***H: We agree photons have velocity, so what about acceleration? D: You tell me! If the definition of acceleration (for the sake of this discussion) is going to be a = dv/dt then can the concept of acceleration be applied to "photons"? Explain to me how you would do that and we could perhaps discuss its usefulness.***
You can conduct an experiment testing for the acceleration of a photon. There's nothing in the definition of acceleration preventing us to do so. That's my point against Aurino. The definition of acceleration is not true by definition (which Aurino thought I was an idiot for saying). The equation for acceleration is not true by definition, it is true by experiment (which is why I quoted Galileo who dispelled that notion entirely).
***H: but I think you bail out of the dialogue just when D: I know you think that but it is not the actual reason I generally back out of the discussion. What happens is that you get me distracted from what I am trying to explain by bringing up some issue which has nothing to do with what I am trying to communicate. When I allow you to take the lead (hoping we will get back to the central issue eventually) we end up so far away from the point that it begins to be a complete waste of time. It really doesn't make any difference when I stop, you will always interpret it to be "when we are getting close to the crux issue". Only, what you think is the "crux issue" and what I think is the "crux issue" are far different things.***
Anyone could say this about anything. If you are pursuing a line of thought looking for either soundness or weakness in that view, the easiest cop out is to say exactly what you just said. Each issue discussed eventually leads to silence, with the other person finally saying: "I allow you to take the lead (hoping we will get back to the central issue eventually) we end up so far away from the point that it begins to be a complete waste of time. It really doesn't make any difference when I stop, you will always interpret it to be 'when we are getting close to the crux issue'. Only, what you think is the "crux issue" and what I think is the 'crux issue' are far different things."
Let me state this emphatically: sound reasoning can be shown and demonstrated as sound, and weak reasoning can be shown and demonstrated to be miscontrued reasoning as long as we agree on the rules of logical thinking. What that means is that you can use logical reasoning to demonstrate contradictions in my view, and I can use logical reasoning to demonstrate contradictions in your view. If it were any other way, then everyone could say anything we wanted and no one could say any better. But, that's not the way it is. If your answer is that you simply get tired of debating with a close-minded or someone lacking intelligence, then the only time that you could say that would be if you exposed deep contradictions in my view. However, you have not shown any contradictions in my view (at least none that I am aware).
***H: mathematics requires empirical thinking prior to doing math D: I do not concern myself with this at all. I will leave the justification of mathematics to others much more qualified than myself. I am concerned only with a logical development of a very specific idea. In order to discuss that logic, there has to be communications as to what I am talking about.***
I think it is important to recognize that all human knowledge ultimately reduces to sense impressions and inference about those sense impressions including mathematics. This is all that science is, it is observations (sense impressions) and infering about those sense impressions (theory). This makes inference of sense impressions more fundamental than mathematics. Science is more fundamental than math! I think it is meaningless to find a model of reality that is able to justify the theories of science since everything (including logic) is justified by science.
***No, I did not say physical laws are tautological. What I said was that Classical Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity were all tautological; that one should recognize that fact and perhaps approach scientific research with a clearer mind.***
Here's the beginning of our disagreement. How can these physical theories be true by definition when that's not how they were discovered? They are true because that is what sense impressions and inference lead us to believe.
***What I am saying is that my deductions are valid independent of what reality is!***
That's impossible. Your deductions ultimately depend on sense impressions and inferences which produced mathematics which allowed you to produce your model. Had our sense impressions or rules of inference been a different reflection of the Universe (with a big U), then your model would be construed entirely differently.
Warm regards, Harv