On May 4, 11:10*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 03 May 2008 15:37:22 +0000:
In particular, your statements here are VASTLY too
imprecise to be useful. And they are not valid in modern physics:
* ** No theory of physics expressed in terms of differential equations
* * *has your NAIVE "causality". Such equations describe correlations,
* * *but correlation is not causation.

Almost all relativists invoke the term *causality* (meaning causation) to
select retarded potentials as physical (they also use this term)
solutions to differential equations.

I'm merely pointing out that his NAIVE causality is not included in ANY
theory of physics expressed as differential equations. The choice of
retarded vs advanced potentials is boundary conditions, not "causality",
and one must of course select the one that matches what is observed in
the world we inhabit -- that naive causality is an APPROXIMATION, but is
woefully inadequate to specify a theory of physics.

* ** quantum field theory most definitely has what you call "creation
* * *ex nihlo" and "demise ad nihil".

Surely it does not, Tom.

Particle pairs pop in and out of existence spontaneously. The quantum
vacuum clearly does what he calls "creation ex nihlo" and "demise ad
nihil".

Perhaps if you would learn what science actually is you would not keep
repeating the same mistakes.

A small problem is you have not the exclusive of the definition of
science, even if you believe you have one.

Making up "principles" like Van Flandern does has not been part of ANY
definition of science, since the middle ages.

They say before you make suggestion to your neihgbor to watch his
house you must watch yours.

Yes, TVF alludes to some pretty wired principles. But before bushing
TVF, think about the wired principles you worship every day you get up
from bed:

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html

1. "Space and time form a 4-dimensional continuum".

Give us a break man.

2. "There exist global spacetime frames with respect to which
unaccelerated objects move in straight lines at constant velocity".

Idiots. Such frames cannot be proven to exist. It's worse than TVF's
causality, which ar least is some type of naive principle.

This second principle of SR is completely metaphysical, a gross joke
for children under the age of 2.

3. "The speed of light c is a universal constant, the same in any
inertial frame".

brrrroooooooo, time to get out of this bar parking lot before the
bouncers get out

4. "The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless
of position or velocity".

Laws of physics? This sounds worse than creation ex nihilo, which
although a naive principle, at least would be common sense to some
poeple. What tha hell is a law of physcis and why that hell must be
the same in any inertial frame and where tha heel, those inertial
reference frames are any way, and if you cannot find any, what value
does this principle have anyway, other than generating a whole foken
class of paradoxes cookoo people have been trying to solve since
insanity hit science in 1906.

Hey, is the bug dead, smashed by the rivet, or not?

ok, tomorrow when I go to work, I will say how beautiful and elegant
are SR and GR otherwise I risk getting fired or losing my grants, or
even been called anti-democratic.


Mike










Tom Roberts