: Thanks for explaining it, though it still doesn't explain
: your point.
My point was the quoted bit below this line in your last post. If information propagation exceeds lightspeed, we can't hope to track down every influence on an event so we can't determine events precisely.
: What you said above is, perhaps, the most unscientific,
: blastphamous to all study and research statement I've
: ever seen. You are saying that science, every bit of
: it, is a guess. That is wrong; duh. If I have a ball
: in my hand, and I let it go, it will fall to the
: floor. That's knowledge. Naturally, I'm talking about
: my room, on Earth, no wind or any other factor to get
: in between the ball and the floor. It will fall and
: hit the floor .
Blasphemous, eh? Now I know yours is not a scientific mind. :-)
So go ahead. Prove to me that the ball will hit the floor.
: If I take oil, a flamable type I know about, and put it
: over flame, it will ignite. That is proven and
: science. It isn't a guess. I know for an absolutely
: fact that if I do that, it will ignite.
It's science, sure, but it's not proven. I won't ask you to try to prove it, because it would take too long to go through all the chemistry and such...just work on the ball example. :-)
: Yes. The equations can, in fact, be created via these
: concepts, which is precisely as Einstein did. He took
: knowledge from elsewhere in the world, then applied
: it, creating the equations. Equations do not express
: the world; the world expresses equations.
The concepts can help create the equations. That doesn't mean the equations need the concepts. The structure of benzene may have been arrived at in a dream, but we don't all need to have the same dream to learn about benzene's structure now.
: That gravity causes these things at certain values. The
: comination of these values equals the math you're
: talking about. Using math as a tool then allows a
: person to predict an event and use it as a science .
You're repeating yourself. "Gravity causes spacetime to curve and bend." That still doesn't mean anything in itself. Where's spacetime? What's spacetime? What does it mean for it to bend?
: Wrong; everything. The events happen. We can understand
: them through the tool of mathematics.
Yes, the events happen, and we can understand them through mathematics. So we don't need sentences like "Gravity bends spacetime" in addition.
: So you are saying this: nothing need exist except
: equations in the universe, that space isn't actually
: curved. Well, I thought you'd say that, actually.
: Spacetime IS curved by gravity. Why can't we see it,
: you seem to imply? Because light travels along these
: curves, bending and flowing with everything else that
: travels in space.
If you thought I'd say that, you're wrong.
I'm not arguing that spacetime isn't curved by gravity. I'm saying that the sentence "spacetime is curved by gravity" doesn't mean much of anything without the math. Nor does "light travels along these curves."
I happen to believe spacetime is curved by mass, and that gravity is an expression of this curvature. But that's not a scientific theory until I add the math in and take the sloppy human sentences out.
: Math doesn't come first. Not only are the images and
: descriptions first formed in the mind, but equations
: are not underlying the universe. The universe, a
: physical thing, is there, which we choose to explain
: and predict through math.
You're repeating me now. :-) We have the universe, a physical thing...it inspires images and verbal descriptions...these inspire the math. The original referent remains, and you have the end product. But the middle stuff only points the way, and it's not required by the end product.
: Quantum Mechanics is jotty, bumpy, irregular, strange,
: and utlimately warped as a mental patient's mind. QM
: evokes a LACK of clarity, whereas Relativity improves
: clarity, in all artistic and scientific ways; I hope I
: need not delineate here. To me, based on this
: information, I form the opinion that Relativity is far
: more beautiful, and tend to therefore agree with
: Einstein.
: lol! That crock? Explain the basic principles. The fact
: is, QM is totally unusual and so utterly different
: from the real world, it can't fit into something
: regular and flowing, like Relativity, much less
: Newtonia.
I think I must take a page from your book now: Please return to this discussion once you have read through least one quantum theory textbook--or better yet, taken a class. No offense, but if you don't believe that relativistic quantum mechanics is a viable theory, you really don't know enough to keep talking. And no, I don't have either the time or the inclination to explain the Dirac equation and its consequences to you.
: Lol! I am saddened to a most sympathetic degree if you
: truly think all of what you've said here, including
: this. Ockham theorized that the simplest explanation
: would often be the correct one. Reality proves the
: simplest explanation will often be the correct one.
: He's right.
And how does reality prove this? You keep talking about proof, but you don't actually provide the proofs...
: Via probability, and the fact that the universe doesn't
: so radically change from moment to moment that such
: basic principles change; they, in fact, stay
: relatively constant.
Do they? Prove it.
: That's because it's EXACTLY nothing, as you pointed out.
: Little letters and numbers on a page mean precisely
: nothing. All you did is put up a random equation which
: visually looks simpler than E=mc^2.
: EQUATIONS DO NOT DOMINATE THE WORLD.
: Equations are no more than very simple representations of
: something real. Relativity itself is very simple. It
: requires only four simple equations to describe it.
: The fact that one equation is simpler than another means
: nothing. Your equation describes a world so complex,
: it doesn't exist. "E=0" means nothing, at
: all.
: Let us assume that you imply by it "energy =
: nothing". How do you get this to work? After
: hours, weeks, eternity trying to come up with a
: directly comparable-to-relativity explanation, you
: fail. In that mean time, you set up an incredibly
: complex, however flawed, latus of theorem. E=0 is not
: simple at all, but extraordinarily to the contrary,
: and utterly entirely so that it can't even exist.
I presumed you knew enough about relativity to figure out what E = 0 would mean by comparison with E = Mc^2, but evidently that was a mistake.
That would simply mean that the kinetic energy of every particle--defined, let's say, in Newtonian terms as half the mass times the velocity squared--is calculable as zero. Is it true? Hell no. Is it simple? Hell yes.
You know, I've read a lot of philosophers who believed in the "best of all possible worlds" hypothesis, but until now, I never met anyone who believed that this is the simplest of all possible worlds...:-)
: Obviously not. Explain why gathering knowledge and
: drawing a reasonable conclusion from it isn't proven.
Again, I'm not going to bother. Look up "Hume" and "inductive principle" on the search engine of your choice.
--SiliconDream
