Re: OT:Thanksgiving

On 9 Jan, 16:51, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alistair" <alist...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alistair" <alist...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If the event occurs before the cause then causality is refuted. My
understanding of those particles that are referred to is that they
violate our understanding by travelling backwards through time.

Only because we assume that relativity precludes simultaniety. That
is an assumption I have always questioned, even when I was studying
physics at university, and apparently I was right. Just as observed
"errors" in classical Newtonian physics led to relativity and quantum
mechanics, there will no doubt be further observed "errors" until
even further refinements explain them. After all, this is the way
science works. Newton wasn't "wrong", he was "incomplete". We know
that relativity and quantum mechanics are incomplete, and there is no
unified field theory yet. Hopefully continued study of these apparent
contradictions in quantum mechanics will lead to a unified theory.
Einstein would be pleased. But IMHO, you can take it to the bank that
when the dust clears, causality will remain. It had better, because
causality is the fundamental principle on which science is based. You
can't have a "how" or a "why" without causality.

And what happens when your god interferes with cause and event
relationships? You have already pointed out that he can as he is
omnipotent. How can you take anything in your universe at face value
when you allow your god to meddle?

That means, when a cancer miraculously disappears overnight, leaving
only the scars and the MRI images taken the day before (as happened
to a very close fiend of mine), science says "we have no clue." What
would you expect, when you a priori reject God as a possibility.
--

I may not be able to explain how a cancer can disappear overnight but
I don't need the notion of a non-existant invisible unknowable being
to explain it. Did your friend have a biopsy done on the "cance"? If
not then we only have mri scans as evidence of something which may
have been nothing more than a cyst.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >>and quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes and divergences. ... > relativity on the basis of excluding how General Relativity ... > -IMO Special Relativity and Quantum Theory are based on GR, ... > the latter being more difficult and in more need of understanding. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >>and quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes and divergences. ... > relativity on the basis of excluding how General Relativity ... > -IMO Special Relativity and Quantum Theory are based on GR, ... > the latter being more difficult and in more need of understanding. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... >>and quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes and divergences. ... > relativity on the basis of excluding how General Relativity ... > -IMO Special Relativity and Quantum Theory are based on GR, ... > the latter being more difficult and in more need of understanding. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: How can I become an expert anti-relativist?
    ... > in general relativity as a prerequiste to being competent enough to ... > even need to have an in depth understanding of special relativity to ... only who understands the singularity theorems has truly understood GR, ... nor was I arguing against Einstein or Maxwell. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A theoretical physics FAQ
    ... (This lack of growth is due to the fact that I currently have almost no free time for discussing physics. ... Postulates for the formal core of quantum mechanics ... Why does QFT look so different from QM? ... Is quantum mechanics compatible with general relativity? ...
    (sci.physics.research)