Mmh. No. To calculate the entropy math is necessary, but not sufficient. You need the result: the law that allows you plugging in the right numbers, crunch them, so that you come to an answer. And since you seem to indicate, in the same post, that the results are not epistemology, then they are not philosophy, either. In other words, you are contradicting yourself.
First of all, I have reported your post because it's a violation of the rules of the forum. It is not permitted to misrepresent the arguments of your opponent. I've warned you about this three times already. I'm tired of it.
Math is a subset of philosophy. This has nothing to do with the
results of math. When you can actually address my argument, I'll be happy to respond and not before.
So, until now, your "rebuttal" of GR is based on the following two arguments:
1) A one mile rope stretched between two points above the surface of earth seems straight and not curved
2) People did not observe propagation of gravity at the speed of light. Which would entail that they observed it at a different speed.
Again, completely not my argument. The point is that if gravity propogates at the speed of light, then gravity will take 42 minutes to reach Jupiter and thus Jupiter will not be attracted towards the sun but rather towards
where the sun used to be. Since Newton was able to work out the exact orbit of Jupiter without calculating the time lapse in question and without knowing the speed of the sun as it whizzed around the Milky Way galaxy, there is no reason to believe that gravity propogates at the speed of light. You see, it's not about
observing the speed of gravity. It's about
observing the orbit of Jupiter. Look – if you cannot address the argument, just say so and let's be done with it.
We have already addressed the absurdity of claim 1), if we consider the actual curvature near the surface of the earth, as expected by GR, and still waiting for sources of claim 2) that go beyond your wishful thinking and your strange theory that it propagates at infinite speed (sic).
No, no, it's not
my theory. It's Newton's theory. You've heard of him, right? Sir Isaac Newton? Born 1642? Mathematician? (re-)Invented calculus? Is any of this ringing a bell?
So, what I need to seriously address your claim is
1) actual evidence that the straightness of space near the surface of the earth has been proven by taking into account that the expected curvature is in the ballpark of 10^(-13) of a radian taken on a triangle whose sides are 100Km long
2) concrete evidence that gravitational influence, measured upon the disappearance of a gravitational source for instance, travel at a different speed than light's
Until that evidence is shown, your rebuttal serves the only purpose of increasing the entropy produced by the computer you use to post stuff.
Ciao
- viole
So you want me to prove that Newton developed a law of gravity that postulated infinite speed for gravity and that matched Kepler's Laws and Tycho's observations?
No problem.
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Newtons-theory-of-gravity.html
"Newton stated that the force of gravity is always attractive,
works instantaneously at a distance, and has an infinite range. Most importantly, it affects everything with mass - and has nothing to do with an object's
charge or
chemical composition."
So we see that Newton, postulating that gravity worked instantaneously, was able to perfectly predict the orbit of all planets (except Mercury, the one closest to the sun). If gravity propogated at the speed of light, the further one got from the sun the less accurate the laws would have been.
P.S. It's different FROM not different THAN (unless you're in the UK then you can say different TO).
