| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): bulchul ( 마시마로) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 9일 일요일 오후 07시 29분 17초 제 목(Title): Re: Extension of logic toward belief > You concluded that Eistein's conviction on physics is illogical. > and Newton's continuum mechanics is logical although it turned out to > be only approximation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Again you make it official. You don't actually understand what 'logic' refers to, do you? Time and again I don't find it necessary to go on with this load of horsecrap. But here I go again. a. Einstein's conviction comes from... where does it come from? Err, how did he draw that out? Any logical sequence behind? Please let me know HOW he drew THAT out. *If you can derive it, that is* b. Newtonian Physics draws from a few faulty, but seemingly-true premises that will fit the naive human senses. Due to the inferiority of human senses (compared to other machineries) this yields faulty results in extreme situations. If it's the logic you want to talk about, please find the 'illogical' part of Newtonian Physics EXCEPT the assumptions. Newtonian Physics starts with "Let's assume these are correct..." which means: p -> q, with the assumption that p is true. *Of course we don't know if it is true or not. Only you are making a fussball out of it.* Logic dictates that, if p is true, q is true. If p is not true, who cares about the result anyway? If you want to prove the illogical nature of Newtonian Physics, you will have to prove that there exists a q that doesn't comply with p -> q. Now can you tell me that such q exists? (Damn. It was hard.) Of course, the knowledge that Newtonian approximate is only close comes from the knowledge that the assumption p is wrong, which we need not discuss. Say, the fantasy of 'parellel' line exists only in Euclidean geometry, not on others such as spherical geometry and so on. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Anyway, now Einstein's theories fit to many of physical observations > which are not fit to Newton's, especially on the matter of optics, > gravity etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't find it necessary to comment on this gibberish. Refer to the mess above. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Do you believe Einstein's theory is also illogical as his conviction is? > You should conclude that his theory is logical, as you did on Newton's. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Newtonian Physics and Einstein's Physics stand on different premises, don't they? (different p, and it has nothing to do with the '->' part.) Where in Principia can I find the invariance of the velocity of light? (Again, wrong comparison. People call this 'Apple and Orange' situation.) So far, till this day, I couldn't find anything illogical in the theory, so I would have to say that Einstein's Theories are logical. -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Although it is only unproved belief, Einstein's belief (mathematical > explanation of universe) was originated from his theory and observasion. > Why do you think that his belief and logical theories conflict? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, typical Apple and Orange situation. They are not the same kind. Okay? His theory is his theory, and his beliefs are his beliefs. Maybe his observations and whatever could have triggered his beliefs, but if he can't provide the logical sequence that led to the result, it's illogical. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > It looks harmonized. ok? ------------------------------------------------------------------ To you, maybe. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > I mean someone's belief and logical consequenc can stand > simultaneously without confliction as you can see in Einstein's > example. I gave you an example because you want. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wha? Man... you never cease to amaze me. *Like that was an acceptable answer. You didn't even know what kind of answer I was looking for.* ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Then, I request your response. > Isn't proper example? if no, why? ---------------------------------------------------------------- I don't find it necessary to reiterate here. /)/) (_ _) _(` ')_ *난 시그 싫어... 투덜투덜... * |