|
|
Posted by Alpha on 11/07/05 05:53
"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:uoudnRzbD9NFdfPeRVn-pw@giganews.com...
>
> "Alpha" <none@none.net> wrote in message
> news:11mt21t67c8dc87@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:5cadnRO6NZkk6PPeRVn-uA@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>> The question is to what extent are we *imposing* order, rather than
>>>> discovering it. I would suggest we are doing a lot of invention rather
>>>> than reading/discovering some set of natural laws (a concept I reject
>>>> entirely).
>>>
>>> So, Newton got that lump on his head because he just
>>> happened to be lying under an apple tree, when he
>>> "invented" gravity? You must be very popular with the
>>> MTV Generation.
>>>
>>> LOL;
>>> Ken
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What do you think gravity is? It is an invented concept connected to
>> reliable observations, nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> Show me some gravitons LOL
>>
>
> So we are again in the land of the lawyer's use of terms.
> To most of us "Gravity" is the force that caused the apple
> to fall. To you "gravity" is the "invented concept" of the
> mathematician who got bopped on the head. If the "inventor"
> were to have it wrong, then gravity is wrong, an invalid
> concept.
Gravity IS wrong in many quantum theories.
>
> You know if you really believed that then, you should be
> more inclined to believe there is a "Natural Law" out there
> to be discovered. If your "concept inventor" were to find
> the proper means to observe how it works.
>
> The observable phenomena have "Natural" as opposed
> to meta-physical/super-natural or subjective explanations.
No. Objectivity is the reliability of observations, not a property of the
external world. Please read the following book (however non-technical):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375708111/002-0949729-8088849?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance
> While I can agree that a particular mathematical model of
> the unobservable forces that create an observable event,
> may be totally wrong, ( as in the "Global Warming" by
> virtue of human activity models) that does not mean that
> there is a un-natural explanation that can't be set to
> numerical description.
Try negative mass and infinite velocity in your equations (they are required
for non-Newtonian approaches in some arenas of model building).
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|