Did Newton get even one formula right?
John Tapper
(as in Correct and not "close to correct"). Not meaning to offend,
just curious.
In mathematics many formulae are For Sure and it has been proven that
they will always be true. Are there any such true formulae involving
physical quantities -- basically what statements in Physics really are
Laws, if any. Could it be a property of Physics that no mathematics
formulae used to connect Physics quantities are absolutely true but
are, at best, successively better approximations.
Trying to compile a list of Physics truths, which will still be true
tommorrow.
Jon Bell
John Tapper <xix...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Fomulae that Newton put up regarding Physics -- is any of them correct
>(as in Correct and not "close to correct").
We don't know if *anybody's* formulae are Correct, not even Einstein's.
All we can do is keep on testing them, and if they eventually fail to
agree with experiment, they become Incorrect. The longer a formula keeps
on working successfully, the more confidence we put in it, and the more
surprised we are when it finally does fail.
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Sam Wormley
Newton's Mechanics works really well in its domain. As far a compiling
a list, why don't you just buy books like:
o Benenson, et al, "Handbook of Physics", AIP Press - Springer (2002)
o Lang, "Astrophysical Formulae Vol. I & II". Springer (1999)
A Physics Booklist: Recommendations from the Net
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html
Books On Relativity Theory
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
Cosmology Books
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmobib.html
Robert J. Kolker
John Tapper wrote:
> Trying to compile a list of Physics truths, which will still be true
> tommorrow.
Physics is not mathematics (although mathematics is the language of
physics). Physics is not a priori. Physics is synthetic a posteriori. It
is empirical.
Bob Kolker
John Zinni
news:c38f0627.0308...@posting.google.com...
They're not called "models" for nothing.
Uncle Al
>
> Fomulae that Newton put up regarding Physics -- is any of them correct
> (as in Correct and not "close to correct"). Not meaning to offend,
> just curious.
Newton, Isaac. 1687, "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica,"
trans. by A. Motte and revised by F. Cajori (University of California
Press: Berkeley, 1934)
Newton, Isaac, "The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy," trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, with the
assistance of Julia Budenz (University of California Press: Berkeley,
1999)
If one assumes c=infinity, G=G, and h=zero then Newton is right on the
money and perfect in every way. Where these boundary conditions are
not valid, classical physics fails.
> In mathematics many formulae are For Sure and it has been proven that
> they will always be true.
Idiot. Mathematics cannot be "true" since it is not an empirical
endeavor. Mathematics can only be "self-consistent." Axiomatic
constructs (e.g., David Hilbert in "Grundlagen der Geometrie," 1899)
can be disproven outside boundary conditions if one or more axioms can
be demonstrated to fail (e.g., Euclid and parallel lines). Felix
Klein in his 1872 "Erlangen-program" unified axiomatically diverse
geometries (homogeneous spaces) through properties remaining unchanged
under groups (symmetry groups) of transformations (automorphisms).
Since there are theorems but no axioms, such constructs cannot be
"disproven" at all.
> Are there any such true formulae involving
> physical quantities -- basically what statements in Physics really are
> Laws, if any. Could it be a property of Physics that no mathematics
> formulae used to connect Physics quantities are absolutely true but
> are, at best, successively better approximations.
>
> Trying to compile a list of Physics truths, which will still be true
> tommorrow.
Since you have no knowledge pertinent to the task, one expects your
endeavor to be one of spewing bullshit. Since there is no physical
theory wherein c=c, G=G, and h=h simultaneously obtain, here is your
list in its entirety: nul.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Robert Hampbell
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F427163...@hate.spam.net...
> Idiot. Mathematics cannot be "true" since it is not an empirical
> endeavor. Mathematics can only be "self-consistent." Axiomatic
> constructs (e.g., David Hilbert in "Grundlagen der Geometrie," 1899)
> can be disproven outside boundary conditions if one or more axioms can
> be demonstrated to fail (e.g., Euclid and parallel lines). Felix
> Klein in his 1872 "Erlangen-program" unified axiomatically diverse
> geometries (homogeneous spaces) through properties remaining unchanged
> under groups (symmetry groups) of transformations (automorphisms).
> Since there are theorems but no axioms, such constructs cannot be
> "disproven" at all.
Uncle Al, you're a complete cunt - but you're great.
Uncle Al
Uncle Al is the successful product of National Defense Gifted
Children's programs in the late 1950s-1960s. The results were so
astounding and abundant that all Federal and state educational
fundings thereafter were restricted to slum bunnies, cripples, idiots,
and the Officially Sad... the other 90% going to "administrative
costs."
Arthur: "Are you just a dream, Merlin?"
Merlin: "A dream, to some... A nightmare to others!"
— Excalibur (1981).
One wonders whatever happened to the infinitely scrumptious Geraldine
Mazur who had such a fine touch with a scalpel and a double-injected
preserved cat.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> If one assumes c=infinity, G=G, and h=zero then Newton is right on the
> money and perfect in every way. Where these boundary conditions are
> not valid, classical physics fails.
That is to say, where you live, classical physics fails.
Socks
HikerAd
>Uncle Al is the successful product of National Defense Gifted
>Children's programs in the late 1950s-1960s. The results were so
>astounding and abundant that all Federal and state educational
>fundings thereafter were restricted to slum bunnies, cripples, idiots,
>and the Officially Sad... the other 90% going to "administrative
>costs."
"successful" ???? How the hell do you measure success?
Since when is a bum who spends ALL his time on the usenet a "success"
Mr. giphted here, who has been unemployed/unemployable for who know how long
spends his days dispensing "you are stooopid" to half the users of the news
groups.
You need to look up "successful" in a dictionary and point out which part of
the definition applies to you. From what I gather from all your ranting
"successful" is anything but you !
All the screaming of " I'm gifted, I'm gifted" does not make you so, nor does
it make you a success. Face it, you ar a loooooser Al, a looooser, BIG TIME !!!
Undeniable
I would be good if you the mighty Uncle All, give us you
interpretation as to why "there is no physical theory wherein c=c,
G=G, and h=h simultaneously obtain", i.e. what is the bottom line of
this failure. Maybe me, the Undeniable, and the Tapper would be of
Physics can move neyond buzzwords and move into the good stuff. Where
is the meat? Give as your light (c=c/vaccum).
John Tapper
> > Fomulae that Newton put up regarding Physics -- is any of them correct
> > (as in Correct and not "close to correct"). Not meaning to offend,
> > just curious.
> If one assumes c=infinity, G=G, and h=zero then Newton is right on the
> money and perfect in every way. Where these boundary conditions are
> not valid, classical physics fails.
Idiot (to use your term), are these conditions that you assume valid
in this Universe?
> > In mathematics many formulae are For Sure and it has been proven that
> > they will always be true.
>
> Idiot. Mathematics cannot be "true" since it is not an empirical
> endeavor. Mathematics can only be "self-consistent."
Idiot, in mathematical usage mathematicians say that "a theorem has
been proved true" and everyone know what that means. Don't show-off
your having acquired some knowledge. After his lectures at Cambridge
in 1993, Andrew Wiles added that it follows that "Fermat's Last
Theorem is true" (of course, a correction was needed in the proof but
that is besides the point). Lucky you were not in the audience to
scream "Idiot" at his use of the word "true"!
> > Are there any such true formulae involving
> > physical quantities -- basically what statements in Physics really are
> > Laws, if any. Could it be a property of Physics that no mathematics
> > formulae used to connect Physics quantities are absolutely true but
> > are, at best, successively better approximations.
> >
> > Trying to compile a list of Physics truths, which will still be true
> > tommorrow.
> Since there is no physical
> theory wherein c=c, G=G, and h=h simultaneously obtain, here is your
> list in its entirety: nul.
Wow! That makes it all so clear.
John Tapper
> >
> If one assumes c=infinity, G=G, and h=zero then Newton is right on the
> money and perfect in every way. Where these boundary conditions are
> not valid, classical physics fails.
>
and say that with some changes it would be "right on the money and
perfect in every way" -- interestingly, the changes do not need to be
made to the theory but to the Universe which the theory was trying to
explain.
Who is the real Idiot around this group?
John Tapper
> John Tapper wrote:
> >
> money and perfect in every way. Where these boundary conditions are
> not valid, classical physics fails.
>
big deal? Contiuing with gifted Uncle Al's Universes where Newton
would be right. What happens in such a Universe if a crazy planet
earth in some insignificant solar system in a galaxy that most of the
Universe had never heard of -- what if the "Idiots" there (using Uncle
Al's term) started what they called their Second World War and one of
their countries set off a Nuclear Weapon?
Uncle Al, what is the theory about the sun here. U like your Newtons
crispy? LOL!
Uncle Al
Classical physics has c=infinity, G=G, and h=0. Those are the boundary
conditions for creating the math. If you don't like it, use a
different physcial theory when tossing a baseball or flushing your
toilet.
Uncle Al
Max Planck outlined a system of units based on the three fundamental
constants (h-bar), c, and G. Define a unit of mass
[(h-bar)c/G)^(1/2), a unit of length [(h-bar)G/c^3)^(1/2), and a unit
of time [(h-bar)G/c^5)^(1/2) - Planck mass, length, and time,
respectively.
M. Planck, Sitzungsber. Dtsch. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Math-Phys. Tech.
Kl., 440 (1899).
Planck's constant (h, enforces uncertainty in measurement; h-bar is
the fundamental unit of action), Newton's constant (Big G, scales
gravitation), and lightspeed (c, enforces information transfer delay)
define physics:
? h=h G=G c=infinity
mechanics,
electrostatics: h=zero G=zero c=infinity
classical physics: h=zero G=G c=infinity
quantum mechanics: h=h G=zero c=infinity
special relativity: h=zero G=zero c=c
general relativity: h=zero G=G c=c
quantum field theory: h=h G=zero c=c
Theory of Everything,
Grand Unified Theory: h=h G=G c=c
Learn some physics, git. Your ignorance is disgusting.
The Ghost In The Machine
<xix...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 19 Aug 2003 19:36:29 -0700
<c38f0627.03081...@posting.google.com>:
Newtonian mechanics is an approximation of reality,
validated for hundreds of years.
Einsteinian mechanics is a better approximation of reality,
but requires c (lightspeed) and h (Planck's Constant)
to describe events. Set c = infinity and h = 0, and
one gets Newtonian mechanics -- a useful check, as
any theory has to be in accordance with observed results,
and Newtonian mechanics has been proved time and again
within experimental error, until one gets to a certain
point (e.g., Mercury's orbit). But the divergence happens
way before that, although it's mostly undetectable;
Frodo's experiments are particularly interesting as
even a snail could detect relativistic events -- in this
case, the frequency-shift of certain gamma-ray photons
impinging on Fe-56 nuclei.
But one doesn't have to worry too much about relativistic
events when driving 35 mph to the grocery store. :-) At
that speed the length of the car might be squished by the
length of an atomic nucleus, if that. If the car runs into
something (another car, most likely), Newtonian mechanics
is good enough to explain the crumpling of the metal,
the skid marks on the road, and the injuries (if any)
to the occupants, or any bystanders unfortunate enough
to be involved.
But apply Newtonian mechanics to a far smaller collision
(e.g., protons/antiprotons) and one will have problems. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
John Tapper
> John Tapper wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F427163...@hate.spam.net>...
> > > John Tapper wrote:
> > > >
> > > If one assumes c=infinity, G=G, and h=zero then Newton is right on the
> > > money and perfect in every way. Where these boundary conditions are
> > > not valid, classical physics fails.
> > >
> > C=infinity...hmm! So all would be well if SIMPLY c were changed, no
> > big deal? Contiuing with gifted Uncle Al's Universes where Newton
> > would be right. What happens in such a Universe if a crazy planet
> > earth in some insignificant solar system in a galaxy that most of the
> > Universe had never heard of -- what if the "Idiots" there (using Uncle
> > Al's term) started what they called their Second World War and one of
> > their countries set off a Nuclear Weapon?
> >
> > Uncle Al, what is the theory about the sun here. U like your Newtons
> > crispy? LOL!
>
> Classical physics has c=infinity, G=G, and h=0. Those are the boundary
> conditions for creating the math. If you don't like it, use a
> different physcial theory when tossing a baseball or flushing your
> toilet.
But c<infinity and even Newton and all the classical gang said so.
Where did you get this stoopid (using one of your favorite words)
notion that they took c=infinity? Do you realize the crazy
implications of a universe with c=infinity, that you are suggesting.
Think man, think! Oh some math formulas work out for Newton if we
wrongly assume that c=infinity. Well Duh! What do you mean by a
Universe actually existing with c=infinity and where Newton's would be
"perfect is every way".
Your problem is with your theory that gaining knowledge makes you
smart, and you spend all day here bragging about your so-called
knowledge. That is a wrong theory and you are the living proof. Put
down that big book. You need to think INDEPENDENTLY about some of the
nonsese you spew.
Deciding on whether to go with Classical or Relativity when throwing a
baseball. That is a tough choice -- let us poll the baseball legends.
Uncle Al, it is hard to say when you are being intentionally funny or
just plain stoopid, do you even know when?
John Tapper
>
> ? h=h G=G c=infinity
> mechanics,
> electrostatics: h=zero G=zero c=infinity
> classical physics: h=zero G=G c=infinity
> quantum mechanics: h=h G=zero c=infinity
> special relativity: h=zero G=zero c=c
> general relativity: h=zero G=G c=c
> quantum field theory: h=h G=zero c=c
> Theory of Everything,
> Grand Unified Theory: h=h G=G c=c
>
> Learn some physics, git. Your ignorance is disgusting.
Nonsense. All correct theories of Physics have h=h G=G c=c.
Robert J. Kolker
John Tapper wrote:
> But c<infinity and even Newton and all the classical gang said so.
> Where did you get this stoopid (using one of your favorite words)
> notion that they took c=infinity? Do you realize the crazy
> implications of a universe with c=infinity, that you are suggesting.
Both Coulomb's law and Newton's law of gravitation assume instantenous
action at a distance. That implies c = infinity. Also the Galilean
Transformation of co-ordinates is the Lorentz transformation with c =
infinity.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
Name one, with a citation, or shut up. Go ahead, name one physical
theory that has h=h, G=G, c=c. Give a literature referenece, a
researcher's name, or a URL.
Do you have any idea what a public fool you have made of yourself?
Name one "correct" physical theory wherein h=h, G=G, c=c. We are all
sitting here with rapt attention awaiting your version of quantized
gravitation. HA HA HA!
Do you know *anything* about boundary conditions? Nobody adds a
relativistic correction to lobbing an artillery shell. Nobody adds a
Coriolus correction to throwing a baseball. Nobody adds s=(at^2)/2 to
shooting a firearm point blank. Nobody cares about a few sand grains
in a desert.
If you are humping a fine bitch on a sand beach, one advantitious
grain of sand can be a big deal. That's what constitutes an important
boundary condition - a little thing that makes a big difference -
e.g., corrections to GPS,
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Robert J. Kolker
John Tapper wrote:
>
> Nonsense. All correct theories of Physics have h=h G=G c=c.
\
Classical electrostatics assumes instaneous action at a distance. That
corresponds to c = infinity.
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F437D7A...@hate.spam.net>...
> > John Tapper wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F427163...@hate.spam.net>...
> > > > John Tapper wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > If one assumes c=infinity, G=G, and h=zero then Newton is right on the
> > > > money and perfect in every way. Where these boundary conditions are
> > > > not valid, classical physics fails.
> > > >
> > > C=infinity...hmm! So all would be well if SIMPLY c were changed, no
> > > big deal? Contiuing with gifted Uncle Al's Universes where Newton
> > > would be right. What happens in such a Universe if a crazy planet
> > > earth in some insignificant solar system in a galaxy that most of the
> > > Universe had never heard of -- what if the "Idiots" there (using Uncle
> > > Al's term) started what they called their Second World War and one of
> > > their countries set off a Nuclear Weapon?
> > >
> > > Uncle Al, what is the theory about the sun here. U like your Newtons
> > > crispy? LOL!
> >
> > Classical physics has c=infinity, G=G, and h=0. Those are the boundary
> > conditions for creating the math. If you don't like it, use a
> > different physcial theory when tossing a baseball or flushing your
> > toilet.
>
> But c<infinity and even Newton and all the classical gang said so.
Hey stupid:
1) Newton summing velocities, [V1 + V2] = V1 + V2
2) Special Relativity summing velocities, [V1 + V2] = (V1 + V2)/[1
+(V1)(V2)/c^2]
SR given c=infinity equals Newton. There's the math. Now you can
piss and moan about an inertial observer and you can piss and moan
about viewing angle. We'll proactively play it your way, asshole,
u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))
Aw jeez, SR given c=infinity *still* equals Newton.
> Where did you get this stoopid (using one of your favorite words)
> notion that they took c=infinity?
That is spelled "stooopid" to differentiate it from a typo. See
above. If you don't like it, provide a mathematical
counterdemonstration or swallow your bile and shut up. You are
unskilled and unaware,
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
> Your problem is with your theory that gaining knowledge makes you
> smart, and you spend all day here bragging about your so-called
> knowledge. That is a wrong theory and you are the living proof. Put
> down that big book. You need to think INDEPENDENTLY about some of the
> nonsese you spew.
If you don't like it, provide a mathematical counterdemonstration or
swallow your bile and shut up. Newtonian physics has c=infinity, G=G,
and h=0. If you assign any other discrete (as opposed to limiting)
values you don't have Newtonian physics any more. Pookie pookie.
BTW, Uncle Al routinely scores 5 sigma toward the high end on IQ
tests. If yo think intelligence is not an measureable abstract
concept, try loosening a stuck nut with your fingertips. You can be
as Liberally other-abled as you like, but yer still gonna need
somebody with a wrench. (An idiot would use a pair of pliers. Do you
know why?)
[snip]
Pyriform
> Nonsense. All correct theories of Physics have h=h G=G c=c.
That's right. And providing such a correct theory is left as an exercise
for the student. I'm sure you're up to it.
--
Pyriform
Timo Nieminen
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > Classical physics has c=infinity, G=G, and h=0. Those are the boundary
> > conditions for creating the math. If you don't like it, use a
> > different physcial theory when tossing a baseball or flushing your
> > toilet.
>
> But c<infinity and even Newton and all the classical gang said so.
> Where did you get this stoopid (using one of your favorite words)
> notion that they took c=infinity?
Note two different usages of "c": c = the speed of light, and c = maximum
speed of propagation of things. Newtonian mechanics assumes instantaneous
propagation of forces and information.
> Deciding on whether to go with Classical or Relativity when throwing a
> baseball. That is a tough choice -- let us poll the baseball legends.
The choice is easy, but it does illustrate the difference between
"correctness" and "usefulness".
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Timo Nieminen
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > ? h=h G=G c=infinity
> > mechanics,
> > electrostatics: h=zero G=zero c=infinity
> > classical physics: h=zero G=G c=infinity
> > quantum mechanics: h=h G=zero c=infinity
> > special relativity: h=zero G=zero c=c
> > general relativity: h=zero G=G c=c
> > quantum field theory: h=h G=zero c=c
> > Theory of Everything,
> > Grand Unified Theory: h=h G=G c=c
>
> Nonsense. All correct theories of Physics have h=h G=G c=c.
Maybe so. Hence there are currently no correct theories of physics.
(Maybe not so, either. Depends on the degree of correctness of quantum
mechanics, among other things. ie is h=h necessary for correctness? Note
recent relativity theories with c not equal to c.)
As an aside, it's not correct to state that "classical physics" assumes c
= infinity, since classical physics includes classical electrodynamics,
which certainly doesn't assume so. But then, some people put special and
general relativity into classical physics ("classical" = non-quantum).
John Tapper
> John Tapper wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3F437DE6...@hate.spam.net>...
> > >
> > > ? h=h G=G c=infinity
> > > mechanics,
> > > electrostatics: h=zero G=zero c=infinity
> > > classical physics: h=zero G=G c=infinity
> > > quantum mechanics: h=h G=zero c=infinity
> > > special relativity: h=zero G=zero c=c
> > > general relativity: h=zero G=G c=c
> > > quantum field theory: h=h G=zero c=c
> > > Theory of Everything,
> > > Grand Unified Theory: h=h G=G c=c
> > >
> > > Learn some physics, git. Your ignorance is disgusting.
> >
> > Nonsense. All correct theories of Physics have h=h G=G c=c.
>
> Name one, with a citation, or shut up. Go ahead, name one physical
> theory that has h=h, G=G, c=c. Give a literature referenece, a
> researcher's name, or a URL.
>
Same thing I said earlier: All correct theories have h=h G=G
c=c.
You want specific names? Name of theory is Special Relativity (SR).
Name of researcher is Albert Einstein. You EXPLICITLY state that SR
says h=0. Where does SR say that? Where does Einstein say that? You
further imply that Einstein contradicted himself by changing from
G=zero to G=G, from one theory to another. Nonsense.
The list you posted is pure crap. (Now I get the hint that you trying
to obsfuscate what you posted -- means even an idiot can occasionaly
recognize himself. But you think people are stupid to let you do so.
Hey, YOU put the "zero"s in your list, not I).
Robert J. Kolker
John Tapper wrote:
> The list you posted is pure crap. (Now I get the hint that you trying
> to obsfuscate what you posted -- means even an idiot can occasionaly
> recognize himself. But you think people are stupid to let you do so.
> Hey, YOU put the "zero"s in your list, not I).
In SR position and momentum-energy of an event can be known exactly.
Bob Kolker
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
afraid, since you don't spell out what you mean by c.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Big Bird
> [...]
> Trying to compile a list of Physics truths, which will still be true
> tommorrow.
Here's one:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are: If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
(quote Richard P. Feynman)
John Tapper
Please Rigorously state what you are saying and why you are saying it
is true in SR and then explain how this leads to h=0 in SR? (Uncle
Al's claimed zeros in SR (that h=0 and G=0) was the topic being
discussed, was it not).
Uncle Al
SR is absolutely deterministic. h=0
SR sets G=0. GR sets G=G. That is explicit in both theories. SR
absolutely cannot handle gravitation. GR is absolutely determinsitic
with h=0
You are an uneducated kneejerk jackass. Hey jackass: To what value
do these theories set Boltzmann's constant? It's an important
consideration.
John Tapper
> John Tapper wrote:
> >
> > Same thing I said earlier: All correct theories have h=h G=G
> > c=c.
> >
> > You want specific names? Name of theory is Special Relativity (SR).
> > Name of researcher is Albert Einstein. You EXPLICITLY state that SR
> > says h=0. Where does SR say that? Where does Einstein say that? You
> > further imply that Einstein contradicted himself by changing from
> > G=zero to G=G, from one theory to another. Nonsense.
> [snip]
>
> SR is absolutely deterministic. h=0
> SR sets G=0. GR sets G=G. That is explicit in both theories.
Nonsense. Stick with the issue. "Explicit in both theories" you say!
Where does SR set h=0, G=0. Please state with credible source.
tmunq
> (as in Correct and not "close to correct"). Not meaning to offend,
> just curious.
They are _very_ close to the truth in reasonable conditions - that is
the best you get. The same goes for relativity. All known phenomena
cannot be explained by it and a new theory will replace it someday.
Relativity will still be _very_ close to the truth in, well, pretty
extreme conditios as well.
Example:
The formulae for kinetic energy in classical physics is E = 0.5*m*v^2.
It is _very_ close to the truth, at any reasonable speed. The kinetic
energy according to relativity is E = ( (m/(sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2))) - m
)*c^2. It is quite interesting that " lim c-->infinite (
(m/(sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2))) - m )*c^2 = 0.5*m*v^2 ".
> In mathematics many formulae are For Sure and it has been proven that
> they will always be true. Are there any such true formulae involving
> physical quantities -- basically what statements in Physics really are
> Laws, if any. Could it be a property of Physics that no mathematics
> formulae used to connect Physics quantities are absolutely true but
> are, at best, successively better approximations.
>