(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...
I have defined physics as the search for the smallest set of rules
that completely describes the material world under natural conditions.

What you are defining makes no allowance for the difference between
behavior and motion at a human manageable level and motion at the
behavior and motion at a celestial level.It may have looked clever in
1905 to omit the difference,set Newton up as a puppet and then tear
him down but somehow you forgot that Newton was working off the models
of Kepler and other astronomers of that era and framed his definitions
on their terms and not on his own.

You are always betting that nobody will notice that the substance of
the investigation of celestial structure and motion for heliocentric
modelling relies on the ability to discern the two major motions which
condition the definition of what a day is from a geocentric
perspective.Of necessity,you have to go back a few hundred years to
comprehend the context of absolute time and relative time,modern texts
simply rewrite history to favor relativity and the price of
destruction of astronomy and all those great minds who sorted and
sifted observation for centuries.

Even years after the Principia was written, astronomers were still
refining the Equation of Time or what amounts to the same thing,the
difference between absolute time and relative time.

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...x.x.54 .x.336

It takes just a few with courage to recognise that this relativistic
nonsense arbitrarily removed the most significant discovery of the
modern era,the ability to discern celestial motion based on composite
rotations,the diurnal and the annual which reduces to a difference of
what constitutes a 'day'.By some sidereal magic we now have the sun
partaking in a different motion to the local stars but by simply
looking out your window you realise that this is an impossibility.

Al says the Universe does'nt care and that may be true for him however
at least it will be seen that a few did try to make a difference when
future generations look in askance at the relativistic epoch,perhaps
it will amount to why,for 80 years,men did not recognise the 3rd
rotation for cosmological modelling,why they treated doppler data
within the galaxy the same as doppler data arriving from different
galaxies (too complex for you at present,Patrick) and all the
productive use of observations that have remained dormant for
simpleminded rules fashioned from inept interpretation of old
manuscripts.

Your dead hero displayed the worse traits of humanity,a bungler at
best and a cunning salesman at worst,like all footsoldiers in this
intellectual holocaust you know no better or don't want to know,that
you rely on the rest of humanity to acknowledge the 'genius' when they
do not know just how chronic the whole spiel is,perhaps some day they
will do the demanding,not the author of spacetime.



How does this definition differ essentially from that given below
(beyond being obviously shorter)?

Is the use of the term "fundamental laws" below really needed or even
meaningful technically? How does the definition below get around the
vagueness of the meaning of "fundamental laws"?

Patrick


----------------------------------------

McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Physics

McGraw-Hill Publ.

Sybil P. Parker, Editor in Chief

c. 1983

--- p 1151 ---


Theoretical physics

The description of natural phenomena in mathematical form. It is
impossible to separate theoretical physics from experimental physics,
since a complete understanding of nature can be obtained only by the
application of both theory and experiment. See PHYSICS. Purposes.
There are two main purposes of theoretical physics: the discovery of
the fundamental laws of nature and the derivation of conclusions from
these fundamental laws.

Discovery of fundamental laws. Physicists aim to reduce the number of
laws to a minimum to have far as possible a unified theory. When the
laws are known, it is possible from any given initial conditions of a
physical system to derive the subsequent events in the system.
Sometimes, especially in quantum theory, only the probability of
various events call be predicted. See NONRELATIVISTIC QUANTUM THEORY;
QUANTUM MECHANICS.

Conclusions from fundamental laws. The conlusions to be derived from
the fundamental laws of nature may be of several different types.

1. Conclusions may be derived in order to test a given theory,
particularly a new theory. An example is the derivation of the
spectrum of the hydrogen atom from quantum mechanics; the verification
of the predictions by accurate meaurements is a good test of quantum
mechanics. On rather rare occasions experiment has been found to
contradict the predictions of an existing theory, and this has then
led to the discovery of important new physical laws. An example is the
Michelson-Morley experiment on the constancy of the velocity of light,
an experiment which led to special relativity theory. See ATOMiC

STRUCTURE AND SPECTRA.

2. Theory may be required for experiments designed to determine
physical constants. Most fundamental physical constants cannot be
accurately measured directly. Elaborate theories may be required to
deduce the constant from indirect experiments. An example is the
Millikan oil-drop determination of the electron charge, which requires
the knowledge of the motion of small droplets in air as deduced from
hydrodynamic theory. See ATOMIC CONSTANTS.

3. Predictions of physical phenomena may be made in order to gain
understanding of the structure of the physical world. In this category
fall theories of the structure of the atom leading to an understanding
of the periodic system of elements, or of the structure of the nucleus
in which various models are tested (for example, shell model or
collective model). In the same category fall applications of
theoretical physics to other sciences, for example, to chemistry
(theory of the chemical bond and of the rate of chemical reactions),
astronomy (theory of planetary motion, internal constitution, and
energy production of stars), or biology.