🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 2, 3:48 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> GSS wrote:
> > On Jan 30, 5:17 pm,TomRoberts<tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> And, as I have said so often around here, "logical" does not apply
> >> to the real world -- there is NO CONSTRAINT WHATSOEVER that the
> >> world be "logical". Indeed, it is observed to be radically and
> >> fundamentally ILLOGICAL.
>
> > If we view our surroundings through coloured or defective glasses, the
> > surrounding view will appear to be coloured or defective accordingly.
>
> We are humans, and can only "view" the word via THEORIES. Those theories
> are necessarily incomplete and approximate -- "defective" in your words.
> <shrug>

Roberts Roberts deductive theories are not just "necessarily
incomplete and approximate". If an axiom is false, then the theory is
absolutely wrong. If you don't believe me, you should believe Divine
Albert:

Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by
the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and
theory of gravity is false."

So Roberts Roberts the fact that all your brothers in Einstein
criminal cult now discuss "small Lorentz violations" just shows that
those brothers of yours are extremely dishonest.

> > Thus the physical world  can never be branded as illogical.
>
> You have obviously never studied quantum mechanics, nor performed any of
> the basic experiments that support it.
>
> >> "causality" is not "fundamental" to any
> >> modern physical theory. <shrug>
>
> > No, you are wrong.
> > Causality may not be fundamental to those of the 'modern physical
> > theories' which are either incomplete or where mathematical models
> > have been wrongly elevated to the status of physical theories.
>
> > Kindly justify your assertion through some specific example.
>
> All modern physical theories consist of sets of differential equations
> and definitions and interpretations of what the symbols in them mean.

Roberts Roberts at least thermodynamics and relativity essentially
consist of axioms and conclusions deduced from them. You should just
verify the truth of all axioms and the validity of all inferences. And
there is an important problem Roberts Roberts that scientists will
have ro solve some day: If an axiom proves false in the end (example:
"Heat is conserved and cannot be converted into work in the heat
engine" is an important axiom in the Carnot theorem), can the
respective conclusion remain true?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com