Posted on 03/07/2004 10:14:09 AM PST by yankeedame
I gave you the meaning and showed how it applied to gravitation. Your example is not an appropriate demonstration of the correspondence principle. You still don't know what it means.
"No, it is not.
If you understood both you would not say this.
In a signal processing ref.
"it is listed on the exchanges."
It's marketing hype.
" they are simply using a code to hide the signal."
lksdjf vuYu oxcvgtrEguklxcvu verzySjhcvzyteyti 7qw.
Where do do gravity waves come from?
"Dark Matter is a speculative hypothesis, of about equal tangible weight as the gravity-varies-as-the-distance-for-large-distances argument.
As I said, the existence of dark matter does not rely solely on gravitational considerations.
The second law is universal.
"Prove it. "
Read a book.
Where do do gravity waves come from?
Same place the gravity came from. Which, by the way, isn't the question. We know where they come from, the instruments are quite good at figuring that out. What we don't know, is how they get to where they are going.
"Dark Matter is a speculative hypothesis, of about equal tangible weight as the gravity-varies-as-the-distance-for-large-distances argument.
As I said, the existence of dark matter does not rely solely on gravitational considerations.
Well, yes, it more or less does. No alternative answers of note hang on anything other than rampant speculation. Nobody's weighed a neutrino or seen a black hole or a paleo-astronomic looped string artifact of the formation of matter.
The second law is universal.
Gee, I thought it was proved because it was a "principle" now it seems its proved because it's "universal". Oh, and by the way, it's not. Parts of the universe can be climbing the entropic gradient, so long as the universe as a whole is running down.
"Prove it. "
Read a book.
I've read many--and nowhere in them have I seen a formal deductive proof of any principle in natural science, nor have I seen any major scientific body or major scientist endorse the notion that a principle in natural science could ever be unconditionally beyond question.
In a signal processing ref.
Hogwash.
"it is listed on the exchanges."
It's marketing hype.
Fooled a lot of people then. Including US government agencies interested in imbedding stealth signals in noise.
" they are simply using a code to hide the signal."
So what? So do stars hide the signals from their core in the broad-spectrum noise put out by their shells.
Hogwash. I have explained the issue at length twice, and you have not, nor have you, in any manner, addressed my explanation to demolish it. You are bluffing with a bust hand.
Newton's laws are not a proper subset of Einstein's laws. The calculation is wrong, not approximate. Approximations covers up the fact that it is in error, under certain special conditions. And, furthermore, the fact that clocks work differently in the two universes described means that there could not be a poorer example in science of formally correct correspondence than is embodied in the difference between the einsteinian and newtonian universes.
In contrast to that the mutational tree is, in fact, for every major branch, a formally exact subset of the fossil tree. I have demonstrated correspondence, you have demonstrated hot air, and lack of desire to get down to cases.
"No, it is not.
If you understood both you would not say this.
I would not say it in any case, for, as I just got through telling you, the "calc is NOT the same as Newton's", and anyone with a high enough precision calculator could verify that.
Faulty logic.
Logic is not the main tool to establish that there is an observational shell at ~14b lightyears. Observation and inference are what's required. No one can see this shell with a telescope.
You were given the picture derived from the analysis above, but failed to address it on a scientific basis. Instead you made a statement with an unwarranted therefore.
My therefore's are the ones you propounded. Is there, or is there not, an observational shell AROUND THE EARTH, that you can't see beyond? Does this, or does this not, make the earth's location approximately the center of the earth-observable universe? What makes you think anyone could prove anything about what exists beyond this shell? For all anyone could ever prove, it terminates exactly at the edge of the shell, and so the earth, after all, is, in fact, the center of the universe.
You need a valve job. You just got done arguing that there is only natural causation, and it is unique.
Interesting. When it suits you, you swith the words, theory<->principle, but each time you do, you use the wrong word.
You're full of it. In essential fact, there are nothing but theories. Some are called principles, from time to time, but that doesn't give them a special ranking in science that is above reproach. I have no problem with using either term, because they are both common, and I have't bought into the artificial barrier you think is raised between a "principle" and a "theory". I gain nothing from using either term interchangably for the principle theories of science, so your mildly veiled accusations verbal conspiracy are so much ill-mannered wind.
What I said was that God does not apear as a force of nature in science, nor as cause for any particular details.
So...accumulating the evidence here...you think that God is the Ultimate Cause, or, as is said, the "Prime Mover". But god did not actually cause, say, entropy to exist, since, as you say, there can only be one cause for a given phenomenon. Or are you backing down from that now?
Yes. Read the Koran and the Bible, the answers are in there.
I have, actually. Yet somehow, I don't remember running into a proof of any description whatsoever.
Nonsense. It is logic. The judgement to which it fundamentally depends on also requires logic.
Than a formal logical proof, using only deduction, of induction ought to be a high school math exercise, and there should be hundreds of them littering the internet. Point to one, and end this argument forthwith.
The fact of the matter is that you don't know what you are talking about. Go to a college. Find a professor of logic and ask him. This is a prominent fundamental question that was on everyone's lips, and was put firmly to bed 2 centuries ago. You cannot demonstrate induction using deductive logic. Everyone who studies this subject intensively knows this. Even some freshmen know it.
You say so, I never did.
I see. So your new plan to defend evolutionary theory in front of the school board is claim that evolutionary theory is a principle of biological science, which means it's proved...which means it is subject to question.
You go, girl.
You ain't a salmon, so swimming upstream isn't going to be good for you. Your opinions on this subect run counter to what is currently the almost universally common perception of people educated in this subject. This is evidenced by your lack of ability to come up with even the most rudementary counterexample to make your case: a deductive proof of induction. If you were correct, this would be as easy to find as falling off a log.
This latest bit of patronizing, fact-free bragaddocio is the result of you running a long-winded bluff, and it is pretty thin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.