God & Science Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora That Food Is Tainted Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Harvey on January 17, 2002 17:29:56 UTC

Alex,

***Math does not indeed determine anything, it just re-labeling complex combination of symbols by smaller number of them (say, what do we call a derivative y' ? Simply the procedure: take small change in x, calculate corresponding to it change in y, take the ratio of them and find this ratio at the limit when the change in x becomes smaller and smaller: y' = lim (delta y/delta x).***

This is a complete reversal of your earlier positions. Before math was the reason that explained nature, and now you are saying that math only approximates the behavior seen in nature. Which is it?

***So, math indeed just re-labels axioms - and thus, say, energy conservation law is as accurate as a symmetry of time (because it is one and the same thing).***

Energy conservation is violated within short periods (i.e., due to the uncertainty principle) which is what virtual particle pairs is all about. They come into existence (violation of energy conservation) but zap out of existence within the time allotted by the uncertainty principle (UP). Is that not correct?

***So, IF our universe happens to be time- and space-independent (in a jargon we say as that time and space are symmetric) then it HAS to obey conservation rules. We call those conservation rules "natural laws" and thus call such behavior as "natural way".***

If it has to obey conservation rules, then why does it violate conservation rules within the uncertainty period of the UP? Does the UP take more precedence than energy conservation?

Warm Regards, Harv