Mr. Yanniru may blow on his nails to dry the polish now that he has demolished Dr. Dick's theses... or . . .well, not quite.

Mr. Yanniru wrote:
"1. Physics is not circular in the sense that you can derive the axioms from the resultant equations
For example, the axioms of math which are basic to physics cannot be derived from the equations that result."

These comments are 'okay,' and rather self-evident. If physics is circular in _any ways, those are of interest. There are many more ways it is NOT circular, yeah. For example, the history of physics' development does not seem to be looping in most ways.


Mr. Yanniru wrote:
"Another example, Stafford cannot derive shift symmetry from his final equation."

Right. And he cannot bake a cake from it either.
Must his theory do all and everythihng to have validity? This disproof by "finding exceptions" would be scientific if you were discussing the theory and refuting it...but you don't cite his theory point-by-point and refute it. It's all hit and run. So tell us, what status quo does Dr. Dick's theory fail to overturn? Unless you prove it, we don't think you even know ....and we're not looking for more rhetoric and smoke either. You want to weigh in? Don't be modest. With one foot on the scale you seem to be quite a lightweight.

Mr. Yanniru wrote:
"2. The only logical justification for a physical law is that a prediction based on it agrees with experiment. Nothing else counts. If your cannot do the experiment, then its all metaphysics."

Interesting idea. If only theoretical physicists would realize this, they would stop wasting their time and become lab physicists. Is that what you want? Are you saying nobody can test this paper's theories with experiment? Or only that you could never think of any way.

Thank you.

• Your lack of understanding - yanniru - March 21, 2002 - 14:55 UTC
  • jumping the gun on my lack of understanding, Yaya - occupant - March 21, 2002 - 16:20 UTC
    • same post with proper attribution - occupant - March 21, 2002 - 16:22 UTC
      • You apparently agree with me - yanniru - March 21, 2002 - 21:17 UTC
        • the rest of your remarks - occupant - March 21, 2002 - 23:18 UTC
          • , glaring error corrected from previous post - occupant - March 21, 2002 - 23:20 UTC
            • Lack of scientists in congress - yanniru - March 21, 2002 - 23:37 UTC
              • No Senators are Trolls, no Representatives are Trolls - occupant - March 22, 2002 - 00:35 UTC
                • It's not lack of info, it's politics - yanniru - March 22, 2002 - 14:27 UTC
                  • Unfortunately, you have never known what to do about that - carefuluniverse - March 22, 2002 - 16:01 UTC
                    • Wrong again - yanniru - March 23, 2002 - 00:36 UTC
                      • maybe there's a webpage somewhere in the universe - carefuluniverse - March 23, 2002 - 03:23 UTC
                        • Will newspaper accounts do - yanniru - March 23, 2002 - 19:43 UTC
                          • maybe you just don't read my posts before you whine about them - occupant - March 23, 2002 - 20:45 UTC
                            • Sorry. You got me there. - yanniru - March 25, 2002 - 14:19 UTC
                              • Then you are not going to post any evidence of your claims - occupant - March 25, 2002 - 17:00 UTC
                                • How about the centerfold of Arms Control Today - yanniru - March 25, 2002 - 22:18 UTC
                                  • How about the cover of Mike is Quite a Guy - something - March 26, 2002 - 02:29 UTC
                                    • Sorry - yanniru - March 26, 2002 - 14:43 UTC
                                      • very - something - March 27, 2002 - 03:46 UTC
                                    • A link to Arms Control Today - yanniru - March 26, 2002 - 15:12 UTC