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.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (23618)	5/16/2006 11:32:33 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

"I didn't say it would.. nor will any new physics to the old, it will encompass it." You're missing my distinction. Mostly...science is invalidated by new ideas. In the case of Newton this did not occur. You can say that QM "encompasses" Classical Mechanics if it turns your crank. But the point is that Newton's laws make predictions as well as the predictions of general relativity for the universe they address. Only at the speed of light do Einstein's measurements act with a greater precision. In ordinary consideration the predictions are identical. So we have two theories that are non-competitive which state that the law of gravity is universal. Further to this, the uncertainty principle does not state that a particle or wave is indiscreet and problematic. It simply states that position and momentum may not both be measured accurately at the same time because measurement involves interference. Uncertainty in position x uncertainty in velocity is greater than Planck's constant divided by the mass. It had seemed to me that you were trying to mock Newton's physics and make it appear that he had been invalidated. Perhaps I misjudged what you were saying--your sentences after all tend to be oblique, evasive, and mixed with ad hominems. Certainly, I do not object to the proposition that Einstein's theory has equal predictability to Newton's in the observable universe that Newton's theories intend to address. Not do I deny that when one considers modern subatomic physics, that this consideration is best done through the modern lens of QM. All of this, of course, is tangential to the original considerations of where science meets pseudoscience and where legitimate consensus meets speculation--as in the TOE. Certainly, there is no disagreement that what Einstein did (and what legitimate scientists using legitimate groundwork do) is apart from pseudoscience. Nor is there a true disagreement on the fact that Newtonian Physics and Relativity rely on different theories with (generally) equal predictability. But nothing in relativity theory contradicts Newtonian theory in terms of predictability when applied to the Newtonian Universe--which is to say...the one you live in.