What is a Creationist?

Moose: "Sounds like a theistic evolutionist to me."I have modified my statement. Go back and re-read it. I don't think this is the position of a theistic evolutionist.[This message has been edited by Warren, 12-23-2003]{Note from the administration - The "non-admin" mode did find this message, but it would be best that you use the little reply button at the base of the message you are replying to, if you are replying to a specific message - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-23-2003]

quote:

---

...then natural mechanisms have been designed to produce a result therefore they are NOT material mechanisms.

---

Unfortunately, your Godly participation (which I'm not contesting) is indistinguishable from no Godly participation. At least as I know it, God did not leave his fingerprints behind. If you believe in God's participation, it is a matter of religious faith, not a matter of scientific evidence.Still sounds like "theistic evolutionist" to me.What do you consider yourself?Moose

Hello, I am new to this forum and this is actually the first discussion forum I have ever taken part in. Pardon me if I make errors in protocol.___________________________________________________________________The scientific accomplishments of Newton and Pasteur were based on proposing testable material mechanisms for natural phenomena. That's what scientists do. Newton in particular is no poster boy for creationism, since he not only pioneered the concept of empirical evidential inquiry but wrote most of his works on, ahem, astrology.
In other words, their own belief in the supernatural was not what made their research relevant. People of any religious or non-religious persuasion can understand and verify the results Newton and Pasteur obtained.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I was wondering how you construe the results of Newton are testable or verifiable. Newton simply stated that a body at rest of in uniform motion remained that way until acted upon by a force. He then defines a force as a mass times its acceleration. Additionally, he advocated his theory of gravitation which stated that all masses tend to accelerate one another. However, instances were found in which objects did not remain at rest which his theory of gravity could not account for. Does this mean Newton’s results are false? Additionally, Newton postulated his third law stating if two bodies exert forces on each other, these forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. However, it was found that the magnetic force on two moving charge was, in fact, equal but not opposite. Does this mean Newton’s results are wrong?Sincerely
Tidhare

Well, for one thing, he constructed an equasion that you could solve for the position over time of two massive objects exerting gravity on each other:F = G Ma Mb / r^2So, people measured objects accellerating towards the Earth and solved the equasion for those objects, and the results of the equasion matched the actual measurements of the objects, as near as they could tell. So Newton's theory was tested and confirmed.Of course Newton's theory is wrong, because it's not relativistic, but they didn't notice because the error term between relativity and Newton's model was too small to measure with what they had. Yes. But he was close, and his results are practically valid in many applications.

_______________________________________________________________
So, people measured objects accellerating towards the Earth and solved the equasion for those objects, and the results of the equasion matched the actual measurements of the objects, as near as they could tell. So Newton's theory was tested and confirmed.
_________________________________________________________________
So you are saying that objects only accelerate downward near the earth’s surface? Massive objects ALWAYS attract?__________________________________________________________________
Of course Newton's theory is wrong, because it's not relativistic, but they didn't notice because the error term between relativity and Newton's model was too small to measure with what they had.
Does this mean Newton’s results are wrong?
Yes. But he was close, and his results are practically valid in many applications.
______________________________________________________________________His results are not even close. The magnetic forces on moving charged objects are equal in magnitude, but NOT opposite in direction. How does relativity help?Sincerely
Tidhare

Just so we're clear, I'm no physicist. But I know that all mass in the universe gravitationally attracts all other mass. This close to the Earth's surface, values for F in the equation are very high, so obviously that force - the force Earth exerts on the objects we observe - tends to dominate our perceptions. I assume this is hyperbole - Newtons laws of motion make relatively accurate predictions about the movement of matter in the universe and, as I said, are practically valid for most applications humans would be familiar with. Newton's laws were about gravity, not magentism.Are you sure about the direction thing? If two objects accelerate towards each other - by gravitation or magnetism or any other attracting force - then by definition, the forces must be opposing - because the objects are moving in opposing directions. It makes more accurate predictions about the motion of matter in the universe.

Just so we're clear, I'm no physicist. But I know that all mass in the universe gravitationally attracts all other mass. This close to the Earth's surface, values for F in the equation are very high, so obviously that force - the force Earth exerts on the objects we observe - tends to dominate our perceptions.
___________________________________________________________________
~~The how come the standard model of particle physics ignores gravity?
_______________________________________________________________________
I assume this is hyperbole - Newtons laws of motion make relatively accurate predictions about the movement of matter in the universe and, as I said, are practically valid for most applications humans would be familiar with.
___________________________________________________________________
~~Please tell me how they make accurate predictions. The magnetic force between moving charged particles is NOT equal and OPPOSITE.
________________________________________________________________________
Newton's laws were about gravity, not magentism.
___________________________________________________________________
~~Newton’s three laws specify no particular force. The law of gravity is, of course, about gravity.
___________________________________________________________________
Are you sure about the direction thing? If two objects accelerate towards each other - by gravitation or magnetism or any other attracting force - then by definition, the forces must be opposing - because the objects are moving in opposing directions.
___________________________________________________________________
~~Positive.___________________________________________________________________
How does relativity help?
It makes more accurate predictions about the motion of matter in the universe.
___________________________________________________________________
ErrHow does relativity help in this case?Sincerely
Tidhare

Because The Theory of General Relativity is a classical theory, and the Standard Model of Particle Physics is a quantum theory. They don't play together. At the quantum level, gravity is not a significant force.You've basically just asked the most important question in physics today. Congratulations. Could you explain how I'm wrong, rather than just telling me I am? Explain to me how, if two objects are accelerating towards each other, they're not being acted upon by opposite forces? I'm sure you must be right but it doesn't make any sense to me. In the case of magentism? I don't know. I didn't bring it up to explain magentism but rather to illustrate how Newton's theories on motion have been replaced by more accurate theories.I do know that you can derive relativity from analysis of magnetic fields but I don't remember how, so don't ask me to explain. (It was something I read in Larry Gonick's Cartoon Guide to Physics, which should give you an indication of the level of my training in physics.)

Because The Theory of General Relativity is a classical theory, and the Standard Model of Particle Physics is a quantum theory. They don't play together. At the quantum level, gravity is not a significant force.
You've basically just asked the most important question in physics today. Congratulations.
__________________________________________________________________
``We are getting far away from the point I was trying to make. What I was trying to insinuate was that Newton’s laws (his three laws, not the law of gravity) are not really verifiable or testable. They are a paradigm in which to look at the world. For example, if I were to show you a body which did not remain at rest even though no KNOWN force was acting upon it you would simply postulate a previously unknown force which must be acting (such as the electromagnetic force). It is simply a circular argument, albeit a very useful one.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Could you explain how I'm wrong, rather than just telling me I am? Explain to me how, if two objects are accelerating towards each other, they're not being acted upon by opposite forces? I'm sure you must be right but it doesn't make any sense to me.
___________________________________________________________________
~~Perhaps I should apologize. I should have pointed out in your earlier post that the magnetic force does not accelerate moving charged particles toward each other, but perpendicular to their momentum.~~My point is, in many cases I see people being beaten over the head with science must be verifiable, testable, proven etc. However, I believe the only validation of science is that it is useful. Take the case of the moving charges and the lack of conservation of momentum. Since they do not obey Newton’s third law should we throw the law out? Well I guess that depends on your personal preference, but the law can easily by saved by assuming that there is a magnetic field (whatever that is) which can, of itself carry momentum. This momentum carrying magnetic field then saves Newton’s third law, and it can continued to be applied. The same reasoning exists for the conservation of energy. Every time we find non-conservation of energy, we merely postulate that another form of energy must exist so that conservation is achieved.
~~Therefore, how exactly are Newton’s laws testable or verifiable?

I do know that you can derive relativity from analysis of magnetic fields but I don't remember how, so don't ask me to explain. (It was something I read in Larry Gonick's Cartoon Guide to Physics, which should give you an indication of the level of my training in physics.)
___________________________________________________________________Just to point out, you cannot DERIVE relativity from anything. That is why it is a new theory.Sincerely
Tidhare

Tidhare,When you're quoting other people's message if you start the quote with a [ qs ] and end it with a [ /qs ] (without the spaces) you'll get a quote box like the one below; which would make your messages much easier to read. I'm sorry but this is not true. One would most certainly postulate such a force, however in order to progress one would have to FIND the force. Forces are not invisible uncaused things, where there is a force you can find a thing causing that force. If no such force can be found you must admit its absence. Further, forces behave in a precise and well-defined way so if your thing acting under no force does not behave in that way you know it isn't a force causing its motion.

I am not sure what you mean. I understand that Newton defined his laws only for inertial reference frames, but in an inertial reference frame if there is an acceleration there is, by definition, a force. I have only seen the EFFECTS of gravity. By this I assume you mean such as mass causes the gravitational force. How then do you determine the existence of charge apriori? If a body accelerates in an inertial reference frame there must be a force. yes , force equals mass times acceleration. I’m not sure what this means. Forces cause acceleration. Objects under no force do not accelerate. You seem to be saying that if an object does not accelerate it isn’t a force causing its motion.
Sincerely
Tidhare edited to fix quote boxes...changed G to Q. Tidhare, if you look on the left side of the reply window, there are links named "HTML is ON" and "UBB Code is ON". These links will explain the formating used on this site. You can also click the edit button on the bottom of a post where you see something you want to know how to do. You can't edit others' posts but you can see how they formated their post. - The Queen[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-21-2004]

Sorry, I tried the [gs], [/gs]. It just didn't work. any help on what I did wrong?Sincerely
Tidhare

Tidharetry [qs] not [gs]

Well, that's actually the fallacy of ad-hoc reasoning, but I see your point.But the thing is, the laws you're talking about aren't theory, they're observations: But the reason you're not able to show me that is because that doesn't happen. The forces that we are aware of are sufficient to account for the motion of objects in the universe. Newton's laws don't assume that there are no unknown forces, they observe that there are no unknown forces. Maybe it's different for charged particles, but I'm thinking of magnets, which, when released from rest, either accelerate towards or away from each other, depending on orientation. What am I missing? What you're describing seems counter to how I've seen magnets move. Of course, but that begs the question: "useful for what?" The answer is of course making predictions. And it is those qualities - verifiability, testability, and falsifiability - that makea theory able to make predictions. Unfalsifiable theories predict nothing. I'm unable to take that case because I don't understand how that is so. Eventually you get to a point where you're proposing new energies to explain unique circumstances. Magnetism is a general phenomenon that explains several things besides these apparent contraditions of Newton's Laws. Therefore it's not truly an ad-hoc addition. But if you were proposing a new energy to explain a circumstance that only happened once, you would be in ad-hoc land.Proposing theories that explain new data is not ad-hoc reasoning. It's how science moves forward.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-21-2004]