Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Logic Is A Step By Step Proccess.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D. on December 13, 2001 21:58:04 UTC


Again, I get the feeling that you just don't read what I post.

>>>Is that to say that time is a geometric coordinate in your model? >That's fine, except that in your mental model you are generating some of physics (what I will call the prima facie physics such as the classical laws of physics) but not the more fundamental physics (what I will call the particle guage theories of physics). The prima facie physics are those rules which are known to be derived from particle guage theories (e.g., Maxwell's equation from QED). The hope by many particle physicists is that gravity (and general relativity) will also be shown to be composed of some unknown particle guage theory. >Okay, but why are certain laws derivable from your model (the 'prima facie' physics) while others, the more fundamental, are not (particle guage theories)? >What is the relationship of your fundamental equation to the particle guage theories that are also known to be more fundamental than the prima facie physics which your equation shows as an approximation in certain circumstances? Why can't your fundamental equation shed light on particle guage physics when it is clearly more fundamental than the physics equations that your fundamental equationl does show as mere approximations? >The problem is that the prima facie physics has two fathers. One is your fundamental equation and the other is particle guage physics. Will the real father please step forward! The problem is that the blood tests all show that particle guage theories are the real father of the prima facie physics, but the only evidence that you can show is that your fundamental equation looks very much like the prima facie physics. Yes, they look similar, but we already know who the real father is. >The problem is that we have a direct relation between QED and Maxwell's equations. Yet, your fundamental equation doesn't produce QED and QED doesn't produce your fundamental equation. Something is wrong. This isn't just a matter of being allowed to find other laws, we have someone (QED) who is saying that they are the father of Maxwell's equations (not your fundamental equation). Your saying that QED is a possible person that can exist in your model, but with Maxwell's equation it is saying that it is the father of that equation. This is wrong. QED is the father, not your equation!>No disagreement here. But, what is the point?

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins