Discussion:
"The Brilliance of Our Teachers"
(too old to reply)
Retteb
2011-01-21 22:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Brilliance of Our Teachers"

A recent newspaper question and answer column raised an interesting
subject. The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there
were two instructors. One of those instructors explained the concepts
clearly and his students did well on standardized tests. The other
instructor's teachings were scattered and his students performed poorly. The
students, however, believed that the second instructor was brilliant and
thought that his explanations are simply over their heads. The query went on
to ask why such a misperception occurred.

The answer given was that both groups were easily misled into believing
that mysterious people are highly intelligent. When those listeners heard
material they didn't grasp, they assumed that the fault was theirs and not
the teachers. And, since the listeners considered themselves fairly
intelligent, it was obvious that the teacher must be brilliant!

Judging from the material posted in these Newsgroups, the effect would
seem to be quite pronounced. It is quite plain that the posters ardently
believe in the validity of what they have been taught. It is also quite
obvious that they are aware, if only sublimely, of the inconsistencies and
contradictions within that teaching. If that were not the case, the subject
matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern physics
would not be so muddled, and the postings would not suggest such a high
level of misunderstanding.

The truth of the matter is that the subjects, relativity in particular,
seem mysterious and contradictory for one basic reason. The teachers of the
subject do not themselves understand it. Because they don't understand the
subject they hide behind sophisticated, often unnecessary and sometimes self
contradictory mathematical explanations to prevent that lack of
understanding from being apparent. In order to achieve this goal they have
made Physics into the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered. This
is illustrated by a quotation from Dr. Hawking who exclaimed, in an
interview, that he was only interested in mathematics and observation and in
the correlation of the two approaches. He didn't care about "reality" (for
which we may read mechanism) because he didn't know what reality was. This
is unfortunate because the present practice of ignoring mechanism, and
overlooking the fact that nothing is known until observation, mathematics
and understanding of mechanism are in agreement. Without such an agreement
an understanding of the process(es) involved is not assured. It is only when
all three requirements have been met that we can have any hope of knowing
"who is doing what to whom".

Even more important, without including mechanism in our understanding
matrix, we eliminate a vital check on validity. The mathematics of many
processes extends to regions which are physically unrealizable. Without
considering mechanism the emptiness of these regions will not be recognized.
An example of the effect is the idea that "virtual photons" can explain
forces which act at a distance. "Virtual photons" can easily explain
repulsive forces acting between
material particles, but they can not be used to explain attractive forces.
The same is true of "gravitons". They cannot produce the attractive force of
gravity! "Virtual particles" can only produce repulsive forces. An
understanding "mechanism" reveals this deficiency quite clearly.

To put the relativity concepts into perspective, the current orthodoxy
accepts the validity of the idea that there are no absolutes. Length is what
yardsticks measure and time is what clocks measure. What is conveniently
overlooked is that the forces existing between the atoms in a yardstick and
the hairspring of a clock escapement (or their conceptual equivalents in
actual test equipment) must be electromagnetic in nature. Not only is
electromagnetism the only known candidate for these forces, the need for
them follows if the questionable idea of modern physics that interatomic
forces are produced by the exchange of "virtual photons" is not to collapse
instantaneously. In addition, the speed of a clock is affected by the mass
of its balance wheel (or equivalent) as given by M=E/C^2 and the stiffness
of the forces between the nuclei of the "hairspring" (or equivalent). Since
all of the preceding are functions of the velocity of light in the local
reference frame, it is rather foolish to make the assertion that length is
what yardsticks measure and time is what clocks measure without taking into
account the effect that possible changes in the actual velocity of light
might have on them. Such changes may be concealed by relativistically
induced changes in the atomic spacings, stiffnesses and inertial masses of
our instruments When one does take these considerations into account, the
Principle of Relativity and the invariance of the local velocity of light
follow at once for the simple reason that matter must be using the local "en
vacuo" velocity of light to control its parameters. A physicist who does not
recognize this instinctively is clearly in the wrong line of work. (I
understand Wal-Mart is hiring.). One does not need to resort to the
sophisticated and to a large degree defective teachings of an arrogant
intellectual elite Once the basics are recognized, the understanding of the
process involved do not require advanced mathematics, they are within the
capabilities of a bright high school physics student.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- ***@verizon.net. If you wish a reply, be sure that
your mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
Albert van der Horst
2011-01-22 15:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Retteb
"The Brilliance of Our Teachers"
A recent newspaper question and answer column raised an interesting
subject. The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there
were two instructors. One of those instructors explained the concepts
clearly and his students did well on standardized tests. The other
instructor's teachings were scattered and his students performed poorly. The
students, however, believed that the second instructor was brilliant and
thought that his explanations are simply over their heads. The query went on
to ask why such a misperception occurred.
The answer given was that both groups were easily misled into believing
that mysterious people are highly intelligent. When those listeners heard
material they didn't grasp, they assumed that the fault was theirs and not
the teachers. And, since the listeners considered themselves fairly
intelligent, it was obvious that the teacher must be brilliant!
Judging from the material posted in these Newsgroups, the effect would
seem to be quite pronounced. It is quite plain that the posters ardently
believe in the validity of what they have been taught. It is also quite
obvious that they are aware, if only sublimely, of the inconsistencies and
contradictions within that teaching. If that were not the case, the subject
matter would be straightforward by now, the understanding of modern physics
would not be so muddled, and the postings would not suggest such a high
level of misunderstanding.
The truth of the matter is that the subjects, relativity in particular,
seem mysterious and contradictory for one basic reason. The teachers of the
subject do not themselves understand it. Because they don't understand the
subject they hide behind sophisticated, often unnecessary and sometimes self
contradictory mathematical explanations to prevent that lack of
understanding from being apparent. In order to achieve this goal they have
made Physics into the only Science where MECHANISM is not considered. This
is illustrated by a quotation from Dr. Hawking who exclaimed, in an
interview, that he was only interested in mathematics and observation and in
the correlation of the two approaches. He didn't care about "reality" (for
which we may read mechanism) because he didn't know what reality was. This
is unfortunate because the present practice of ignoring mechanism, and
overlooking the fact that nothing is known until observation, mathematics
and understanding of mechanism are in agreement. Without such an agreement
an understanding of the process(es) involved is not assured. It is only when
all three requirements have been met that we can have any hope of knowing
"who is doing what to whom".
Even more important, without including mechanism in our understanding
matrix, we eliminate a vital check on validity. The mathematics of many
processes extends to regions which are physically unrealizable. Without
considering mechanism the emptiness of these regions will not be recognized.
An example of the effect is the idea that "virtual photons" can explain
forces which act at a distance. "Virtual photons" can easily explain
repulsive forces acting between
material particles, but they can not be used to explain attractive forces.
The same is true of "gravitons". They cannot produce the attractive force of
gravity! "Virtual particles" can only produce repulsive forces. An
understanding "mechanism" reveals this deficiency quite clearly.
To put the relativity concepts into perspective, the current orthodoxy
accepts the validity of the idea that there are no absolutes. Length is what
yardsticks measure and time is what clocks measure. What is conveniently
overlooked is that the forces existing between the atoms in a yardstick and
the hairspring of a clock escapement (or their conceptual equivalents in
actual test equipment) must be electromagnetic in nature. Not only is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No it is isn't. It was one of the conundrums of the late 19the century
how matter could be stable. They were perfectly able to calculate
what happened if the world consisted of charged particles, moving.
The poster child of this problem was the stability of the hydrogen
atom.
The Pauli principle and quantum mechanics came to the rescue.

<SKIP>

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
***@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
Loading...