🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 2, 10:18 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 3:51 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 12:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > A rocket with length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source
> > > at the front end emits light with speed c relative to the source. A
> > > receiver at the back end receives the light and measures its speed c'
> > > to be:
>
> > > Premise 1: constant, c'=c.
>
> > > Premise 2: variable, c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of the
> > > light source (at the moment of emission) and the receiver (at the
> > > moment of reception).
>
> > > A light source at the top of a tower of height h emits light with
> > > speed c relative to the source. A receiver on the ground receives the
> > > light.
>
> > > Prediction 1 deduced from Premise 1: The receiver on the ground will
> > > measure the speed of light to be constant, c'=c.
>
> > Not quite right. The receiver on the ground will measure the speed of
> > light to be constant, c'=c, AND the receiver will also measure the
> > gravitational redshift factor to be 1 + gh/c^2. Both of these
> > statements are confirmed by experiment, and both of those statements
> > are consistent with GR as published in 1915.
>
> > Einstein did not formulate the *correct* theory of GR until 1915. Work
> > beyond SR and prior to 1911 contained a number of statements that were
> > later corrected by himself. It is not unusual in science for an author
> > to publish "work in progress" which later gets corrected.
>
> Why don't you learn by rote Master Steve Carlip's explanation:

Because I do not have learn this by rote.

Nor do I fret, like you do, that science does not come out of the box,
fully finished and in final form, from the outset. One of the
beautiful things about science, which you apparently find to be an
abomination and a horror, is that ideas and understanding of how
nature works *develops* with time, and that the language used to
describe new ideas also develops with time and becomes more refined.
And there is much discussion, with differing viewpoints, that goes on
in the course of that development. And this is all a *good* thing, and
is one of the *strengths* of science, rather than the weakness you
perceive it to be.

The fact that Einstein did not have from the outset as clear and as
refined an understanding of general relativity as we do today does not
in the least detract from the fact that he was the originator of the
principle ideas that led to the development. It is not required that
he deliver the idea in fully formed and fully finished fashion for him
to be acknowledged for his contribution. Similarly, Darwin had
absolutely no understanding of DNA or the source of heritable traits,
but he is credited with evolution of those heritable traits
nevertheless, and appropriately so. Similarly, Pasteur had no
understanding of how immune response works, and yet he is credited
with creation of the first vaccine for rabies.

If you expect that ANY scientific development should come fully
finished from the outset, with no further development of the ideas,
then you have no idea how science works. This comes as no surprise,
because there is no evidence that you have had any training or
practice in science to know how it *should* work.