On May 2, 10:15*am, Mike wrote:
On May 2, 8:19*am, Vern wrote:





On Apr 30, 7:34*pm, Mike wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:33*pm, "TomVanFlandern"
wrote:

"Mike" writes:
[Mike]: There is nothing in Newton's law, F = dp/dt, that says forces
propagate at any speed.

* * To truly understand physics, we must place its laws onto a foundation
based on logic. In the discipline known as "deep reality physics", there is
only one assumption: "no miracles allowed".

The problem is you cannot define miracles apart from laws of physics.
If your definition of a miracle is an event that violates the laws of
physics then nothing along these lines has been observed so far.

I think you define miracle as something that violates your accepted
logic. This is not a miracle in a sense that it also violates physical
laws.

Because the physical alws we have accepted so far are those which are
not violated.

Thus, you must forst show the conenction fo your system of logic to
physical reality. This is what Aristotle called Metaphysics. Causality
for example, is not physics but metaphysics.

There is nothing metaphysical about tying causality to material
contact, which I believe is Tom VFd's approach.

Causality is a metaphysical motion. Whether you like it or not.

Mike





Vern- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correction:

"notion" I meant to say

On May 2, 10:16*am, Mike wrote:
On May 2, 10:15*am, Mike wrote:





On May 2, wrote:

On Apr 30, 7:34*pm, Mike wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:33*pm, "TomVanFlandern"
wrote:

"Mike" writes:
[Mike]: There is nothing in Newton's law, F = dp/dt, that says forces
propagate at any speed.

* * To truly understand physics, we must place its laws onto a foundation
based on logic. In the discipline known as "deep reality physics", there is
only one assumption: "no miracles allowed".

The problem is you cannot define miracles apart from laws of physics..
If your definition of a miracle is an event that violates the laws of
physics then nothing along these lines has been observed so far.

I think you define miracle as something that violates your accepted
logic. This is not a miracle in a sense that it also violates physical
laws.

Because the physical alws we have accepted so far are those which are
not violated.

Thus, you must forst show the conenction fo your system of logic to
physical reality. This is what Aristotle called Metaphysics. Causality
for example, is not physics but metaphysics.

There is nothing metaphysical about tying causality to material
contact, which I believe is Tom VFd's approach.

Causality is a metaphysical motion. Whether you like it or not.

Mike

Vern- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correction:

"notion" I meant to say- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Mike] Causality is a metaphysical [n]otion. Whether you like it or
not.

[Vern] The American Heritage dictionary defines metaphysics as:

"A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to
scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."

The principle of physical or material contact as the cause of all
phenomena is certainly answerable to scientific observation, analysis
or experiment, and therefore is not within the realm of metaphysics.

Vern

On May 2, 1:24*pm, Vern wrote:
On May 2, 10:16*am, Mike wrote:





On May 2, 10:15*am, Mike wrote:

On May 2, wrote:

On Apr 30, 7:34*pm, Mike wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:33*pm, "TomVanFlandern"
wrote:

"Mike" writes:
[Mike]: There is nothing in Newton's law, F = dp/dt, that says forces
propagate at any speed.

* * To truly understand physics, we must place its laws onto a foundation
based on logic. In the discipline known as "deep reality physics", there is
only one assumption: "no miracles allowed".

The problem is you cannot define miracles apart from laws of physics.
If your definition of a miracle is an event that violates the laws of
physics then nothing along these lines has been observed so far.

I think you define miracle as something that violates your accepted
logic. This is not a miracle in a sense that it also violates physical
laws.

Because the physical alws we have accepted so far are those which are
not violated.

Thus, you must forst show the conenction fo your system of logic to
physical reality. This is what Aristotle called Metaphysics. Causality
for example, is not physics but metaphysics.

There is nothing metaphysical about tying causality to material
contact, which I believe is Tom VFd's approach.

Causality is a metaphysical motion. Whether you like it or not.

Mike

Vern- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Correction:

"notion" I meant to say- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Mike] Causality is a metaphysical [n]otion. Whether you like it or
not.

[Vern] The American Heritage dictionary defines metaphysics as:

"A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to
scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."

The principle of physical or material contact as the cause of all
phenomena is certainly answerable to scientific observation, analysis
or experiment, and therefore is not within the realm of metaphysics.

Vern- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All phenomena? Are you serious? What about gravitation? What is the
physical or material contact?

Mike

On May 2, 1:48*pm, Mike wrote:
On May 2, wrote:

snip

[Mike] Causality is a metaphysical [n]otion. Whether you like it or
not.

[Vern] The American Heritage dictionary defines metaphysics as:

"A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to
scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."

The principle of physical or material contact as the cause of all
phenomena is certainly answerable to scientific observation, analysis
or experiment, and therefore is not within the realm of metaphysics.

Vern- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All phenomena? Are you serious? What about gravitation? What is the
physical or material contact?

Mike- Hide quoted text -

Tom VFd used gravity as his example to you. AFAIK, he ascribes to the
LeSage or "pushing gravity" model, which is based on shadowing effects
and only uses contact forces between LeSage (or ether) particles.

Vern

On May 2, 3:37*pm, Vern wrote:
On May 2, 1:48*pm, Mike wrote:

On May 2, wrote:

snip





[Mike] Causality is a metaphysical [n]otion. Whether you like it or
not.

[Vern] The American Heritage dictionary defines metaphysics as:

"A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to
scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."

The principle of physical or material contact as the cause of all
phenomena is certainly answerable to scientific observation, analysis
or experiment, and therefore is not within the realm of metaphysics.

Vern- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All phenomena? Are you serious? What about gravitation? What is the
physical or material contact?

Mike- Hide quoted text -

Tom VFd used gravity as his example to you. *AFAIK, he ascribes to the
LeSage or "pushing gravity" model, which is based on shadowing effects
and only uses contact forces between LeSage (or ether) particles.

Vern- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is a joke theory. To avoid drag you must have the graviton
hitting earth at FTL speeds as Feynman showed. You would feel them
penetrating you hot. Instant death that is.

Mike

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
The premises that arise from logic alone rather than from experiments
or observations or philosophy or mathematics include these:
** Causality: Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause.
** Creation: No creation ex nihilo; and no demise ad nihil

This approach to science was abandoned during the Renaissance, when it
was learned CONCLUSIVELY that this approach does not describe the world
we actually inhabit. 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.
** quantum field theory most definitely has what you call "creation
ex nihlo" and "demise ad nihil".

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

Those do not come from "logic alone", they come from your PERSONAL HOPES
AND PREJUDICES. Philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists all know
how completely inadequate those statements are. You need to educate
yourself, in the very areas you claim "expertise".


[... more repetitions of the same errors he makes every time]

I agree SR is wrong, but only because it was
recently falsified by experiment.

Which experiment is that? Reference, please.


[... more repetitions of the same errors he makes every time]


Tom Roberts

On May 3, 8:37 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

The premises that arise from logic alone rather than from experiments
or observations or philosophy or mathematics include these:
** Causality: Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause.
** Creation: No creation ex nihilo; and no demise ad nihil

This approach to science was abandoned during the Renaissance, when it
was learned CONCLUSIVELY that this approach does not describe the world
we actually inhabit. In particular, your statements here are VASTLY too
imprecise to be useful. And they are not valid in modern physics:

Observing an effect without knowing a cause is not understanding the
issues involved. shrug

** No theory of physics expressed in terms of differential equations
has your NAIVE "causality". Such equations describe correlations,
but correlation is not causation.

Speed of gravity is not an issue of causality. It is strictly an
issue of how fast a change in gravitational effect can propagate.
According to SR, the intuitive conjecture is that the speed of gravity
is the same as the speed of light. The speed of light is explained
definitively and thoroughly by the Maxwell’s equations. However, any
of the mathematics involved in GR does even describe what the speed of
gravity is. The field equations do not tell you how gravitational
waves propagate. Believing it otherwise is a myth. Mysticism is not
wisdom.

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

The wizards are throwing spells at each other using Latin.
Abracadabra! Oops, it sounds like a Semitic origin (Arabic, Aramaic,
ancient Egyptian, etc.) to me. Someone, please translate into
English.

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

Likewise, your observation of muons having longer than expected
lifetime actually tells you that the Lorentz transform is grossly
invalid. Just what are you going to accept your experimental results?

Those do not come from "logic alone", they come from your PERSONAL HOPES
AND PREJUDICES.

What hopes and what prejudices are you talking about?

Philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists all know
how completely inadequate those statements are. You need to educate
yourself, in the very areas you claim "expertise".

Likewise.

[... more repetitions of the same errors he makes every time]
I agree SR is wrong, but only because it was
recently falsified by experiment.

Which experiment is that? Reference, please.

sigh

[... more repetitions of the same errors he makes every time]

Yours, too. shrug

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.

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

Surely it does not, Tom.

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.


--
http://canonicalscience.org/en/misce...guidelines.txt

Juan R. González-�lvarez 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.


Tom Roberts

On May 4, 2:05*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 3, 8:37 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

Tom Van Flandern wrote:
* *The premises that arise from logic alone rather than from experiments
or observations or philosophy or mathematics include these:
** Causality: Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause.
** Creation: No creation ex nihilo; and no demise ad nihil

This approach to science was abandoned during the Renaissance, when it
was learned CONCLUSIVELY that this approach does not describe the world
we actually inhabit. In particular, your statements here are VASTLY too
imprecise to be useful. And they are not valid in modern physics:

Observing an effect without knowing a cause is not understanding the
issues involved. *shrug

I agree if, and only if, there is a cause. If a cause is not there or
necessary then it is an empty statement.

Causes, are also first or final. Scholastic philosophy was based on
final causes and religion of first causes. Which causes are you for
KW?



* ** No theory of physics expressed in terms of differential equations
* * *has your NAIVE "causality". Such equations describe correlations,
* * *but correlation is not causation.

Speed of gravity is not an issue of causality. *It is strictly an
issue of how fast a change in gravitational effect can propagate.
According to SR, the intuitive conjecture is that the speed of gravity
is the same as the speed of light. *The speed of light is explained
definitively and thoroughly by the Maxwell’s equations. *However, any
of the mathematics involved in GR does even describe what the speed of
gravity is. *The field equations do not tell you how gravitational
waves propagate. *Believing it otherwise is a myth. *Mysticism is not
wisdom.

There is no such thinmg a "speed of gravity" like there is no such
thing as "speed of a smile".

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

The wizards are throwing spells at each other using Latin.
Abracadabra! *Oops, it sounds like a Semitic origin (Arabic, Aramaic,
ancient Egyptian, etc.) to me. *Someone, please translate into
English.



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

Likewise, your observation of muons having longer than expected
lifetime actually tells you that the Lorentz transform is grossly
invalid. *Just what are you going to accept your experimental results?

Those do not come from "logic alone", they come from your PERSONAL HOPES
AND PREJUDICES.

What hopes and what prejudices are you talking about?

Philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists all know
how completely inadequate those statements are. You need to educate
yourself, in the very areas you claim "expertise".

Likewise.

[... more repetitions of the same errors he makes every time]
I agree SR is wrong, but only because it was
recently falsified by experiment.

Which experiment is that? Reference, please.

sigh

[... more repetitions of the same errors he makes every time]

Yours, too. *shrug