Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity

From: Tom Van Flandern (tomvf_at_starpower.net)
Date: 06/13/04 

Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:24:29 -0400

            This contains replies to Mike, Tom Roberts, Tim Shuba, and
Bilge.

"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> writes:

>> [tvf]: You asked for the cause. I answered. There certainly was
linear motion of the rock prior to the circular motion because the rope
did not always have tension on it. Moreover, the rope would never have
tension on it if it did not initially start moving linearly, thereby
stretching the rope and creating tension. You seem to be in denial of
the obvious -- the sequential order in which cause and effect proceed.
No matter how many confused authors you cite, when it comes to
causality, reason trumps all opinions.

> [Mike]: You are becoming arrogant here, calling world renowned experts
"confused authors" just to support your naive view which arises from a
simplistic and shallow interpretation of physical phenomena.

            I repeat: Reason trumps all opinions. Either you or one of
your "world renowned experts" has a counterargument, or you don't. In
science, logic, experiment, and observation count; the number and weight
of experts does not.

            From where I stand, what you call "arrogant" I see as trying
to pin you down. What exactly is wrong with my answer to your challenge?
What I'm getting in response so far is all manner of dodging and weaving
(changes of subject and insult after insult, such as "arrogant", "naïve"
, "simplistic", "shallow" in the above sentence alone). And aren't you
the one who complained earlier about ad hominem attacks? How about
cleaning up your act and sticking to the scientific subject without any
side remarks about me personally?

> [Mike]: We are talking here about causality issues in laws of
mechanics and not subjective interpretations of what happens during
transients and non-equilibrium phases. One more time you have resorted
to qualitative thinking and hand waving arguments but if you try to
quantitatively describe what you stated you will soon find out that it
is not as an easy explanation as you might first think. . Your hand
waving cannot mitigate that because it is based on naive arguments about
a priori causal connections and it is a petitio principii argument, the
type of fallacy your whole model of the world is subject to.

            Cases in point: Dodging and weaving instead of responding to
my logical argument. Everything here is about me instead of the issue on
the table. Instead of just making abstract claims of logical fallacies
without any obvious referent or justification, how about providing a
specific syllogism I used and pointing out how it qualifies as a petitio
principii argument.

> [Mike]: Look, there is nothing in F = dp/dt that specifies whether F
or dp/dt happens first, there is no explicit causality in the laws of
mechanics.

            Uh oh. Math has no intelligence. None of the principles of
physics appear in mathematical form. Yet they are essential to
describing and understanding physical processes. If this is news to you,
you have some catching up to do. You cannot ask questions about
causality and expect to find answers in the laws of mechanics. Such
answers exist in the principles of physics only, not in its laws.

            As nearly as I can tell, that answer is the bottom line to
this whole discussion. You seem to have been looking for answers to
causality in physical laws and math, where those answers do not exist.
And when directed to the principles of physics for answers, you rebel
because these appear to you to be "qualitative thinking and hand waving
arguments" that cannot be made quantitative. Now it is certainly true
that the principles are unrelated to the laws and cannot be described in
mathematical form. But they are rigorous nonetheless because they are
based on logic alone, and any violation would be a form of magic or
require a miracle or invoking the supernatural -- things forbidden in
physics.

            If you think any of the principles is not logical, then I
would like to see your argument to that effect. Failing that, the
principles provide answers and constraints on models that can be found
nowhere else. Without those constraints, people would waste unlimited
amounts of time pursuing models that are physically impossible.

>> [tvf]: Try to get the math out of your head until the physics is
straight. We can't even begin applying limits until the motion of the
rock approaches equilibrium. If you want causes, we have to talk about
the pre-equilibrium stages. Then (and only then) it becomes obvious how
cause and effect proceed after equilibrium is achieved.

> [Mike]: You mean the cause and effect connection that exists in
pre-equilibrium or whatever your hand waving implies is lost when
equilibrium is reached? And when is that done exactly? In asymptotically
stable systems in time is there a specific time that cause and effect
relationships hide themselves and are not obvious any longer? How is it
that pre-equilibrium causal connections establish equilibrium states
without being evident from the physical laws that describe the later
phenomena?

            After any system reaches thermal equilibrium, how can you
tell if it was previously hotter or colder? After any system reaches
dynamical equilibrium, how can you tell what path it took to get there?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Again, you betray
unfamiliarity with an ordinary physics concept. Equilibrium by
definition is a state in which some previously variable quantity has
ceased to vary. Given a function, we can derive a limit. But given just
the limit, we cannot derive the function whose limit it is. This is the
difference between deduction and induction -- the former is unique, the
latter is not.

> [Mike]: If what you say is true, then the true laws of mechanics are
those that exactly establish that transitions. But such laws cannot be
established in macrocosmic events but can be possibly part of quantum
mechanics. You have failed though to provide a quantitative system of
laws that describe such causal connections and the transitions to
macrocosmic events and I also would like to inform you that such link is
an unsolved problem in physics to date and obviously cannot be answered
by your type of hand waving arguments.

            Your generalizations are mistaken. Read my book, "Dark
Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", to see an entire cosmology
derived deductively from first principles. This does indeed provide "a
quantitative system of laws that describe such causal connections". It
is qualitative in the derivation, and becomes quantitative when compared
with observation and experiment, which allows us to determine values or
set limits for the parameters of the qualitative, deductive model.

            Or continue to believe that it is an unsolved problem, as
you wish. I understand that not knowing some things can be comforting.

> [Mike]: Space and time in NM are infinitely divisible I would like to
inform you. Observe a physical phenomenon and try to find its "first
cause" you advocate. There is an infinite regression of causes you can
think of.

            Your challenge did not ask for me to trace causes back
infinitely far. You just asked which was the first cause in the case of
a rock twirled on a rope. I answered. You have said nothing about the
correctness of my answer, but have persisted in arguing, apparently to
insist that no possible answer exists.

            In the light of my specific answer to your challenge, what
problem remains to be addressed? Where are you headed?

> [Mike]: Try to come up with physics that will produce your principles
as results not as priori or synthetic a priori logical propositions. You
underestimate the amount of circularity and bold speculations those
principles hide if assumed a priori based on some "no magic" principle
you advocate.

            I address that issue head on and break the circularity. See
chapter 20 of my book. I also referred you to my published technical
paper on the principles of physics. If you had a more specific question
or challenge, I could provide a more specific answer.

> [Mike]: The reason you resort to those principles is because you have
no physical model they can be derived from. Assuming those principles
hold a priori can easily lead to accepting any absurd model of reality
on top of them, as you have done in assuming a graviton flux as the
nature of gravitation.

            I made no assumptions, as I've already told you several
times. Read the book and see for yourself. Or point to where in the
paper on "principles" that I made an assumption. The principles come
from reasoning alone, and conform to the prohibition against magic that
defines physics. (Even for that, a reason is provided in the paper.)
Circularity is broken by showing that assuming any of the principles is
false leads to error or magic.

and "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> writes:

> [Roberts]: GR does have a property that is known as causality, and is
not naive but is specific, rigorous, and testable: "The values of all
fields at a given point in the manifold depend only upon the values of
all fields on the intersection of the event's past lightcone and any
suitable Cauchy surface." A rather well-known consequence of this is
that no energy, mass, or information can be transferred faster than the
local speed of light.

            If your "well-known consequence" were true, then GR would
not be falsified because gravity is an example of the transfer of
momentum faster than the local speed of light; for example, in binary
pulsars.

            However, your "consequence" is not true in GR, but only in
SR, which is now falsified on that account in favor of LR. GR, by
contrast, has an infinite propagation speed for the transfer of
gravitational momentum built in, as my several published papers show.
(Have you read them yet?) Please do comment on the substance of that
published argument, rather than just offering declarations of your
personal opinions on the grounds that they are "well known". Many "well
known things" are nonetheless wrong.

and "shuba" <tim.shuba@eudoramail.com> writes:

> [shuba]: Does the term "amplitude" come up in either the physics or
math portion of this complete quantum theory, as laid out in the above
publication? This is a yes/no question; elaboration is not necessary,
but go ahead if you want.

            Yes.

and "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes:

>> [tvf]: You have no idea what the model you are challenging is like
because you insist upon not reading it,

> [Bilge]: You insist on not posting it.

            I've written a book about it, and the book "Pushing Gravity"
is also about the gravitational parts. You expect me to post a book or
two here? I've answered most of your questions with specific citations
to where you can read about the answers, their derivation, and the
background that led to them. If you want specific details, ask specific,
limited questions and I'll answer here.

            You give me the impression that you really have no interest
in being exposed to anyone's new ideas if they challenge something you
think you already know. I am reminded of this quote from Stephen Jay
Gould: "The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best - and
therefore never scrutinize or question." But you happen to be having a
discussion with a person who works for an organization that scrutinizes
and questions everything in the field of astronomy.

>> [tvf]: Can any new model that challenges an existing model meet your
criteria for being worth a look?

> [Bilge]: No. In order to challenge an existing model, a model needs to
say something about the physics it purports to explain. This might seem
unreasonable, but without a few equations here and there, it's simply
impossible to identify any relationship between some data and the model,
assuming it would even be possible to identify an experiment that has
some relationship to the model.

            Yes, you are correct. That does seem unreasonable to me.
Many of my papers are counter-examples to your expectations.

> [Bilge]: You are supposed to be making a case for a theory which you
are advocating. If you can't present it in enough detail to satisfy an
experimentalist, you might as well throw in the towel and find something
else to occupy your time.

            I no longer have any idea what specific thing you might want
to see that is not of book length. So I'll just take a wild guess. How
about the new equation of motion for the Le Sage-type gravity model? I
use Math Type for equations, so I'll have to give you a link. Let me
know if you were willing and able to follow this link, or if any of the
symbol meanings are not obvious. I assume that r, v, and c and e (base
for natural logarithms) are obvious, <rho> is density, M is source mass,
arrows indicate vectors, dots indicate time derivatives, and I think
everything else is explained. See:
http://metaresearch.org/public/LeSage-ulg.asp.

            Is that the kind of thing you are looking for? Details for
the five experimental tests of this equation are in the PG book. -|Tom|-

Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

Relevant Pages

  • =?ISO-8859-9?B?UmU6IEViY2lv8Gx1?=
    ... raises questions about what it means to do science, ... 'laws' governing his composition could be abstracted from the 'data'. ... to deduce underlying principles from a mass of observations. ... the underlying physics. ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: =?ISO-8859-9?Q?Ebcio=F0lu?=
    ... 'laws' governing his composition could be abstracted from the 'data'. ... to deduce underlying principles from a mass of observations. ... technique to automate the identification of natural laws from ... Perhaps the arena most in need of a tool such as this is not physics ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: SR time dilation on remote objects ?
    ... I've evidence that the `laws' of physics have changed many times, ... Laws, principles, ...
    (sci.astro)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.physics)
  • R*volume*raduis2 c3po "Theroy of everything"
    ... then do it over agian ever law is wrong all physics math and geometry ... generate new laws of den's and math and quantum and stellar physics ... In our universe or any ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading