The Speed of Light derailment

[sophie]

ex-xian asked Bob K: Also, what is your background in math and physics? I doubt if this has any bearing on asking questions and forming dialogue.

followed by : You'd better have a strong math background (calculus through diff eq's) before you try to tackle this. Also, you better make sure you've had a couple classes in quantum mechanics I find this line of reasoning very immature and debasing. There is an implication that people cannot perform as well as others who have supervised study schedules. An absolute insult to the human intellect.

<edited insult>

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by sophie
I doubt if this has any bearing on asking questions and forming dialogue.
In a dialogue about physics, how could the math and physics background of the participants not have bearing?

followed by : I find this line of reasoning very immature and debasing. There is an implication that people cannot perform as well as others who have supervised study schedules. An absolute insult to the human intellect.
I told someone that if they wanted to study schroedinger and dirac equations. The math that I cited is exactly what they'd need.

ex-xian, can you try to curb this holier than thou attitude brought on by I attend math and physics classes. This is total rubbish.
I'm sorry that you interpreted my comments this way. The fact of the matter is that one cannot grasp these concepts without a formal understanding of math and physics. This is beyond the ability of most people, myself included. If you're able to independently study and understand these topics, more power to you. Most of us can't.

Simple fact is that most relativity debunkers haven't had much math beyond the algebra level.

From The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan
Imagine you seriously want to understand what quantum mechanics is about. There is a mathematical underpinning that you must first aquire, mastery of each mathematical subdiscipline leading you to the threshold of the next. In turn you must learn arithmetic, Euclidean geometry, high school algebra, differntial and integral calculus, ordinary and partial differential equations, vector calculus, certain special functions of mathematical physics, matrix algebra, and group theory. For most physics students, this might occupy them from, say, third grade to early graduate school--roughly 15 years. Such a course of study does not actually involve learning any quantum mechanics, but merely establishing the mathematical framework required to approach it deeply.

[sophie]

ex-xian : In a dialogue about physics, how could the math and physics background of the participants not have bearing? It should have no bearing in a forum like this. Background is personal information people can keep to themselves. This is a blind forum, what is written should be enough to indicate the level of performance relative to scholastic standards, what is even more important is one's ability to debate and refute or accept any claims using good sense. Therefore in a dialogue about physics, the math and physics backgrounds of the participants have no bearing - it only encourages prejudice.

I told someone that if they wanted to study schroedinger and dirac equations. The math that I cited is exactly what they'd need. This may be true if one wishes to follow the derivations and proofs of the equations, but if wanted to obtain comprehension of what the equations entail, there is no real need to mirror the math. In other words if it cannot be expressed in plain English, then it should remain the the bottom drawer in some University or the other until it can be publicly aired.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by sophie
ex-xian : It should have no bearing in a forum like this. Background is personal information people can keep to themselves. This is a blind forum, what is written should be enough to indicate the level of performance relative to scholastic standards, what is even more important is one's ability to debate and refute or accept any claims using good sense. Therefore in a dialogue about physics, the math and physics backgrounds of the participants have no bearing - it only encourages prejudice.
I'm sorry that you see asking for a framework in which to discuss things as prejudice. If I knew that I was talking to someone who knows math I'll phrase things differently than if I am talking with someone w/o the math.

This may be true if one wishes to follow the derivations and proofs of the equations, but if wanted to obtain comprehension of what the equations entail, there is no real need to mirror the math. In other words if it cannot be expressed in plain English, then it should remain the the bottom drawer in some University or the other until it can be publicly aired.
Did you read my quote by Sagan? QM cannot be expressed or understood coherently w/o the math. Not even the top physicists in the field agree about that equations mean in plain English.

[sophie]

Not even the top physicists in the field agree about that equations mean in plain English. They seem pretty plain to me, I read around and found a few well written explainations, one was Dutch, if my memory has not failed me. (no links however). Perhpas you should review the use of the adjective top whenever describing their meagre understanding.

QM cannot be expressed or understood coherently w/o the math.Did you mean to say that QM is currently expressed in symbolic language?

[Roland98]

I'm leaving this closed. If either of you wants to start a afresh on this topic, be my guest.

-Roland98
S&S Moderator