Arising_uk wrote:Paranoia?
Who told you I was paranoid?!
I know...I was just having fun.Arising_uk wrote:I was not trying to exclude anyone, nor would I be a position to do so.
So what else does Einstein say? Let's move forward...shall we?
Arising_uk wrote:Paranoia?
I know...I was just having fun.Arising_uk wrote:I was not trying to exclude anyone, nor would I be a position to do so.
Richard, I’m afraid I can’t figure out what it is you are trying to point out here. Certainly Einstein isn’t saying anything about ‘ought’ but then again I don’t think I am either???Richard Baron wrote:That sentence starts "We are accustomed further to regard three points ...". He seems to be talking about how we casually think, not about how we ought to think.
Depends if you allow the "line interval" to flex. As I guess you are saying that the 'perfect plain' could be uneven, so if we take a 'rigid body' as 'distance' and rotate it, it'd not 'fit' the 'perfect plain'? But, I guess, we could allow for 'flex' in the 'rigid body' that still would keep Einsteins idea of a 'line interval' that does not change during rotation?S G R wrote:Einstein’s proposal to consider two points on a rigid body has always appeared flawed to me. First he says three points are on a straight line if one can superimpose them from some position by looking at them through one eye, then he talks about ‘line interval’ upon a rigid body. Unless the rigid body is a perfect plain he is talking about two different examples.
In my opinion about the best book written by a physicist about what he does for the layman who is interested in such things.On order.
I think its that we can say the situation is more complicated AS. That is, we may need more 'names' and hence axioms or that one or more of the axioms do not accuratly 'name' reality as we understand it or some such. Because axioms are 'true' by definition. You can disagree with the grounds for them but you can't argue the logic of the propositions produced by them.artisticsolution wrote:So what I got from this part was that if an axiom is not true in all situations, then we can say that logic itself is more complex.
So I think we agree but your words sound odd, as Logic does not describe a reality but all reality, what describes our reality is the contingent propositions, as we know all the necessary and contradictory ones.="SGR"]I don’t think so – the logic is just the logic, if it doesn’t hold true it is failing to describe reality. It is not necessarily the case that it needs to be more complex it is just the case that it is an inappropriate description.
It means to me that to make geometry true in a sense we can understand on any scale, we first have to agree with Einsteins proposition that there is such a thing as a 'line-interval' that does not alter with rotation, is my thought?artisticsolution wrote:Does that mean that geometry is untrue or that is is only true on a very small scale because we (humans on Earth) only exist on a tiny dot compared to the universe and if we could see the big picture we could then see the movement?
My apologies AS, as my words were not math but logic from academic philosophy.artisticsolution wrote:Okay...this is going to be a huge barrier for me. It has been all my life because I don't understand the basic reasons for math. ...
What you are doing is what most Engineers do with respect to Mathematics. Although they do think that its purpose is to help them solve their problems... Most maths I am only able to understand become someone shows me how to work the problem and I memorize it...I have no idea how it actually works or what it's purpose in life is.
Which he says is because we forget that Geometry is like Logic, i.e. about the relationship between its ideas or axioms, and that, Geometry came from 'habits of thought' and the need to solve real world problems.So to me, Einstein was making sense in the first 3 paragraphs of part 1 (sorry it wont allow me to cut and paste.) He uses words like "truth" in quotation marks to show truth is relative. And there is a nifty little sentence that goes, "It is not difficult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel constrained to call the propositions of geometry "true."
Maybe I can help here. I agree that your thought is a naturally philosophical one. But the idea of Logic is not to tell you whats 'true' or 'false' with respect to the world, but what, if you think the axioms are 'true', what you can then truly say just using those ideas.Also, I looked up axioms on Wikipedia. They had this to say,
"In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths."'
What I am suggesting is that literally "truth" is taken for granted and might not be true at all! For example, who says time is infinite? Just because we take time for granted since it has been around longer than we have is no reason to believe our 'feelings' about time are true.
Look at your words, my guess is they are the result of Einsteins thoughts about things and your experience as an artist.Line interval? I can't see how line intervals could remain the same with different people viewing them from points in the universe, at different speeds and then add light to the equation. Light bends right? See...I am at an unfair advantage because I don't know how things work...lol.
The sky being 'blue' is the result of 'light' scattering-off dust particles, molecules and at bottom, photons and electrons. If you wish a great read about this, try "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter; R.P.Feynman".What makes the sky blue? I am damned and determined to keep up though...so I will continue to ask stupid questions...all of you please answer me when you can...even if you think it's just a given...and it would help if you talk baby talk...lol...I will not be offended.
I've been thinking about your suggestion that if we "moved the distance" but "not moved the distance in respect to its endpoints would be the same no matter where we put it."artisticsolution wrote: A:I think his idea of a 'line-interval' is this, if you and I look and place two objects a 'distance' apart, the 'distance' itself, if moved but not moved with respect to its endpoints would be the same wherever we put it. That sound right?
AS: do you mean that if we put 2 object on a line they would look like they were in different positions relative to where we were standing but that they would actually be in the same place?