Re: Physics is not synomymous with Newtonism

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 18:01:20 GMT

On 30 Jul 2004 06:16:09 -0700, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:

>Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<nv7jg01p36q2rq560ip6gj8l825ef4r1tf@4ax.com>...
>> On 29 Jul 2004 05:58:31 -0700, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>>
>> >Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<c4rgg057v6oaau7oi50qa8d1fcs7qpqjpm@4ax.com>...

 [Snip...]

>>> SR deals with connections among physical/natural phenomena.
>>
>> Define SR... Mathematics or philosophy?
>
> SR (1905) is Einstein's generalization of Newton's mechanics to
> incorparate charge and optics (electrodynamics) without the use
> of a preferred absolute velocity space (since Newton's mechanics
> didn't). It was soon generalized to include all forces, locally.
>
> philosophy -- the set of all possible belief systems about
> all things, real or imagined.

 An SR is one of those... As you descibe above, LET and aether
 fits it just as well. Thus you have no distinction.
 
>>> If you think that SR is not a physical theory, ...
>>
>> It's not. SR and LET are on equal observational footing. It's the
>> Lorentz covariance of nature that's the 'physical' part and that
>> my dear Patrick can be shown to be explained purely in a mechanistical
>> manner.

 No comment, thought not :)
 
>>> ... you are just plain wrong.
>>
>> How?
>>
>>> All a theory has to do to be a physical theory is to make predictions
>>> that are testable in the physical realm.
>
> That's how. You're still wrong.

 IMO a theory should explain as well as map...
 
>> "the map is not the territory"...
>>
>>> You're not going to tell us, I hope, that your ether is perceptible,
>>> are you?
>>
>> Yes, certainly...
>>
>>> What color is it?
>>
>> What color do you want? It's ALL colors... Remember light :)
>>
>>> Is itsmooth or rough to the touch?
>>
>> Is matter smooth & rough to the touch? Matter is made up of aether...
>
> There's my point being made once again. People can explain anything in
> terms of anthing. All it takes is imagination. People can make up
> ethers and strings and continuum models to their hearts content, and
> then argue over them. It's all for nothing except pragmatism. Even if
> your ether theory works, that doesn't prove that it's true.

 Ah, but it simplifies and meets Ockham's Razor... There is something
 to be said for simplification of concept.
 
>>> You're confusing "physical" with "mechanical."
>>
>> No, I'm not.
>
> Yes, you are. You should at least be honest about it. At least O'Barr
> is honest about it.

 In our universe, physical IS causal and conservative.

>> I demand only causal connectivity and form follows from 'observed'
>> behavior (function). Mechanics comes from this but hell, propose
>> something else, I'll listen.
>
> What is "causal connectivity" -- precisely stated? If causality is so
> important to you then you should know what the hell it is, so don't
> cop out as you people usually do. Be prepared to define the terms you
> use, especially those on which your delusional schemes rise or fall.

 Causal is, in its simplest essence, the arrow of time. That effects
 never preceed the event.

> I believe I see things (objects) in the world and their behaviors, and
> I imagine that there exist rules which govern their behaviors ...

 I don't have to imagine that their exist rules, there exist rules.
 If mankind vanished tommorrow those rules would still be applicable.

> ... (who knows where the rules exist), but I don't see in the world
> explanations of things or behaviors. Those are made up thing that
> exist only because of human brains and fanciful creativity. Causality
> is a form of explanation and thus can't be proved to exist in the
> universe apart from humans. Whatever the universe uses to give itself
> the appearance of order, it certainly isn't explanations.

 
 
>> > You do this because science education is too stupid to distinguish
>> > them to science students, so science students graduate under a
>> > fostered misconception (actually, under dozens of them). Then you
>> > end up here a crank.
>>
>> Crackpot, Patrick. I'm not the one being 'cranky'...
>
> Damn right I'm cranky. The newsgroups have made it perfectly clear how
> lousy science education is. And the dammage is pervasive and unfixable
> to those {of} you are already affected.

 Opinions are like ...{}... everybody has one.
 
>>> 99% of the blame for science cranks is science education. Science
>>> education also does not teach what law, theory, model, or hypothesis
>>> correctly mean.
>>
>> Yadah, yadah, yadah... We've all see the droning before...
>
> I can't help that. If that's where the fault lies, so be it. I'm not
> writing to entertain you. You have to be willing to accept truth

 'Truth' Reany? Who's version?

> wherever it shows up -- even if it shows up where you don't want it
> to. And from your response, I see that you're not willing to accept
> the truth in spite of your pompous claims to.

 I'm certainly not as pompous as many others around here.
 
>>> It trivializes the importance of these terms, yet for you, Paul, not
>>> knowing these terms and others helps send you down the road to
>>> crankdome.
>>
>> Well this crackpot has developed several different unique emperical
>> equations based solely upon his crackpot interpretations of nature,
>> what have you done that is in anyway original Patrick?
>>
>>> If we graduate science students who believe that physics is synomymous
>>> with Newtonism then we've graduated a person predisposed to crankism.
>>
>> Causality and conservation are, to me, the cornerstones of science
>> (that all science Patrick).
>
> Well, that's how you prefer it. In science, causality is optional.

 Ah great, point to ANY experiment or observation that has a definite
 causality violation. I say it is NOT optional!

> What works is not. Science is about what science can prove that it can
> accomplish, not about your personal wishful thinking. Science can
> prove that it makes theories that work; it can't prove that causality
> or causal theories are true.
>
>>> Besides that, Paul, don't trust ordinary dictionaries for definitions
>>> of philosophical terms.
>>
>> Physical in science is... No matter how hard modern revisionist
>> attempt to pollute and corrode the meaning.
>>
>>> All we really have that we can KNOW about the physical realm, beyond
>>> mere names of physical things, physical categories, and physical data,
>>> are the physical laws. The theories we invent to "explain" the
>>> physical laws are just made-up deductive systems. We can never know
>>> that any explanation is ever true. Try to remember, Paul, that the map
>>> (the physical law) is not the territory (the physical realm). The
>>> phenomena is not the nounema. And the description of the phenomena is
>>> not the phenomena.
>
> You obviously missed the point of the above paragraph, as usual. If
> you're going to champion a cause, you have to be ready to reply
> sincerely to EVERY challenge presented against your precious dogma.
> Are you a hypocrite?
>
>>
>> The map..., see above.
>>
>>> Paul, you claim that "Everything has a cause." That may or may NOT
>>> even be true--though it sound paradoxical. But one thing's for sure:
>>> It's NOT the job of science to search for all "causes." In physics
>>> it's not even clear how to define "physical cause" that most people
>>> will accept. And then there's the problem of the ultimate cause or
>>> causes. Whatever caused them is not even a scientific question.
>>
> Then science has corrupted itself beyond recognition...
>
> Is that the best reply you have for my charges in that last paragraph?
> Deal with them here or I win by default.

 It simply is a statement, in resonse to yours. And it is true as I see
 it. If you see this a you winning something, fine.
 
>> Many, like myself, simply don't buy the *** you're peddling...
>
> You failed to reply to my charges and then go on as though you hold
> the high moral ground. There is so much self-delusion on this
> newsgroup. And most of it is the direct fault of lousy science
> education. It's nearly impossible to disabuse a person of a
> misconceptions that he or she has adopted in youth.

 So?

 Paul Stowe

Quantcast