Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False

Science > Physics > Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Perfectly Innocent"
Date:	06 Nov 2003 09:20:10 AM
Object:	Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False

There is a philosophy in physics that alleges that the universe is
mechanistic. Mechanistic philosophy is the central pillar and faith
of the overwhelming majority of crackpots. Mechanistic philosophy is
obviously false.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=468
Richard Feynman once said, "I think it is safe to say that no one
understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you
can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it possibly be like that?' because
you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has
yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy.
.

User: "MorituriMax"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	06 Nov 2003 04:06:33 PM

"Perfectly Innocent" <perfectlyInnocent@as-if.com> wrote in message
news:c45b45b3.0311060720.22b63736@posting.google.com...

If it were OBVIOUSLY false, then nobody would believe it.
.

User: "Perfectly Innocent"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	07 Nov 2003 02:01:22 PM

(Daniel Weston) wrote in message news:<15845-3FAA9BB2-238@storefull-2174.public.lawson.webtv.net>...

P.I. It seems to me that in your post you used "mechanistic" to mean
different things. It would be a big help if you could let us know what
you think a _non_ mechanistic philosophy is.

I've elaborated on the mechanistic philosophy here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=c45b45b3.0311062129.3c835cc3%40posting.google.com
A non-mechanistic philosophy would be any system of thought opposed to
that. The belief that God plays dice with the universe and that all
fundamental physics is essentially quantum based, is a non-mechanistic
view of physics.

For example, if I accept the validity of the EM field and the
gravitational field, am I accepting a mechanistic philosophy or non
mechanistic philosophy?

I think of the equations of electromagnetism as a purely mathematical
summary of all known empirically verifiable properties of the EM
force. Quantum effects are ignored. Aggregate, non-quantum
approximations are highlighted. Visualizing an EM field as something
objectively occupying space and pretending it has a real existence on
its own is purely a creation of the human mind. Likewise, there's no
objective scientific reason to believe that powerful EM fields emanate
from charged particles. Correspondingly, there's no rational reason to
read Maxwell's equations as a measure of electromagnetic force
resulting from a mechanical strain on an invisible, luminiferous
ether. Maxwell's equations merely express how charged particles behave
in empty space or in different media where aggregate material
properties are summarized by dielectric constants.
If you believe that the earth moves in its orbit around the sun
because the earth is stuck in a constantly flexing eddy of spacetime
fabric, then yes, that's a mechanistic belief.
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy."
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
.

User: "Ophelia"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	08 Nov 2003 12:51:36 PM

(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.0311060720.22b63736@posting.google.com>...

Richard Feynman once said, "I think it is safe to say that no one
understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you
can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it possibly be like that?' because
you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has
yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy.

Dear Mr. Shubert:
Sir, your comments struck a chord in me. Most of us, not being
physicists or cosmologists, go through the threads of this Newsgroup
with profound awe at the strangeness of the macro universe, and words
utterly fail us in the area of what quantum theory suggests about
nature at the subatomic level. Frankly, many of us are simply not
equipped, math-wise at least, to fully grasp many of the things being
discussed in here, to grasp what so awfully assaults our intuitive
sense for the world around us. It's all really rather quite
disturbing.
Two questions arise:
(1) Is what's really goes on in this universe so utterly divorced from
reality as we perceive it that not inconceivably there may be
something wrong with the mathematics of S and GR? I see myself as
reasonably intelligent, but for all my reading on texts designed for
the layman on this subject, I just can grasp the concept. It utterly
escapes me. I guess it's the "time" thing. I can't seem to wrap my
mind around it, what it really means to discuss time. Do physicists
know what they mean, really know, when they discuss time? Are they all
on the same page here? Must not "time," no matter how vague our sense
for the notion it conjures up in most of us, always, always move in a
forward direction?
(2) For those of us not in these fields, is our complete lack of
understanding of these matters solely a function of our limited
background in mathematics? Sort of like, is the written and spoken
language not adequate (as opposed to the mathematical equations), not
up to the task of explaining these things to otherwise reasonably
intelligent people? Or are we being jacked around a little, as it
were?
(3) Sheesh, forget about S and GR, if even one-tenth of what Quantum
Theory is telling us about the subatomic universe is correct, these
things are astonishing in almost infinite measure beyond what any
religion ever dared suggest that mankind believe. Why is it, then,
that so many of these same scientists can accept these absolutely
outrageous things without batting an eyelash but categorically reject
the idea of a Prime Mover, of a God who set it all in motion?
Thank you for considering my comments.
(Confused Little Old Lady)
.

User: "Big Bird"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	11 Nov 2003 05:46:09 PM

(Ophelia) wrote in message news:<f8defb0d.0311081051.423fd101@posting.google.com>...

Two questions arise:

(1) Is what's really goes on in this universe so utterly divorced from
reality as we perceive it that not inconceivably there may be
something wrong with the mathematics of S and GR?

This sentence is in utter self-contradiction. "What really goes on in
the universe" cannot possibly be "divorced from reality" as it *IS*
reality.
Reality is all the stuff that actually, really happens. Whether you
like it or not, whether you understand it or not, whether you grasp it
or not, whether you find it intuitively obvious or not. Whether you
agree with it or not.
Whether you think about it or not.
Human intuition can be a finely honed tool -- but like all other human
traits it needs training or it'll wither away. Untrained intuition
leads people to nonsense like "the earth is flat" or "heavy objects
fall faster than light ones". Intuition is fine, but by itself it is
worthless. It's a nice thing to point you into a direction that might
be worthwhile exploring -- but unless you follow up and actually
explore it (or, MUCH smarter, look up whether someone else has
explored it already) you're merely wasting everybody's time.

Must not "time," no matter how vague our sense
for the notion it conjures up in most of us, always, always move in a
forward direction?

That's what SR tells you. It's people who proclaim that you can travel
faster than light who are selling time that goes backwards -- usually
because they don't understand that the two are equivalent. SR is
really just a well-worked out set of conclusions of causality.

(2) For those of us not in these fields, is our complete lack of
understanding of these matters solely a function of our limited
background in mathematics? Sort of like, is the written and spoken
language not adequate (as opposed to the mathematical equations), not
up to the task of explaining these things to otherwise reasonably
intelligent people? Or are we being jacked around a little, as it
were?

I find the line between language and math decidedly blurry. But if you
want to tell me what you saw and when and where, then we need
coordinates to describe the event -- spatial and time coordinates. And
at that point we've entered the real of math. Every kid understands
that when you say "right here in front of me" that this doesn't mean
the thing is in front of *ME*, i.e. that there are transformations
that must be applied to transform the observation from your viewpoint
to mine.
All you have to do is write these transformations down.
Highschool-level math is sufficient, as those books demonstrate that
are geared towards the layman.

(3) Sheesh, [...]

Now you said "two questions". Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be
a lower bound to mathematical grasp and in this newsgroup it can
happen quite easily that a poster doesn't understand that there is a
difference between two and three. As a long-time reader you stop
assuming that they made some small little mistake somewhere, as this
is cutting too much slack to many posters here.

forget about S and GR, if even one-tenth of what Quantum
Theory is telling us about the subatomic universe is correct, these
things are astonishing in almost infinite measure beyond what any
religion ever dared suggest that mankind believe.

The diference is that QM never asked you to believe a thing. There are
certain mathematical models that are derived in an attempt to describe
what everybody can observe. These models work so-and-so well. People
stare at them and say "if this were true, then one would see X when
one did Y" and then you do "Y" and sometimes you do indeed see "X" and
sometimes you don't. If you do, you scratch your head and say "gee,
that's odd, but apparently this is in fact how things behave".
The universe is not obligated to make sense to YOU. You have grown up
in an environment of low velocities, high pressures, dominated by
things like friction and turbulence -- why should you have a good
intuition for things that are frictionless and close to the speed of
light?
The best rule I can figure out to deal with the universe is for ME to
change until whatever happens in the universe makes sense to me.
Because whatever happens in the universe is what's real -- whether I
can make sense of it or not. Whatever happens in the universe
*defines* what makes sense.

Why is it, then,
that so many of these same scientists can accept these absolutely
outrageous things without batting an eyelash but categorically reject
the idea of a Prime Mover, of a God who set it all in motion?

Because these "outrageous things" are what everybody can observe for
themselves by themselves if only they got off their lazy asses and did
the experiments themselves. We can haggle all day how good the
evidence for this or that QM effect really is, but there *is* evidence
for us to haggle about.
While there is not the tiniest shred of evidence for any kind of "god"
to be found anywhere.

of a God who set it all in motion?

And who set that "god" in motion? Some super-god who created the god?
And then some uber-god who created super god? And mega-god created
uber-god?
Turtles all the way down?
But if "god" doesn't need to be set in motion, if it doesn't require a
creator to exist, then there's no reason why the universe needs one
either. Some things exist, some don't, some exist for a short time,
some for a longer time, some are being created and some come into
existence all by themselves. If we're honest, then we will do our best
to investigate each thing on its own to figure out which of these it
is.
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	11 Nov 2003 08:01:32 PM

"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0311111546.575eb2f1@posting.google.com...

thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com (Ophelia) wrote in message

news:<f8defb0d.0311081051.423fd101@posting.google.com>...

This sentence is in utter self-contradiction. "What really goes on in
the universe" cannot possibly be "divorced from reality" as it *IS*
reality.

I don't find that a fair comment. You took part of a sentence out of
context.
What was said was "reality as we perceive it ", not reality itself.

Reality is all the stuff that actually, really happens. Whether you
like it or not, whether you understand it or not, whether you grasp it
or not, whether you find it intuitively obvious or not. Whether you
agree with it or not.

Whether you think about it or not.

Human intuition can be a finely honed tool -- but like all other human
traits it needs training or it'll wither away. Untrained intuition
leads people to nonsense like "the earth is flat" or "heavy objects
fall faster than light ones". Intuition is fine, but by itself it is
worthless. It's a nice thing to point you into a direction that might
be worthwhile exploring -- but unless you follow up and actually
explore it (or, MUCH smarter, look up whether someone else has
explored it already) you're merely wasting everybody's time.

Not at all. You are under no obligation to waste your time answering a post.
The poster is asking relevant questions and partly stating an opinion. If
you choose to answer it, that's your choice and your time. Waste it as you
wish, but don't put the blame on someone else.

Must not "time," no matter how vague our sense
for the notion it conjures up in most of us, always, always move in a
forward direction?

That's what SR tells you.

Relativity is based on assumption, and that is no better than assertion, as
far as I can see. But I doubt you realize that, since you are so quick at
jumping to conclusions and ready to take issue with part of a sentence. What
relativity tells me is that a lot of fools have been taken in.

It's people who proclaim that you can travel
faster than light who are selling time that goes backwards -- usually
because they don't understand that the two are equivalent. SR is
really just a well-worked out set of conclusions of causality.

No it isn't. It isn't even close. It is assumption, and a poor one at that.

I find the line between language and math decidedly blurry. But if you
want to tell me what you saw and when and where, then we need
coordinates to describe the event -- spatial and time coordinates. And
at that point we've entered the real of math. Every kid understands
that when you say "right here in front of me" that this doesn't mean
the thing is in front of *ME*, i.e. that there are transformations
that must be applied to transform the observation from your viewpoint
to mine.

All you have to do is write these transformations down.
Highschool-level math is sufficient, as those books demonstrate that
are geared towards the layman.

But not sufficient for the mathematician, who will read the original paper
and will critique it. Have you ever read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies", or are you just pontificating?

(3) Sheesh, [...]

Oh, you ARE just pontificating. Posters are dummies, right?
You are a pompous twit.
[snip the remainder]
Androcles
.

User: "Big Bird"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	12 Nov 2003 01:34:25 PM

"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Bvgsb.262$dq.257@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...

"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0311111546.575eb2f1@posting.google.com...

thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com (Ophelia) wrote in message

news:<f8defb0d.0311081051.423fd101@posting.google.com>...

This sentence is in utter self-contradiction. "What really goes on in
the universe" cannot possibly be "divorced from reality" as it *IS*
reality.

I don't find that a fair comment. You took part of a sentence out of
context.
What was said was "reality as we perceive it ", not reality itself.

The clinical term for the belief in a hidden order beyond the visible
is "paranoia".

Human intuition can be a finely honed tool -- but like all other human
traits it needs training or it'll wither away. Untrained intuition
leads people to nonsense like "the earth is flat" or "heavy objects
fall faster than light ones". Intuition is fine, but by itself it is
worthless. It's a nice thing to point you into a direction that might
be worthwhile exploring -- but unless you follow up and actually
explore it (or, MUCH smarter, look up whether someone else has
explored it already) you're merely wasting everybody's time.

Not at all. You are under no obligation to waste your time answering a post.

The paragraph you are responding to has nothing whatsoever to do with
posting on usenet. It has nothing to do with answering posts.

Must not "time," no matter how vague our sense
for the notion it conjures up in most of us, always, always move in a
forward direction?

That's what SR tells you.

Relativity is based on assumption,

It is not. You are a liar.

No it isn't. It isn't even close. It is assumption, and a poor one at that.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever in SR is "assumed".

Every kid understands
that when you say "right here in front of me" that this doesn't mean
the thing is in front of *ME*, i.e. that there are transformations
that must be applied to transform the observation from your viewpoint
to mine.

All you have to do is write these transformations down.
Highschool-level math is sufficient, as those books demonstrate that
are geared towards the layman.

But not sufficient for the mathematician, who will read the original paper
and will critique it. Have you ever read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies", or are you just pontificating?

I have. It has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that every
highschooler can write down the transformation from a coordinate
system into another one.

(3) Sheesh, [...]

Oh, you ARE just pontificating. Posters are dummies, right?

As I stated clearly: *Some* of them are. You are going out of your way
to appear as one of them.
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	12 Nov 2003 02:45:21 PM

"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0311121134.2f51f58e@posting.google.com...

"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

news:<Bvgsb.262$dq.257@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...

"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0311111546.575eb2f1@posting.google.com...

thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com (Ophelia) wrote in message

news:<f8defb0d.0311081051.423fd101@posting.google.com>...

Two questions arise:

(1) Is what's really goes on in this universe so utterly divorced

from

reality as we perceive it that not inconceivably there may be
something wrong with the mathematics of S and GR?

This sentence is in utter self-contradiction. "What really goes on in
the universe" cannot possibly be "divorced from reality" as it *IS*
reality.

I don't find that a fair comment. You took part of a sentence out of
context.
What was said was "reality as we perceive it ", not reality itself.

The clinical term for the belief in a hidden order beyond the visible
is "paranoia".

That definition rather makes relativists paranoiacs, then.

Not at all. You are under no obligation to waste your time answering a

post.

The paragraph you are responding to has nothing whatsoever to do with
posting on usenet. It has nothing to do with answering posts.

Then the paragraph has no relevance whatsoever, except to display your
pomposity.

Must not "time," no matter how vague our sense
for the notion it conjures up in most of us, always, always move in

forward direction?

That's what SR tells you.

Relativity is based on assumption,

It is not.

Yes it is.

You are a liar.

No I am not.
Here is proof incontravertible that I speak truth, not that I expect you
would even look.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
Which is to be found toward the end of section 1.
See that word "assume" ? That's the assumption I refer to, written by
Einstein.
It is used later in
where the 1/2 appears. That 1/2 is just a rather stupid guess.
Ergo, relativity is based on assumption. Quod erat demonstrandum.

No it isn't. It isn't even close. It is assumption, and a poor one at

that.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever in SR is "assumed".

You are either a liar, or speaking from ignorance. Personal conviction has
overridden your senses. Einstein has used the word "assume" and that is just
what he did. Assumed the 1/2. Not only has he done so deliberately, he tries
to shore it up with rhetorical appeal, in the phrase "in agreement with
experience". It does NOT agree with my experience that the longer (or
shorter) return path takes the same time as the shorter (or longer) outward
path of the light ray. If light speed is constant, as claimed, and the path
lengths differ, then the times differ. Adding them and dividing my two is
utter stupidity, and it follows that anyone swallowing such a yarn is
utterly stupid.

But not sufficient for the mathematician, who will read the original

paper

and will critique it. Have you ever read "On the Electrodynamics of

Moving

Bodies", or are you just pontificating?

I have. It has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that every
highschooler can write down the transformation from a coordinate
system into another one.

Parrots can imitate human speech, too, but they don't understand it.

(3) Sheesh, [...]

Oh, you ARE just pontificating. Posters are dummies, right?

As I stated clearly: *Some* of them are. You are going out of your way
to appear as one of them.

And you go out of your way to appear as a pompous, ignorant prig, and stupid
to boot.
Androcles.
begin 666 img7.gif
M1TE&.#EA5@`L`.<``````)F9F6=G9U5553,S,][>WLS,S!$1$:JJJHB(B'AX
M>/___T1$1._O[R(B(KN[NP``````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"'Y! $```L`+ ````!6`"P`0 C^`!<('$BPH,&#
M"!,J7,BPH4$#`!0(5 #@`4$%!2(:!,!@8 ..#D.*'$FRI,F3*%,:9,"RI4L$
M%QTHA&A1)4*:!QL<*&"S9 $%0%GV'$HTY .>19,Z'""1H $"+0\<* AR($4#
M2K-J1?B@J]>O#0P^(( @08*'4P4Z:#K40-JM"#$N`(# `-N!"2JFI&N78 *>
M#.["'4P8)0.L;@7K[+B1\8(``,X6/EG@P%T%82G6' A@+= #`B:73.!9`>,&
M`P@^`!":LV.W!$3+GHT0@.W;N'/KWLV[]^Z4.IO678@``%;:* DH> !4X "]
M"Q3$7H# \5#IM)$N$)!Z) *@X,'^2R;(_:"!O)NW-DAO=<&!\2;7%Q00=D&"
MMY,?"&# LX `C<@%*." !*K4@&D#P#=08 4%0(!M+!% @((%#F2 `S4]IUUT
M#!C7&$%555C0<0L\5]\"/[DG$U6G#;"3B DQT%I["ZPF6(@ZS0BC5<+5%(!V
M%&T88G0>[HAB;K$]T&%3_@%@60',.0G>`0R<:.256,[V`(E9%N32EPS 1% `
M!V E5)<F0<8E0VL*^-6;#U@9P(HH2I2 `!M:12>:!D%94%<"K<99GBH)JJ6=
M'4)EP ,!$)5 HH<%6)R5#7T7GG@&37H0>H195J-!.A$ZDJ?L2?1>IPITYQ2G
A*%FF:IT905DGVU\+,#B4?ORA^)]@A=$GT'U\!DM80 `[
`
end
begin 666 img22.gif
M1TE&.#EA\P$M`.<``````)&1D7]_?TE)2>[N[C<W-[:VMJ2DI&YN;EQ<7/__
M_]O;VR0D),G)R1(2$@``````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"'Y! $```H`+ ````#S`2T`0 C^`!4('$BPH,&#
M"!,J7,BPH<.'$"-*G$BQHL6+&#-JW,BQH\>/!!$P<%!@(0"0*%,Z# " @,J7
M&!T@@#E1)D0!#A86,$"S($N7/8-2M/D09T0$)16>%,I48X&D3:.R7&!SP<RH
M/@%0G6GU(@$`/ WN#/KTX0$`#;!^G%KU:L6O81$"F$MWKER"!P0*$!#2K0($
M2P6"/0B8X&"#A0<>-G@6Z$ $?O]"1I"@P&0$:0?F5; W(5+"@14L#AEZ]./2
M<1FW1#RY\N7,BNO*GDV[=EW6D%U/AAW;MN_?=!$:,*U@[,7-G3U#)1A P0+B
MGE&#-IP:[^J"EW5#YBT8N'?;PJ'^"VP`X"K@ZHHA(EB@D'U#]PSA(^P*LZQ#
M^>T?XO=H@'M$`G&A9U%_"AD064$`#B2@<] 91Y-]$NTWWWTO$4A1@@(MR*"&
M$86FUH<0G24AB!4MP.%#`#J6D8D,&;A0BH0QH-.)((E((D@L>F6 BB')>../
M0 8IY)!$%FED1Y\I=220".2T)$<)N,1 `@*@=6.4"DQ9I7\/_820@S0U^21*
M6&II)45>:N1A0@-L)EA8PR5T6)QRP;DF070*=, `!1YXU)VBV2FGH'5F"*B"
MARK@HI"+,GDGF"HEUM !RQTTYZ&7%IAHHS]*>M&:E17TG(H&,-! J9D-,!JJ
MJ JD:FK^K)KJZFCE\3G05WTN%&ITPIG:J@*OXNFKK,"N.BQLP2J&@*W"^0DB
MIS=Z.A"D%>W*:T$),+!L`0=@:5"R&1X[*ZSB%IM:K;D&*>VLR#J;WI@@XL0C
MO BQQ*6>EUW&5T'#998`1O9ZUIIEN_%[YK\&R?LEC1TI3"]$`1]T0+Z3[8OG
MP0@Y_/#&''?L\<<@ARSRR"27;/+)%I4'V8@H8S2 Q2TO=-:]'\[<$ $,N&E0
M`) YP#!(+\<LD<T,X:RS0TG**;1'22]]:U@-N$0IB1A&K<#4$0W',K4O->VT
M055+76E#6C_DM4&)?OW0<#^;7"61;V<TP-@"<8T2VVHK%+?^RW13E'9(S0TD
M`&6!)S1X`H5G3/A-[FY$WM&"+ZZWY(93CE4#["U <U28.[<Y1 PP2Y#='SW^
M$%&5([[0X8ESGOGG#X6N9D%GR7:JCP)Y"IWN`O)^D `%`,! `; QH"&TM,_&
MW=E_28>8\]A!7Q#PPA/?[)#(/TN<W09T[_WW\]9>EW_,-Y# `0P,[@#LOC]/
MW>_!#W]O]A_BC=&:N!(T.$'DN?<<E_T3R/\.$D &W:L\B@H)S/C5. 7D#R'E
MTXH`SU20`@[0(!:D(-IF<KP&1H5^:K'?Z!;TE!*:D%L'>2 $^_:7I$".@!(T
M( S]IT'#<# A(,2*" ]B/?*XZV_^XV%A2%@VQ(:L1R$$L%Y^+/*<%WJ&B(^!
M8A0C1"0I0L2*#)D2#]N&D296Y(@,`>-"Q*@?(6GQ/0B\2]XL0AXNCBE@$(I(
M``P0@)(0P&<`LU(<&9B0.=;1@7C\ENA&&)0V+@V.0NPC'>T82$$R!">382$0
MUSA&W(DL`$YRC@>5DSO8,023`Z'/07*8),RH9E[3<F-&1!(S4 IPDX1)BBE/
MR1$`E-"3E/0,PG)9L@:L3SG!4^5&*,-+C/@2E\5,IC*7R<QF.O.9T(QFM":#
M16>2,9?(9 HNYZ@0GJU,+==4YC:%V8 &3A*:"1AD+L4T)'8VA#R?(YU*T@E-
M=S($GD?^2>0YF^G%9<902/]TB&44(D\<`<")R0QH0P9J-GU*,R%P6:/YT*>^
M4[6N*1--7Y,L.I$"J#.50HEH,3-:43IV]*,K-,E#$8(ZM37G.<),R4O%$Q$'
M+!"D06EI+F<:TX+8%&D.72FV,DG))"$T*D:]R%2V&)0$$/6>+4NJ19;:)P:4
MYZ+O0EHU82)*E:0Q;]G:5K=0V92PSFVL][MI<7HZD:^&\:DA,RNWO)4RM;;5
M(0U8#F1<A=7<764`?94,7Q5"GM%];JL'H2IV_AK8O0*KL8Q=2&&7*"3$PL2I
M3*6)8AFBT,4.%H*13<AD$V+9EV V(T <%:+>9Y \!6J4TL/^CB55V%I8>@:N
MBHJMH5AK,-[&*%U!RJ%4.EM0CMB3(&%35&!SZ]O5*D9#K,2A;7NRV8J$I@$#
M6*3W...7]D6ON;G3[7A,@P"[*LI=V-5N]Q!#-^^2!KS-@^]X.23<#TZ7)CNL
M&PE/:,*CI;>.VV7O0<I$I1I.Y[D'?A-"#"E=1M$4(G=*`&\<JQ?Q[NVU"1.O
M`NCIV;[DAF#;&3#-F'=AZ)180"=."(<7^^'7@'-@+M8>>HK[$ DKA'D5OHF%
M-;QB#U,&Q+.LWX,?LJ:S\,N2H@G<'SF3`/D`0,E)$4"3#0-EO4Q9,0<H)T&,
MUV"%&/E::*LRDYTL9BF362!+'K/^8;+LKOHVQ<U"J=*\N/>].J/RRV >"%NX
MXB<S4QG-4;ZR8,HL:-&PN<M DG/"IDP`I 1-::*:5YL0M!=258<`E<;3I3.M
MH-1@2#,HS5 #%T!6/1E8()@6@*4IK6I-LYI'ZWW:0N L%%KW9 !(UJ]&2"TS
M`W=.<P7:=*L[_6I7RQJX/\(U80.IJA&=$P'+/2_9-BG<_;U$I\A&]*SOFS=;
MRPFK--X(MAWBYG)SFTA/ENQ 5$76?2IS72,KU0&2,Q$JS83!%Y$WO6NK$'LK
M`-_ZNTY!PJT1>)],W^;5U?X`'O!2#WR7EA*J0;1ELJ]<)<NTHQAD%LB7- ;Y
M0FG$N(^DM?/QCIO'/U_I*\$U0O&865Q/O)F8QCDNFI.G,-UAO/B"W*W,KQQU
M8\>MB%$<>&[LX':4C1MZHP]RQLSVQ.<Q"_I$E.ZLII-6-KG.JL1OQ8!H/TQ;
M!BKZ>"?F=8> G<)()^Q!H7T0!RQWY1K!6=D[=G:Q/X[M;9\[D;?^6[X'I;17
E$_C"D)IUOP?>X12Y#."+*8#%&_XE`=B<-\,9E,8_7L_9# @`.P``
`
end
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	12 Nov 2003 02:51:52 PM

Androcles:

"Big Bird" <condor@biosys.net> wrote in message
news:df160b8f.0311111546.575eb2f1@posting.google.com...

thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com (Ophelia) wrote in message

news:<f8defb0d.0311081051.423fd101@posting.google.com>...

This sentence is in utter self-contradiction. "What really goes on in
the universe" cannot possibly be "divorced from reality" as it *IS*
reality.

I don't find that a fair comment. You took part of a sentence out of
context.
What was said was "reality as we perceive it ", not reality itself.

I find that rather funny. Your mantra, as well as the mantra of
the rest of the crackpots is that relativity (and/or quantum mechanics)
is just a mathematical and unphysical abstraction. Yet, here you insist
that the most obvious and simple explanations of reality might not be
reality, presumably because there exists some complex underlying
phenomena, that is responsible for the obvious but nevertheless,
has no independent reality. That complex, underlying "reality"
practically defines "mathematical artifice" and "abstraction", if
it has no independent reality.
[...]

That's what SR tells you.

Relativity is based on assumption, and that is no better than assertion, as
far as I can see.

Of course. Those things are called "postulates". In the case of
relativity it's a rather general assumption. I doubt if you
could come with _any_ assumption which is less speculative than
what amounts to "nature is the same wherever or whenever you
perform experiments".

But I doubt you realize that, since you are so quick at
jumping to conclusions and ready to take issue with part of a sentence.
What relativity tells me is that a lot of fools have been taken in.

Us fools are taken in easily by theories which rely on a few very
general and simple assumptions that lead to results which agree with
data. I suppose smart people realize that nothing in nature could
possibly be simple since the world is so complex.
[...]

All you have to do is write these transformations down.
Highschool-level math is sufficient, as those books demonstrate that
are geared towards the layman.

But not sufficient for the mathematician, who will read the original paper
and will critique it. Have you ever read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies", or are you just pontificating?

If you want something that is "sufficient for a mathematician",
rather than argue about einstein's 100 year old argument, why not
just derive the lorentz transforms from a mathematical argument?
It's simple and there are several ways to go about it that are
mathematically rigorous and don't rely on physics for anything but
matching the value `c' to a physical phenomenon. Start with a
vector x^u = (t, x, y, z) and make the infinitessimal displacement,
x^u -> x^u' = x^u + a^u, then find the infinitessimal generators of
the transformation such that x'^2 = x^2 in the limit that the displacement
goes to zero. From that construct a finite displacement. Viola!
you have the lorenz transforms in hyperbolic form.
[...]

Oh, you ARE just pontificating. Posters are dummies, right?

Let's put it this way. If not, then a lot of smart people have
deliberately created that iimpression and gone to a lot of effort
to reinforce their usenet "personna" by pretending to not understand
what are rather straight forward explanations of things which require
little more than high school mathematics and common sense somewhat
above the people depicted in the movie "Deliverance".
.

User: "Jeff Relf"
Title: . God .	09 Nov 2003 05:58:52 AM

Hi Ophelia , You say :
" Why is it , then , that so many of these same scientists
can accept these absolutely outrageous things
without batting an eyelash
but categorically reject the idea of a Prime Mover ,
of a God who set it all in motion ? "
" Prime Mover " ? " God " ?
It's foul to call " God " infinite in any way .
Because that would be a patently meaningless concept .
Q. So what is " God " ?
A. He is just one of your superiors ... Any superior .
Be it your friend , Your church , or the government .
Now _ That _ has meaning !
.

User: "Dave"
Title: Re: . God .	10 Nov 2003 08:01:04 AM

"Jeff Relf" <__.Jeff-Relf@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:9cadcbln5e00.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...

Hi Ophelia , You say :
" Why is it , then , that so many of these same scientists
can accept these absolutely outrageous things
without batting an eyelash
but categorically reject the idea of a Prime Mover ,
of a God who set it all in motion ? "

" Prime Mover " ? " God " ?

It's foul to call " God " infinite in any way .

Because that would be a patently meaningless concept .

Q. So what is " God " ?

A. He is just one of your superiors ... Any superior .
Be it your friend , Your church , or the government .

Now _ That _ has meaning !

God is the source energy behind EVERYTHING we can possibly perceive or
measure. I have looked into the face of God and am in awe.....
My church, my government...superior, I don't think so...my friends
however...all without a doubt. As everything exists through the source
energy, then everything is God.
Music. The ability to record music for someone else to hear at a later date,
in all its glory, now that's pure magic!! - call it science if you must but
it is REAL MAGIC.
love n hugs
Dave.
(doncha jus' lurv ngworld??)
.

User: "Gregory L. Hansen"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	08 Nov 2003 08:54:08 PM

In article <f8defb0d.0311081051.423fd101@posting.google.com>,
Ophelia <thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com> wrote:

(1) Is what's really goes on in this universe so utterly divorced from
reality as we perceive it that not inconceivably there may be
something wrong with the mathematics of S and GR?

There's observations, and then theories that attempt to unify and explain
classes of observations. Theories have a certain arbitrary element but
are constrained by internal consistency and correspondence with
measurement. SR and GR do actually describe measurable things -- clocks
in orbit really do run faster, fast pions really do live longer than slow
pions, when a nucleus alpha decays the sum of the masses of the fragments
weigh less than the original nucleus did, and so on.
The only valid alternative to SR that I know of is Lorentz's aether
theory, but that has wierdness of its own -- lengths still contract, time
still dilates, but relative to a rest frame and with properties that
ensure the rest frame could never be observed. But that's a theory of
electromagnetism, SR is more general (and apparantly validly so) and does
away with an unobservable.

I see myself as
reasonably intelligent, but for all my reading on texts designed for
the layman on this subject, I just can grasp the concept. It utterly
escapes me. I guess it's the "time" thing. I can't seem to wrap my
mind around it, what it really means to discuss time. Do physicists
know what they mean, really know, when they discuss time? Are they all
on the same page here? Must not "time," no matter how vague our sense
for the notion it conjures up in most of us, always, always move in a
forward direction?

If time stopped, or went backwards, how would you know? If it stopped,
you'd have no memory of the event because your senses and perceptions
would stop, too. If it went backwards you'd lose memories as you lose
time. Time could be going back and forth like a yo-yo for all we know.
But suspecting that doesn't help us relate measurable things to other
measurable things. Physics needs a handle in the observable.

If mathematics are essential to understanding the theories, it substitutes
for the lifetime of personal experience that we don't have with objects
moving close to the speed of light. Most of us don't have a lot of
experience with things going much faster than airplanes. When you don't
see it happen, sometimes you have to be able to crank through the
equations to answer "what if" questions before you develop your own
intuition. When I was studying black holes I had some "what if"
questions, like what would happen if I poked it with a stick. I've never
personally poked a black hole with a stick, and I hadn't read accounts of
doing it, so I had to work it out myself, and now I think I have some
intuition about it.

(3) Sheesh, forget about S and GR, if even one-tenth of what Quantum
Theory is telling us about the subatomic universe is correct, these
things are astonishing in almost infinite measure beyond what any
religion ever dared suggest that mankind believe. Why is it, then,
that so many of these same scientists can accept these absolutely
outrageous things without batting an eyelash but categorically reject
the idea of a Prime Mover, of a God who set it all in motion?

Quantum mechanics predicts that neutrons, particles with spin 1/2, must be
turned 720 degrees, or turned twice, to return to their original state.
Sam Werner did an experiment to test exactly that prediction -- he split a
neutron beam in an interferometer, rotated one arm by a certain amount,
and recombined the beam, measured the resulting interference patterns, and
validated the prediction of QM. I've Bragg reflected neutrons from
crystals and again found a wavelike behavior exactly as QM described.
That's the essential difference. The things described in physics theories
are measurable, testable, and experiments are done. Way back when
relativity and quantum mechanics were new, nobody would have accepted such
outlandish ideas in the first place unless they were in some way forced to
by the way the world works.
The Prime Mover, on the other hand, has been reluctant lately to come down
for interviews and to get his weight and blood pressure checked.
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekul�
.

User: "Ophelia"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	09 Nov 2003 11:48:37 AM

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<boka8g$v0f$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
(snip)

The Prime Mover, on the other hand, has been reluctant lately to come down
for interviews and to get his weight and blood pressure checked.

That was belly-buster, sir - I'll give you that! I've often played
around with precisely that thought, and came to that conclusion that
at whatever level Mr. Prime Mover operates on, he cannot not now peek
in and collapse our local wave function, or any other for that matter.
Which is not to say, though, that He remains forever inaccessible to
that which he created, you and me. I mean, this is big stuff! If we
first posit that all motion, of any kind, presupposes a moving agent,
we must then accept that infinite regression is not in the cards.
Remember, consciousness is tied up with the idea of motion. Besides
which, infinite regression kinda hurts the brain. Yep, infinity is
just too long a time. Gotta cut it down to size somehow. BTW, ever
wonder how we can even formulate such a concept to begin with?
Thank you everyone for your patience with me. My brain is broke now.
(Confused Little Old Lady)
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	10 Nov 2003 06:11:59 AM

"Ophelia" <thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f8defb0d.0311090948.190cc9cb@posting.google.com...

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message

news:<boka8g$v0f$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

(snip)

The Prime Mover, on the other hand, has been reluctant lately to come

down

for interviews and to get his weight and blood pressure checked.

That was belly-buster, sir - I'll give you that! I've often played
around with precisely that thought, and came to that conclusion that
at whatever level Mr. Prime Mover operates on, he cannot not now peek
in and collapse our local wave function, or any other for that matter.
Which is not to say, though, that He remains forever inaccessible to
that which he created, you and me. I mean, this is big stuff! If we
first posit that all motion, of any kind, presupposes a moving agent,
we must then accept that infinite regression is not in the cards.
Remember, consciousness is tied up with the idea of motion. Besides
which, infinite regression kinda hurts the brain. Yep, infinity is
just too long a time. Gotta cut it down to size somehow. BTW, ever
wonder how we can even formulate such a concept to begin with?

Thank you everyone for your patience with me. My brain is broke now.

(Confused Little Old Lady)

When your brain recovers, take a step back and ask yourself again if there
might be something wrong with the the mathematics. There is, but first you
must understand how it came about to understand what is wrong with it.
For a simple explanation,
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Gardner.htm
For a more mathematical explanation,
http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Fundamental.htm
Androcles
.

User: "Perfectly Innocent"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	09 Nov 2003 08:58:34 PM

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<boka8g$v0f$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

The only valid alternative to SR that I know of is Lorentz's aether
theory, but that has wierdness of its own -- lengths still contract, time
still dilates, but relative to a rest frame and with properties that
ensure the rest frame could never be observed. But that's a theory of
electromagnetism, SR is more general (and apparantly validly so) and does
away with an unobservable.

I'm not surprised that informed, competent physicists have an
extraordinarily limited view of valid alternatives to SR. If you're
interested and if you look carefully you'll find that there's more
available that Lorentz's aether theory.
Why hasn't anyone done this before? Try deriving SR on a hypersphere.
Make it easy and settle for the closest thing to SR. The conclusions
are astounding:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=468
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=533
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
.

User: "Bilge"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	10 Nov 2003 02:45:42 PM

Perfectly Innocent:

glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<boka8g$v0f$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...

I'm not surprised that informed, competent physicists have an
extraordinarily limited view of valid alternatives to SR.

It shouldn't surprise you. Physicist limit the alternatives to
those which are compatible with observed phenomena.

If you're interested and if you look carefully you'll find that there's
more available that Lorentz's aether theory.

Aside from the fact that lorentz' ether theory isn't really available,
there are several variable speed of light theories, for example.

Why hasn't anyone done this before? Try deriving SR on a hypersphere.

It's called general relativity. It's also been derived in 5-dimensions
and known as a kaluza-klein theory. It's currently being done in as
many as 11 dimensions (E8 x E8, for example) and called string theory.
What's your point? Reinventing the wheel with non-regular polyhedrons?

Make it easy and settle for the closest thing to SR. The conclusions
are astounding:

Only if you consider the degree to which you congratulate yourself
for providing s tortured soliloquy with little if any physical
content, astounding.
.

User: "Perfectly Innocent"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	09 Nov 2003 04:09:01 PM

Ophelia wrote in message news:<f8defb0d.0311081051.423fd101@posting.google.com>...

Perfectly Innocent wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.0311060720.22b63736@posting.google.com>...

Most of the discussions around here are by crackpots and beginners who
naively imagine that they comprehend modern physics because they can
grasp common words and simplistic pictures. They avoid the study of
advanced mathematics altogether. Generally, they obsess about proving
their intellectual superiority and speak in over-stretched gibberish.
They don't know what they're talking about.
There are clearer and more accurate statements about modern physics in
the Bible than in these newsgroups.
Let's talk about a delightful thesis. Did you know that quantum theory
validates the Biblical view of physics? Please consider this
perspective: God is continually working through His creation and His
laws, using them as His instruments.
"Whatever the LORD pleases He does,
In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places.
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries." Psalm 135:6,7.
"He spreads the snow like wool and scatters the frost like ashes."
Psalm 147:16.
The Lord is constantly employed and using as His servants the things
that He has made. Said Christ: "My Father is always at his work to
this very day, and I, too, am working." John 5:17.
The universe can't even exist apart from God. "He is before all
things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.
"In Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28.
The fundamental fact of quantum theory is that nature appears
probabilistic on the atomic scale. This is true science: It isn't any
more unlikely for the Red Sea to split, water molecules suddenly
moving out of the way precisely when Moses lifts up his staff and
stretches his hand over the sea, than existence itself.

It doesn't take a genius to follow special relativity. SR is a mystery
for beginners in math. It can be easily understood with high school
algebra. There really is a riddle in it. Rightly interpreted, it's far
from being inconceivable.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=648
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
General relativity is merely a respectable way of combining the
success of SR so that Newton's equations of gravity are approximately
true in the case of weak gravitational fields. It doesn't surprise me
at all that Einstein's gravity equations enhance the accuracy of
Newton's gravity equations. But don't be fooled by the popular claim
that GR has tremendous empirical evidence to support its most
fundamental presupposition: that matter causes space to curve. To
date, there isn't even one measurement to confirm that space anywhere
is curved.
Recently, observations of the universe were scrutinized on the
astronomical scale, looking for required indictors of curvature, and
null results were determined. Even more remarkably, competent
mathematicians know that Einstein's field equations are practically
worthless for determining the global structure of the universe because
there's no direct correlation between local curvature and global
geometry:
http://www-library.desy.de/preparch/gr-qc/9804/9804006.ps.gz
Consider planet Earth. Locally, it's true that time has been measured
to run a tad slower in a gravitational field verses free space but
that result is an immediate consequence of Einstein's principle of
equivalence and SR. You don't need GR for that. It's widely known that
most (and I think all) of the predications of GR that have been
confirmed experimentally, can be arrived at directly with very
elementary postulates:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=1975#1975
In other words, there hasn't been any truly respectable test of GR to
distinguish it from dramatically dissimilar "Euclidean" possibilities.

I see myself as
reasonably intelligent, but for all my reading on texts designed for
the layman on this subject, I just can't grasp the concept. It utterly
escapes me. I guess it's the "time" thing. I can't seem to wrap my
mind around it, what it really means to discuss time. Do physicists
know what they mean, really know, when they discuss time? Are they all
on the same page here? Must not "time," no matter how vague our sense
for the notion it conjures up in most of us, always, always move in a
forward direction?

The popular accounts of SR are only useful to mystify and perplex and
condition readers to rely on vague notions. It's no surprise to me
that the traditional approach to SR antagonizes reasonably intelligent
minds.

"Do physicists know what they mean, really know, when they discuss time?"

It's not a question of yes or no but the depth of their confusion.
See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl140020017d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=c45b45b3.0310200745.444aa3ef%40posting.google.com
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2091#2091

Quantum theory requires sophisticated mathematics but for special
relativity you only need high school algebra. If you want a cursory
understanding of quantum theory without complex math you can get by
with the Bible and Feynman's Lectures on Physics. (Try your local
library and, if they don't have it, request an interlibrary loan).
Also listen to these Feynman lectures in streaming video:
http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.html
As far as I know, Richard P. Feynman never lectured on the simplicity
of special relativity but you have my web pages for a truly insightful
approach:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=648
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
There is widespread myth and misunderstanding in relativity:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=468
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=533
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=221
The fault rests solely on physicists who themselves have a poor
understanding of the subject. They're content with the usual, muddled
explanations. Another reason for the confused state of affairs is that
leading physicists are consumed with their quest to discover newer and
grander theories and have a greater personal interest in propagating
their new, revolutionary paradigms than in clarifying the foundations
of physics.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
.

User: "Ophelia"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	09 Nov 2003 09:38:05 PM

(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.0311091409.556c5175@posting.google.com>...

Ophelia wrote in message news:<f8defb0d.0311081051.423fd101@posting.google.com>...

Perfectly Innocent wrote in message news:<c45b45b3.0311060720.22b63736@posting.google.com>...

Most of the discussions around here are by crackpots and beginners who
naively imagine that they comprehend modern physics because they can
grasp common words and simplistic pictures. They avoid the study of
advanced mathematics altogether. Generally, they obsess about proving
their intellectual superiority and speak in over-stretched gibberish.
They don't know what they're talking about.

There are clearer and more accurate statements about modern physics in
the Bible than in these newsgroups.

Let's talk about a delightful thesis. Did you know that quantum theory
validates the Biblical view of physics? Please consider this
perspective: God is continually working through His creation and His
laws, using them as His instruments.

"Whatever the LORD pleases He does,
In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deep places.
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries." Psalm 135:6,7.

"He spreads the snow like wool and scatters the frost like ashes."
Psalm 147:16.

The Lord is constantly employed and using as His servants the things
that He has made. Said Christ: "My Father is always at his work to
this very day, and I, too, am working." John 5:17.

The universe can't even exist apart from God. "He is before all
things, and in Him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17.

"In Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28.

The fundamental fact of quantum theory is that nature appears
probabilistic on the atomic scale. This is true science: It isn't any
more unlikely for the Red Sea to split, water molecules suddenly
moving out of the way precisely when Moses lifts up his staff and
stretches his hand over the sea, than existence itself.

It doesn't take a genius to follow special relativity. SR is a mystery
for beginners in math. It can be easily understood with high school
algebra. There really is a riddle in it. Rightly interpreted, it's far
from being inconceivable.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=648
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity

General relativity is merely a respectable way of combining the
success of SR so that Newton's equations of gravity are approximately
true in the case of weak gravitational fields. It doesn't surprise me
at all that Einstein's gravity equations enhance the accuracy of
Newton's gravity equations. But don't be fooled by the popular claim
that GR has tremendous empirical evidence to support its most
fundamental presupposition: that matter causes space to curve. To
date, there isn't even one measurement to confirm that space anywhere
is curved.

Recently, observations of the universe were scrutinized on the
astronomical scale, looking for required indictors of curvature, and
null results were determined. Even more remarkably, competent
mathematicians know that Einstein's field equations are practically
worthless for determining the global structure of the universe because
there's no direct correlation between local curvature and global
geometry:

http://www-library.desy.de/preparch/gr-qc/9804/9804006.ps.gz

Consider planet Earth. Locally, it's true that time has been measured
to run a tad slower in a gravitational field verses free space but
that result is an immediate consequence of Einstein's principle of
equivalence and SR. You don't need GR for that. It's widely known that
most (and I think all) of the predications of GR that have been
confirmed experimentally, can be arrived at directly with very
elementary postulates:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=1975#1975

In other words, there hasn't been any truly respectable test of GR to
distinguish it from dramatically dissimilar "Euclidean" possibilities.

"Do physicists know what they mean, really know, when they discuss time?"

It's not a question of yes or no but the depth of their confusion.
See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl140020017d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=c45b45b3.0310200745.444aa3ef%40posting.google.com

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2091#2091

Quantum theory requires sophisticated mathematics but for special
relativity you only need high school algebra. If you want a cursory
understanding of quantum theory without complex math you can get by
with the Bible and Feynman's Lectures on Physics. (Try your local
library and, if they don't have it, request an interlibrary loan).
Also listen to these Feynman lectures in streaming video:

http://www.vega.org.uk/series/lectures/feynman/index.html

As far as I know, Richard P. Feynman never lectured on the simplicity
of special relativity but you have my web pages for a truly insightful
approach:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=648
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity

There is widespread myth and misunderstanding in relativity:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=468
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=533
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=221
The fault rests solely on physicists who themselves have a poor
understanding of the subject. They're content with the usual, muddled
explanations. Another reason for the confused state of affairs is that
leading physicists are consumed with their quest to discover newer and
grander theories and have a greater personal interest in propagating
their new, revolutionary paradigms than in clarifying the foundations
of physics.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org

Thank you very much, Mr. Shubert. I'll set about investigating these
links you provided. I have read some of Feynman and his writing is
indeed accessible to ordinary people like myself who have more than a
passing interest in these things. While I'll never be able to
understand these things at the level you do, from what little I do
know somehting tells me there is something not quite right here. I
don't have a problem accepting that nature is indeed strange,
especially at the subatomic level, but this business with severe space
curvature and time dilatation is bothersome. Thank again - and I'll
follow your postings along with a few other gentlemen who were kind
enough to reply politely and at some length. God bless you.
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	11 Nov 2003 02:04:39 AM

"Ophelia" <thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why is it, then, that so many of these same scientists can accept these
absolutely outrageous things without batting an eyelash but categorically
reject the idea of a Prime Mover, of a God who set it all in motion?
I'll try to explain it, although I doubt you'll find the explanation
acceptable.
Nature IS. That we cannot deny.
You seek, in your mind, a cause of Nature's existence.
That's fine, you attribute Nature's cause to something you call "God".
According to your logic, then, the wonders of Nature could not be unless
they were put in place by something even more wonderful, God. There is one
small problem. Who or what created God? For God to exist, just as Nature
exists, he, she or it, being even more wonderful than Nature, must have been
created. If we suppose God was created by some SuperGod, then we are into
infinite regression. What created the SuperGod?
The Super-SuperGod? When does this stop?
So you'll say "It is a mystery. We are not meant to understand God."
You'll say it in your own words, of course, but that's all it will amount
to. Ultimately, you are compelled to say "I don't know". So am I. The
difference between us is that I refuse to create a god in my imagination at
all, and you create one in your own image.
The difference between us is that I try to be objective, and you are
willingly subjective. You are prepare to believe in something that is
complex, without proof. I am not.
The ancient Greeks had many Gods, as did the Scandinavians. The Hebrews had
but one, as does the Arab world. Who is to say there is but one God? The
Bible? That is clearly a mishmash of ancient politics and silly ideas about
not eating pork and not working on the sabbath, or preventing children in
dire need from having a blood transfusion. The Jews are God's chosen, and
the rest of us Gentiles can go to hell in a handbasket. Joshua can walk
around blowing trumpets until the walls come down, then walk in and slay
every living thing with God's permission, because God will help his chosen
people. God will flood the Earth, and Noah will build a floating farm to
save all the animals. Where did all the water come from, and where did it
go? Actually, that myth is founded in fact, and is a world wide myth. The
polar ice cap melted, and the water is still there. All I'm showing is the
Bible is a silly collection of ancient attempts to explain Nature by
attributing it to a god.
Note that this notion is not a categorical rejection as you claim. It has
been thought about, and logically rejected. I accept utterly outrageous
things while still batting my eyelids, because they are, and I have to. As a
scientist, I question what makes them tick. You, on the other hand, can
simply claim that god makes them tick. As a scientist, I accept that a
rainbow is raindrops refracting and internally reflecting sunlight. There
are no rainbows at night.
I don't find that explanation in your bible, though. Instead, it is a sign
from god.
My question to you is: why do you accept your god without batting your
eyelids, categorically placing all mystery into one basket, when that god is
even more utterly outrageous than Nature? He, she or it isn't detectable,
but a figment of your imagination, an idea that was put into your head by
the society in which you live. You'll thank god when things go as you want
them to, and blame Mother Nature for the tornado that rips through your
trailer parks. God is good, and never to blame for anything. The tornado is
Man's fault for being wicked, right? Yeah, ok... see ya later.
Androcles
.

User: "Oriel36"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	11 Nov 2003 09:19:11 AM

"Androcles" <jp006f9750@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<5K0sb.1973$_H4.433@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...

"Ophelia" <thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why is it, then, that so many of these same scientists can accept these
absolutely outrageous things without batting an eyelash but categorically
reject the idea of a Prime Mover, of a God who set it all in motion?

I'll try to explain it, although I doubt you'll find the explanation
acceptable.
Nature IS. That we cannot deny.
You seek, in your mind, a cause of Nature's existence.
That's fine, you attribute Nature's cause to something you call "God".
According to your logic, then, the wonders of Nature could not be unless
they were put in place by something even more wonderful, God. There is one
small problem. Who or what created God? For God to exist, just as Nature
exists, he, she or it, being even more wonderful than Nature, must have been
created. If we suppose God was created by some SuperGod, then we are into
infinite regression. What created the SuperGod?
The Super-SuperGod? When does this stop?
So you'll say "It is a mystery. We are not meant to understand God."
You'll say it in your own words, of course, but that's all it will amount
to. Ultimately, you are compelled to say "I don't know". So am I. The
difference between us is that I refuse to create a god in my imagination at
all, and you create one in your own image.
The difference between us is that I try to be objective, and you are
willingly subjective. You are prepare to believe in something that is
complex, without proof. I am not.
The ancient Greeks had many Gods, as did the Scandinavians. The Hebrews had
but one, as does the Arab world. Who is to say there is but one God? The
Bible? That is clearly a mishmash of ancient politics and silly ideas about
not eating pork and not working on the sabbath, or preventing children in
dire need from having a blood transfusion. The Jews are God's chosen, and
the rest of us Gentiles can go to hell in a handbasket. Joshua can walk
around blowing trumpets until the walls come down, then walk in and slay
every living thing with God's permission, because God will help his chosen
people. God will flood the Earth, and Noah will build a floating farm to
save all the animals. Where did all the water come from, and where did it
go? Actually, that myth is founded in fact, and is a world wide myth. The
polar ice cap melted, and the water is still there. All I'm showing is the
Bible is a silly collection of ancient attempts to explain Nature by
attributing it to a god.
Note that this notion is not a categorical rejection as you claim. It has
been thought about, and logically rejected. I accept utterly outrageous
things while still batting my eyelids, because they are, and I have to. As a
scientist, I question what makes them tick. You, on the other hand, can
simply claim that god makes them tick. As a scientist, I accept that a
rainbow is raindrops refracting and internally reflecting sunlight. There
are no rainbows at night.
I don't find that explanation in your bible, though. Instead, it is a sign
from god.
My question to you is: why do you accept your god without batting your
eyelids, categorically placing all mystery into one basket, when that god is
even more utterly outrageous than Nature? He, she or it isn't detectable,
but a figment of your imagination, an idea that was put into your head by
the society in which you live. You'll thank god when things go as you want
them to, and blame Mother Nature for the tornado that rips through your
trailer parks. God is good, and never to blame for anything. The tornado is
Man's fault for being wicked, right? Yeah, ok... see ya later.
Androcles

Your outlook on belief is as bad as your outlook on natural
phenomena.You may have this dumb idea of a great white bearded
gentleman in the sky but the God of all inspiration was always the
creation and the act of creation itself,those who love a Beethoven,a
Blake or a Pascal know of no other God than their works as an
extension of natural creation and the connection between the Infinite
and the definite.As a Christian and a follower of Christ,I see you
cowards pretend that the quest for knowledge is the only thing and you
have become fools for that,your works are all heat and no light and I
can assure you that nature is pitiless on those who get it wrong.
So squirm around in your metaphysical cage with relativists for your
end will be as you have led your life,a pretensious intellectual
midget no better or worse than the next indeed you are cannon fodder
for the concept you pretend to dislike.I would'nt expect you to
understand the pre-Judaeo/Christian Book Of Job and the enormous sweep
of its vision as the author intended it to be but for all the pale
gnostic strivings known as empirical science it is a reminder that
self-congratulation means nothing in the scheme of things,at least the
author Mitchell recognises something of what you dare not,you are too
much of a coward for that.
http://www.stephenmitchellbooks.com/transAdapt/bookJobExcerpt.html
Go ahead and curse what you think is God and you end up cursing
yourself.
.

User: "EL"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	10 Nov 2003 09:47:19 AM

[EL]
Hello Ophelia. :)
thecornergrocerystore@yahoo.com (Ophelia) wrote in message news:<f8defb0d.0311091938.5796f8b7@posting.google.com>...

I don't have a problem accepting that nature is indeed strange,

[EL]
That is very generous of you of course, because you should have a
problem accepting anything which is strange enough to be unacceptable.

especially at the subatomic level,

[EL]
Well, in that case the strangeness is not a natural strangeness at all
but it is that of strange minds theorizing nonsense and forcing
illogic as a new standard telling us to throw away our common sense
and our sanity because it is not important and that reality too is not
important and that truth may go to hell.
However, that strangeness is nothing compared to the strangeness of
accepting hogwash, embracing it and even propagating it and preaching
it.

but this business with severe space curvature
and time dilatation is bothersome.

[EL]
As far as the curvature of space goes I may accept it philosophically
by distinguishing between identities.
Imagine that you were in the kitchen preparing to bake a cake when
some kids were playing outside your kitchen window with rackets and a
squash ball. The ball falls in the flour and as you kindly confiscated
it you noticed that a dent was made in the flour. The shape of the
dent resembles the curvature of the surface of the squash ball. The
flour is not the ball but a medium like any medium that may be
affected by things happening to it. A squash ball is a relatively
persistent shape that retains a spherical surface after deformation
and that is why we think of it as a particle of sorts.
That is why we went as far as generalizing such an idea imagining that
every mass (matter) should curve the space it occupies. That space
could be Wheat Flour, water, air or even vacuum. But squash balls may
not curve squash balls.
As far as time dilation goes it bothers me too but perhaps for
different reasons than yours.
Bill: "George, you are late again, and if this happens one more time I
have to fire you".
George: "It is not my fault sir, I live relatively far away and
Einstein has a theory on time dilation".
Bill: "Fair enough, then you are fired and I do not even need any time
dilation making my decisions"
What bothers me is the name coined to represent what something else is
happening rather than what is happening.
What do we mean by time?
There are many things that word could mean.
The one that gets longer and shorter is the time taken to finish a
specific job.
Proper time is invariant because it is the scale with which we measure
the other time interval that is relatively shrinking or expanding.
This means that claiming that time is running slower ......... we need
to say slower than ...... and we must bring up the standard time unit
that by consensus is the standard time with which we measure the
magnitude of the period taken by a specific job to get done.
Other meanings of time include multiplicity such as in the times-table
in which we say three times three equals nine. :)
So indeed there are many linguistic semantics of time but those I
presented to you should clear the problem.
Time does not dilate but time intervals assigned to a specific job may
expand or contract.
Kindest regards.
EL
.

User: "Robert J. Kolker"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	08 Nov 2003 01:33:52 PM

Ophelia wrote:

No. These theories are internally consistent and have not yet been
falsified by an adverse experiment. Here is what is weird. We are weird.
We exist at a scale of space and time midway (logarithimically) between
the smallest and the largest. We have crude senses and we perceive very
little of what there is. Most of what is going on to cause what we -do-
see, is unseen and known primarily by inference and hypothesis. The
kosmos seems strange to us, because we are too big to see the small
stuff and too small to see the big stuff.
Bob Kolker
.

User: "Androcles"
Title: Re: Mechanistic Philosophy is Obviously False	10 Nov 2003 06:02:18 AM

"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bojgf3$19nb56$6@ID-76471.news.uni-berlin.de...