Re: Episode from the history of physics.

On Apr 13, 4:37 pm, "PD" <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 13, 2:56 pm, v...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>

The laws of physics cannot CAUSE anything. They may describe a
phenomena.

I don't know what you think can *be* a cause. It appears that you
think a *cause* has to be a thing, a particle, an object, a stuff.
Physicists do not think that way.
The laws of physics are the systematic principles by which things
behave. Everything from the mathematical symmetry of the interaction
(such as SU(3)) to the geometry of the spacetime substrate (such as
g_uv) to the operationally defined properties of objects (such as
charge) are embodied in those principles. It is those principles of
natural behavior that govern -- that is, *cause* -- the configurations
of the systems that obey those principles. A wave is a configuration
of a system, and the presence of that configuration is a direct result
of -- that is, caused by -- the principles that control the behavior
of that system.

You can speak for yourself, but you are not the spokesperson for
physicists and how they think, or the principles they use. Consider
Dr. Van Flandern's expose on the necessity of establishing causality
in physics:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp

Finding out what is right or wrong is an exercise in analyzing
evidence. The subject of our discussions is now whether the motion of
the particles in a medium causes wave motion. You just stating that
they don't serves no purpose in the discussion. You have to give a
reason. If I doubt your reason, then for the discussion to move
forward to draw a logical conclusion about the correctness of your
reason, evidence needs to be produced. If the evidence is to be in
question, evidence from a better source is used to show that the first
proferred evidence is not correct. How in the hell else would one get
to the bottom of what is right or wrong?

Experiment.

Experiments can be cited as evidence to support a particular theory or
model, but in discussions of the cause of things, a more logical
approach is typically taken. Since you obviously don't care about
what causes anything, you may as well ascribe to magic.

Vern

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Episode from the history of physics.
    ... think a *cause* has to be a thing, a particle, an object, a stuff. ... Physicists do not think that way. ... The laws of physics are the systematic principles by which things ... evidence needs to be produced. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Do you understand Special Relativity?
    ... |> |> | propagating in the aether. ... His evidence was ... |> explanation for this other than emission theory: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: My paper is awesome, and your criticisms are lousy
    ... Is the W or Z particle massless? ... That's why the expansion of space is a much better match for the ... Which means slow light horribly fails every test of expansion like the ... depending where you think the experimental evidence currently sits. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Use of prepositions that continues to perplex
    ... So when you asked for evidence that verbal particles ... (as opposed to a syntactic difference that prepositions ... intransitive verbs such as 'laugh', 'sleep', but we still think they are ... But we can get particle like behaviour out of particles ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Quote from greatest living philosopher
    ... "An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals". ... First paragraph ... Our evidence, then, for, the truth of the ... Because it is the revelation of God, ...
    (talk.origins)