Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 02/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:39:25 GMT

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:56:51 -0500, "robert j. kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>> Newton's law also doesn't account for the existence of Bob.
>
>In Newtonian physics motions of planets which deviate from uniform
>straightline motion is accounted for by the forces acting on them.
>Newton's law of gravitation is about the forces that masses exert on
>each other. That is the context. Within this context his law is
>universal. It pertains to -any- two non-zero masses at a non zero
>distance from each other, anywhere anytime. In that sense it is
>universal. When written out properly it is a universally quantified
>propostion.

>From which we can infer that Bob is not universally quantified.

>> Unfortunately nothing does. Bob says Newton's law cannot account for
>> the motion of Mercury. Bob says so so Bob must be right. Gravitational
>> interaction with EM radiation is not addressed by Newton's law so it
>> does not account for it.
>
>One of the reason's that it is wrong. Newton's law does not fully
>account for the bending of light around massive bodies.

That doesn't make Newton's law wrong just incomplete.

> Newton's law
>suffers from several defects. 1. It gives outright wrong predcitons.

Certainly conventional non latent instantiations of it do.

> 2.
>It fails to predict certain observable phenomena (such as the
>gravitational red shif). The second is not as serious a defect as the first.

The issue is whether Newton's law is consistent with observable
phenomena and not whether it subsumes them. You haven't shown any lack
of consistency.

>The outright incorrectness on the one hand and the incompleteness on the
>other disqualified Newton's theory of gravitational force or interaction
>from being a correct and complete account of gravitation. However it is
>correct in the first order of approximation relative to the the account
>of gravitation given in Einstein's theory. Newtonian gravitation is just
>fine for low velocity jaunts in a weak gravity fiekd. It will get you to
>the Moon and back. It will also help to calculate more extensive orbits
>and "sling-shot" effects. It is a fine heuristic.

Actually not, Bob, as per Pioneer 10/11 anomaly.

> It is not a fine
>fundemental theory (any more). It has been replaced by a better theory.

You're just waving your hands, Bob. Get a manicure,

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> Newton's law also doesn't account for the existence of Bob. ... Bob says so so Bob must be right. ... >from being a correct and complete account of gravitation. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> Newton's law also doesn't account for the existence of Bob. ... Bob says so so Bob must be right. ... >from being a correct and complete account of gravitation. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Newton's law also doesn't account for the existence of Bob. ... Newton's law of gravitation is about the forces that masses exert on ... Bob says so so Bob must be right. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Newton's law also doesn't account for the existence of Bob. ... Newton's law of gravitation is about the forces that masses exert on ... Bob says so so Bob must be right. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... > Newton's law also doesn't account for the existence of Bob. ... Newton's law of gravitation is about the forces that masses exert on ... Bob says so so Bob must be right. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast