Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
We Don't Need To Treat SR As An Approximation

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on November 29, 2002 05:41:01 UTC

However, that doesn't mean that we need to defend it as absolute truth either. If there are philosophical problems, we can deal with them by denying the problem, offering differing interpretations (i.e., versus the standard formulations), new physics, or simply leave the questions unanswered and continue to on. I think the last option is more preferred than the latter choice - that is, when we are sweeping dirt under the carpet.

All and all, I don't see any major differences in our view. I think we are more or less quibly about this specific philosophical problem introduced by Barrett. I prefer to just accept this connundrum as evidence that SR is an approximation, whereas I gather that you think this thought experiment should just be ingored as philosophical fluff.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins