of how the universe 
behaves. Normally when a better model comes along, the old one gets 
discarded, and only the new remains. Thus SR replaces Newtonian 
mechanics and GR replaces SR. However, due to the fact that at 
non-relativistic speeds, Newtonian mechanics predicts nearly the exact 
same thing as SR, and its math is so much simpler than SR and especially 
GR, it remains as a very accurate approximation of SR and GR for low 
speeds and weak gravity as a force we encounter. Real scientists and 
engineers know when they can use the simpler approximation of Newtonian 
mechanics and when they must use SR or GR, and don't care about cranks' 
OCD or Einstein himself.

> And I have to add
> Maxwell to the newtonian stance, as a solid complimentary modelling of
> the physical reality,

Actually no. It was a big puzzle for physicists how mechanical 
interactions obeyed Newtonian mechanics but Maxwell's electromagnetism 
did not obey Newtonian mechanics. Maxwell didn't live long enough to 
work on an answer, it wasn't until Einstein that showed that mechanics 
didn't follow Newton's laws after all.

> I wonder if there are knowledgeable people with a balanced mind, free of
> doctrines or biases, who operate in the middle ground between both
> conceptions.

There is no conflict except in the mind of cranks. There is no "middle 
ground" needed, just that GR is the best theory so far, but SR and 
Newtonian mechanics are perfectly fine as approximations in a limited range.

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

#606104

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:50:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 4/3/2023 10:32 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > Just while watching a movie where the cliché "you are with me or against me", 
> > like Bush said after 9/11 regarding the USA stance, I thought that this extreme 
> > demand is applied to the dissemination of einstenian relativity since 1907. 
> > 
> > It happens that an apparently irreconcilable abyss between both positions 
> > exist, in particular with strong advocates on each side.
> Don't be stupid. There is no "us vs. them" war, no "irreconcilable 
> abyss" or anything like that, except in the minds of many cranks. 
> Newtonian mechanics, SR and GR are all *models* of how the universe 
> behaves. Normally when a better model comes along, the old one gets 
> discarded, and only the new remains. Thus SR replaces Newtonian 
> mechanics and GR replaces SR. However, due to the fact that at 
> non-relativistic speeds, Newtonian mechanics predicts nearly the exact 
> same thing as SR, and its math is so much simpler than SR and especially 
> GR, it remains as a very accurate approximation of SR and GR for low 
> speeds and weak gravity as a force we encounter. Real scientists and 
> engineers know when they can use the simpler approximation of Newtonian 
> mechanics and when they must use SR or GR, and don't care about cranks' 
> OCD or Einstein himself.
> > And I have to add 
> > Maxwell to the newtonian stance, as a solid complimentary modelling of 
> > the physical reality,
> Actually no. It was a big puzzle for physicists how mechanical 
> interactions obeyed Newtonian mechanics but Maxwell's electromagnetism 
> did not obey Newtonian mechanics. Maxwell didn't live long enough to 
> work on an answer, it wasn't until Einstein that showed that mechanics 
> didn't follow Newton's laws after all.
> > I wonder if there are knowledgeable people with a balanced mind, free of 
> > doctrines or biases, who operate in the middle ground between both 
> > conceptions.
> There is no conflict except in the mind of cranks. There is no "middle 
> ground" needed, just that GR is the best theory so far, but SR and 
> Newtonian mechanics are perfectly fine as approximations in a limited range.


I clearly wrote, finishing the OP, that the parameters to define boundaries for such "middle ground" are 
magnitudes of length, time duration and gravity.

Relativity didn't replace anything. It's just a parallel theory that some assholes follow and even practice as a religion.

Anything between lengths between 10E-10 m and 10E+14 m is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell.
Anything between time durations between 10E-15 sec and 10E+11 sec is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell.
Anything between speeds between 0 m/sec and 10E+05 m/sec is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell.
Anything between accelerations between 0 g and 10E+04 g is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell.

These lower/upper limits are perfect frontiers to define the "middle ground" between OBSERVABLE PHYSICAL REALITY
and relativity, either SR or GR. Also define frontiers with quantum physics and cosmology.

Do I have to remark that relativity fail miserably at the above cited fields?

So, if relativists accept the above expressed "middle grounds" and limits, maybe one scientist could be newtonian/maxwellian
and, at the same time, have fun being unrealistic relativist.

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

#606105

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:50:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: 
> > On 4/3/2023 10:32 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > Just while watching a movie where the cliché "you are with me or against me", 
> > > like Bush said after 9/11 regarding the USA stance, I thought that this extreme 
> > > demand is applied to the dissemination of einstenian relativity since 1907. 
> > > 
> > > It happens that an apparently irreconcilable abyss between both positions 
> > > exist, in particular with strong advocates on each side. 
> > Don't be stupid. There is no "us vs. them" war, no "irreconcilable 
> > abyss" or anything like that, except in the minds of many cranks. 
> > Newtonian mechanics, SR and GR are all *models* of how the universe 
> > behaves. Normally when a better model comes along, the old one gets 
> > discarded, and only the new remains. Thus SR replaces Newtonian 
> > mechanics and GR replaces SR. However, due to the fact that at 
> > non-relativistic speeds, Newtonian mechanics predicts nearly the exact 
> > same thing as SR, and its math is so much simpler than SR and especially 
> > GR, it remains as a very accurate approximation of SR and GR for low 
> > speeds and weak gravity as a force we encounter. Real scientists and 
> > engineers know when they can use the simpler approximation of Newtonian 
> > mechanics and when they must use SR or GR, and don't care about cranks' 
> > OCD or Einstein himself. 
> > > And I have to add 
> > > Maxwell to the newtonian stance, as a solid complimentary modelling of 
> > > the physical reality, 
> > Actually no. It was a big puzzle for physicists how mechanical 
> > interactions obeyed Newtonian mechanics but Maxwell's electromagnetism 
> > did not obey Newtonian mechanics. Maxwell didn't live long enough to 
> > work on an answer, it wasn't until Einstein that showed that mechanics 
> > didn't follow Newton's laws after all. 
> > > I wonder if there are knowledgeable people with a balanced mind, free of 
> > > doctrines or biases, who operate in the middle ground between both 
> > > conceptions. 
> > There is no conflict except in the mind of cranks. There is no "middle 
> > ground" needed, just that GR is the best theory so far, but SR and 
> > Newtonian mechanics are perfectly fine as approximations in a limited range.
> I clearly wrote, finishing the OP, that the parameters to define boundaries for such "middle ground" are
> magnitudes of length, time duration and gravity.
> Relativity didn't replace anything. It's just a parallel theory that some assholes follow and even practice as a religion. 
> 
> Anything between lengths between 10E-10 m and 10E+14 m is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell. 
> Anything between time durations between 10E-15 sec and 10E+11 sec is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell. 
> Anything between speeds between 0 m/sec and 10E+05 m/sec is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell. 
> Anything between accelerations between 0 g and 10E+04 g is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell. 
> 
> These lower/upper limits are perfect frontiers to define the "middle ground" between OBSERVABLE PHYSICAL REALITY 
> and relativity, either SR or GR. Also define frontiers with quantum physics and cosmology. 
> 
> Do I have to remark that relativity fail miserably at the above cited fields? 
> 
> So, if relativists accept the above expressed "middle grounds" and limits, maybe one scientist could be newtonian/maxwellian 
> and, at the same time, have fun being unrealistic relativist.

Incidentally, the word "relativist" is used only by ignorant amateurs. It 
apparently makes them feel good, it's a part of their standard strategy of
trying, hopelessly, to belittle their opponents by invoking magic words,
like "relativist". The idea to even try to fight on merit does not even occur to
them.

--
Jan

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

#606113

On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 05:46:18 UTC+2, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:50:35 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote: 
> > > On 4/3/2023 10:32 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > Just while watching a movie where the cliché "you are with me or against me", 
> > > > like Bush said after 9/11 regarding the USA stance, I thought that this extreme 
> > > > demand is applied to the dissemination of einstenian relativity since 1907. 
> > > > 
> > > > It happens that an apparently irreconcilable abyss between both positions 
> > > > exist, in particular with strong advocates on each side. 
> > > Don't be stupid. There is no "us vs. them" war, no "irreconcilable 
> > > abyss" or anything like that, except in the minds of many cranks. 
> > > Newtonian mechanics, SR and GR are all *models* of how the universe 
> > > behaves. Normally when a better model comes along, the old one gets 
> > > discarded, and only the new remains. Thus SR replaces Newtonian 
> > > mechanics and GR replaces SR. However, due to the fact that at 
> > > non-relativistic speeds, Newtonian mechanics predicts nearly the exact 
> > > same thing as SR, and its math is so much simpler than SR and especially 
> > > GR, it remains as a very accurate approximation of SR and GR for low 
> > > speeds and weak gravity as a force we encounter. Real scientists and 
> > > engineers know when they can use the simpler approximation of Newtonian 
> > > mechanics and when they must use SR or GR, and don't care about cranks' 
> > > OCD or Einstein himself. 
> > > > And I have to add 
> > > > Maxwell to the newtonian stance, as a solid complimentary modelling of 
> > > > the physical reality, 
> > > Actually no. It was a big puzzle for physicists how mechanical 
> > > interactions obeyed Newtonian mechanics but Maxwell's electromagnetism 
> > > did not obey Newtonian mechanics. Maxwell didn't live long enough to 
> > > work on an answer, it wasn't until Einstein that showed that mechanics 
> > > didn't follow Newton's laws after all. 
> > > > I wonder if there are knowledgeable people with a balanced mind, free of 
> > > > doctrines or biases, who operate in the middle ground between both 
> > > > conceptions. 
> > > There is no conflict except in the mind of cranks. There is no "middle 
> > > ground" needed, just that GR is the best theory so far, but SR and 
> > > Newtonian mechanics are perfectly fine as approximations in a limited range. 
> > I clearly wrote, finishing the OP, that the parameters to define boundaries for such "middle ground" are 
> > magnitudes of length, time duration and gravity. 
> > Relativity didn't replace anything. It's just a parallel theory that some assholes follow and even practice as a religion. 
> > 
> > Anything between lengths between 10E-10 m and 10E+14 m is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell. 
> > Anything between time durations between 10E-15 sec and 10E+11 sec is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell. 
> > Anything between speeds between 0 m/sec and 10E+05 m/sec is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell. 
> > Anything between accelerations between 0 g and 10E+04 g is perfectly modelled under Newton/Maxwell. 
> > 
> > These lower/upper limits are perfect frontiers to define the "middle ground" between OBSERVABLE PHYSICAL REALITY 
> > and relativity, either SR or GR. Also define frontiers with quantum physics and cosmology. 
> > 
> > Do I have to remark that relativity fail miserably at the above cited fields? 
> > 
> > So, if relativists accept the above expressed "middle grounds" and limits, maybe one scientist could be newtonian/maxwellian 
> > and, at the same time, have fun being unrealistic relativist.
> Incidentally, the word "relativist" is used only by ignorant amateurs. It 
> apparently makes them feel good, it's a part of their standard strategy of 
> trying, hopelessly, to belittle their opponents by invoking magic words, 
> like "relativist". The idea to even try to fight on merit does not even occur to 
> them. 

On the other hand, the word "crank" is used only by ignorant amateurs. It 
apparently makes them feel good, it's a part of their standard strategy of 
trying, hopelessly, to belittle their opponents by invoking magic words, 
like "crank". The idea to even try to fight on merit does not even occur to 
them. 

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

#606112

On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 03:50:35 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 4/3/2023 10:32 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > Just while watching a movie where the cliché "you are with me or against me", 
> > like Bush said after 9/11 regarding the USA stance, I thought that this extreme 
> > demand is applied to the dissemination of einstenian relativity since 1907. 
> > 
> > It happens that an apparently irreconcilable abyss between both positions 
> > exist, in particular with strong advocates on each side.
> Don't be stupid. There is no "us vs. them" war, no "irreconcilable 

And do you still believe that  9 192 631 770  ISO idiocy
is some "Newton mode"? You're such an amazing idiot, 
stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
moronic religion.

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

#606119

Yes. It occurs at a zero relative velocity.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web