Re: Lightspeed exceeded

On Oct 29, 11:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:26 am, Vern <vthod...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

That is not a description of a model for light propagation as it
offers no explanation for how an electromagnetic field is created.
QED is a mathematical theory and offers nothing in the way of a
model.

Hmmm...
The law of conservation of momentum offers no explanation for why that
particular quantity is conserved and not other possible quantities.
The study of collisions does not offer any explanation for why in some
cases, kinetic energy is conserved and in other cases it is not.
These are both essential elements of a kinetic theory of a medium.
Somehow the lack of "explanation" in these cases does not seem to
bother you.

I'm just adhering to the causality principle as outlined by Tom
VanFlandern (link below). There are on violations of those principles
in kinetic theory.

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

I'm curious what you think are the critical elements of a "physical
theory" are and WHY those are indispensable elements, and what you
think are the critical elements of a true "explanation" and WHY those
are indispensable elements.

Just the necessity of not violaing causality principles.

<snip>

My point was made in the later statement about the field vs. geometric
interpretation of GR.  Again, space-time provides no model for light
or gravity without invoking a physical field, which needs an
underlying substance.

I don't know where you got the idea that a physical field needs an
underlying substance.

Do all mammal females require a womb just because most of them do?

Non sequitur.

Again the causality principle.

<snip>

The issue is of two competing theories, one which provides a model for
reality with no violations of logic, the other which offers no model
and violates logical principles.  Which is preferred?

I'm curious what you think a "violation of logic" is.
To me, the following are violations of logic:
1. That there are statements other than axioms that do not follow from
the axioms.
2. That there two statements in the theory that are directly
inconsistent.
I don't know of anything else that qualifies as a violation of logic.

Now you may have "logic" confused with "human intuition" or your
"conceptual framework or worldview". You may regard, for example, that
unless nature can be described with time-ordered determinism (because
that is central to your conceptual framework), then it is hopeless for
humans to understand nature, and that therefore nature must be
expected to hew to that dictum. To this, I will only make two
observations: 1) You make some pretty tight restrictions on what
science is capable of understanding, and 2) Not everyone is as limited
as you are.

I guess I should have said causality principles instead of logic, but
I think you really knew what I meant. We've been talking about
causality for some time now.

Vern
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... offers no explanation for how an electromagnetic field is created. ... I'm just adhering to the causality principle as outlined by Tom ... everything in nature. ... theory" are and WHY those are indispensable elements, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: English Word Puzzle
    ... Phil Carmody wrote: ... So it is established that you *did* snip this portion: ... Note that whether my "explanation" is valid or crappy isn't the ... The thing I did complain about the absense of was a reference ...
    (rec.puzzles)
  • Re: Anti-religious
    ... So that's the only explanation science has to go on. ... then if we accept a creator, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Book-able view of ID as speculative science
    ... no matter what we see we can apply the same explanation. ... Unfortunately for those who held or hold such a Design ... Do something today about the Darfur Genocide ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 16 out of 17 bishops will ignore evidence of gay relationships
    ... There are multitudes of posts from you in this thread, ... >> and I'm having serious trouble sorting out who said what.] ... just an explanation of how you arrived at ...
    (uk.religion.christian)