Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 13 Oct 2006 14:17 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:zOadnVjl0azTVrLYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... > > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > message news:8vcvi2tijgp9ptnmvf4301jpo4vr01p8pa(a)4ax.com... >> To say that there's nothing fundamental about symmetry is to question >> basic axioms of math and physics (maybe a*b is not equal to b*a) and I >> can't argue about axioms except to say that most of them are axioms >> because they work. Who says all matter is created equal, as far as gravity is concerned? That is nothing but a statement of the results of many, many observations over a very long period of time. Nothing in physics can be proven with mathematical certainty--it can only be derived from more and more fundamental principles, which in the end are derived from a few rules that have been taken as fact because they have been verified many, many times experimentally. However, they are only verifiable *to the limit of our ability to measure them*. That, in fact, is what the law of gravity is all about--one of the consequences of it is that matter is symmetric with respect to gravity And no, it has nothing to do with the commutativity of multiplication. Yet another attempted strawman. > Mathematics uses axioms more than physics. And, in fact, the axioms of mathematics are not fundamental--they are just assumed to be true. Change some of them, and you get different mathematical systems. For example, change the parallel postulate, and it gives you two new branches of mathematics, both perfectly valid, and both perfectly consistent with our universe. The axioms of physics are simple statements of observations that are so reliable and solid, that they are considered fundamental...but the are not. They are merely summaries of lots and lots of observations--but not an infinite number of observations. > In physics it is normally more an offshoot of the mathematics used to > describe the theory than anything else. There are no axioms of physics. It is all based on experimental observations. We have observed over a long period of time that mass is symmetrical to transposition. It is *not* a given (*none* of the physical laws are givens or axioms) and it is only true to the limit of our ability to measure the results of it. > Saying an "axiom is an axiom because it works" is also not really the case > in science. Often theories are developed before the experimental proof > arrives. Your line of reasoning, while having the allure of sounding all > "hands on" and practical, falls into a circular line of logic. Yes, he seems quite fond of assuming things to prove them. >> And sometimes 2 is fundamental and just can't be 2.00000001. Sometimes, but you (John) haven't proven that to be the case in F = m1m2g/d^2. Since John doesn't seem to know where it comes from, I'll give him a hint: it goes back to Kepler's law, combined with a couple of other experimental laws, including F = ma. And each of these "laws" is nothing more than models that explain experimental data. All could be subject to exactly the same arguments I've made about Newton's law, and the various constants that it uses: each is the simplest law that anybody could come up with to explain the data. He's still avoiding the *real* question that I asked. Since he doesn't have the guts to discuss this honestly and must use smokescreens and strawmen instead, I will answer it for him. Newton (and essentially everybody since then, at least until shortly after 1900) chose the equation for the force due to gravity to be F = m1m2g/d^2 because it is the *simplest* equation that is consistent with all of the experimental data. Any more complexity would be unwarranted and counterproductive, because we don't have any data to support it. To refuse to acknowledge that is to have a fundamental lack of understanding of how science (NOT engineering or design) is done. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 13 Oct 2006 14:19 On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:36:30 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:10:19 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >Garden vegetables can make that claim as well :-) >> > >> Converse with food often, do you? >> >> Perhaps you should see a psychologist about that, dumbfuck. > >You are a classic example of a 'talking vegetable'. --- news:selvi21ugnv48kn0plr55eig7j33bsgaf0(a)4ax.com ;) -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Michael A. Terrell on 13 Oct 2006 14:39 John Fields wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:36:30 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >JoeBloe wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:10:19 +0100, "T Wake" > >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >> > >> >Garden vegetables can make that claim as well :-) > >> > > >> Converse with food often, do you? > >> > >> Perhaps you should see a psychologist about that, dumbfuck. > > > >You are a classic example of a 'talking vegetable'. > > --- > news:selvi21ugnv48kn0plr55eig7j33bsgaf0(a)4ax.com > > ;) That looks more like talking fertilizer. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: lucasea on 13 Oct 2006 15:48 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:452FDD35.23FD54A5(a)earthlink.net... > John Fields wrote: >> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:36:30 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >JoeBloe wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 22:10:19 +0100, "T Wake" >> >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >> >> >> >> >Garden vegetables can make that claim as well :-) >> >> > >> >> Converse with food often, do you? >> >> >> >> Perhaps you should see a psychologist about that, dumbfuck. >> > >> >You are a classic example of a 'talking vegetable'. >> >> news:selvi21ugnv48kn0plr55eig7j33bsgaf0(a)4ax.com > > That looks more like talking fertilizer. Yeah, well that would be an accurate description of JoeBloe as well. Eric Lucas
From: Daniel Mandic on 13 Oct 2006 16:07
<lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Who says all matter is created equal, as far as gravity is concerned? > That is nothing but a statement of the results of many, many > observations over a very long period of time. Nothing in physics can > be proven with mathematical certainty--it can only be derived from > more and more fundamental principles, which in the end are derived > from a few rules that have been taken as fact because they have been > verified many, many times experimentally. However, they are only > verifiable *to the limit of our ability to measure them*. That, in > fact, is what the law of gravity is all about--one of the > consequences of it is that matter is symmetric with respect to gravity You are getting warm.... eh? :) > And, in fact, the axioms of mathematics are not fundamental--they are > just assumed to be true. Change some of them, and you get different > mathematical systems. For example, change the parallel postulate, > and it gives you two new branches of mathematics, both perfectly > valid, and both perfectly consistent with our universe. The axioms > of physics are simple statements of observations that are so reliable > and solid, that they are considered fundamental...but the are not. > They are merely summaries of lots and lots of observations--but not > an infinite number of observations. What a joy to read. (Should it not be: "--but not an finite number of observations. :-)) Kind Regards, Daniel Mandic |