Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (11173)	4/28/2002 10:01:37 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 21057

I don't know why you are stuck on this. Again: cause and effect is a mechanistic, deterministic worldview--the principle of universal causation. It is the principle that the processes of nature may be rationally understood in a linear framework. On the other side of the coin, we have acausality which means that things are not caused in a precise and knowable manner because the universe is quantum, random, chaotic. This stems from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. These are two competing world-views. The former is much covered in philosophy, and you may consider its finer points by picking up any philosophy text. The latter, being a relatively recent world-view is covered more in science. Now, please listen carefully: Newton's third law of motion is a law that states that: If a body A exerts a force on a body B, then body B exerts a force on body A that is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction. Notice a couple of things: 1). we are talking about material bodies, and 2). we are talking about motion and direction. While it is true that all mechanistic laws are subsumed in the causality world-view rather than the acausality world-view of modern physics, it is an absolute misunderstanding to consider that the Law of Causality is the third law of motion, any more than it is the first or the second. The principle of causality is the deterministic principle that the world is real and knowable. Because of this worldview, scientists have created innumerable "LAWS" in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. These laws are not the principle of causality. They were formulated to compliment that worldview, but none of them ARE that worldview: They are all very specific laws pertinent to the exact things they state and NOTHING MORE. The competing world-view stems from the Uncertainty Principle and sees nature as originating and extending through chance and chaos. This abandons the Principle of Causality...but it does not abandon the laws of motion. All mechanistic laws were formulated with regard to the deterministic world-view. They are NOT the deterministic world-view; they are NOT the Principle of Causation. Newton's laws of MOTION are laws of MOTION. If you still do not understand this, then I have wasted enough of my time. As to your belief in Karma, there is no evidence to support it. It is in the field of philosophy--not science.

To: Rick Julian who wrote (11173)	4/28/2002 12:40:33 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

Let's try a new approach to beating the BS out of you. Remember this? Message 17394162 Now let's say your definitions of F, m, and a are correct and quantifiable (highly speculative, I'd say). How do you know the relationship between them is F=ma and not F=m^a or F=-mcos(a) or F=cosh(ma) or F=ae^m or ....... For that matter, how do you F is a function of only of m and a instead of them plus 30 other variables? Or just 30 other variables and not dependent on m and a at all? Proof? And if the relationship does not take the form F=ma, what do the laws of physics have to do with this anyway?