Comments on: Please check out this guys blog http://profmattstrassler.com

By: John Ryskamp

John Ryskamp — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:30:12 +0000

Well, I think identifying the constructivist intervention in the relativity of simultaneity was a biggie. Identifying it in Godel will be a smallie. Identifying it in the Pythagorean theorem will be an even bigger biggie.

By: jetsrock

jetsrock — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:18:13 +0000

I think if this is true the only way you can advance it is to chip at the stone exposing one crack at a time. No hammer is big enough to break this down with just one hit.

By: John Ryskamp

John Ryskamp — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:14:40 +0000

Wait til you actually read some of the writings of these constructivist freaks. Nauseating! You won’t believe this is the basis for twentieth-century science. But it is! Ha ha! Wait til you unpack Godel and find out what a dog he is!

By: jetsrock

jetsrock — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:45:54 +0000

Thanks that is very interesting.

By: John Ryskamp

John Ryskamp — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:26:29 +0000

There probably isn’t any mathematics, as it is currently known.

By: John Ryskamp

John Ryskamp — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:25:02 +0000

Try this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

By: jetsrock

jetsrock — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:21:39 +0000

Very interesting article http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/06/28/scientists-theyre-just-like-us/

So not only do they not like the math they rely on they might not even read all the words.

By: jetsrock

jetsrock — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:41:53 +0000

Hi John,
Also form wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(learning_theory)
Constructivism can be described as a theory that deals with the way people create meaning of the world through a series of individual constructs. Constructs are the different types of filters we choose to place over our realities to change our reality from chaos to order. Von Glasersfeld describes constructivism as, “a theory of knowledge with roots in philosophy, psychology, and cybernetics” (p 162).[1] Simply stated, it is a learning process which allows a student to experience an environment first-hand, thereby, giving the student reliable, trust-worthy knowledge. The student is required to act upon the environment to both acquire and test new knowledge.

So to me the basis of using a LT with a static reference frame to say that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is a constructivist argument. And I would say a faulted one. It just is not dealing with relativity of simultaneity.

By: John Ryskamp

John Ryskamp — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:16:35 +0000

Well, then, if you want to relate them, then go ahead. I don’t think you can do it in a logical way, but go ahead! As the Wikipedia entry, all I can say is: the relativity of simultaneity exists entirely independently of LT. If they have any relation at all, it is that both are constructivist arguments, although, again, Lorentz is such a weak idea that I wonder if there is much thinking behind it.

By: jetsrock

jetsrock — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:35:07 +0000

I can agree they are separate but yet related. And as you make your point so elegantly about “relativity of simultaneity” all I am saying is that to make the leap from using a faulted calculation to state the assumption the Einstein then used to calculate e=mc2 seems fishy to me. I am in no way able to even able to think about natural versus constructivist. Since as you do state in your link that one needs to do a lot more ground work than I have to get up to speed. I do enjoy conversing with you and even though I am not able to fully grasp your point I am intellectually stimulated by your views.

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
The relativity of simultaneity can be calculated using Lorentz transformations, which relate the coordinates used by one observer to coordinates used by another in uniform relative motion with respect to the first.