Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

22
  • 2
    Curiously everything in physics (and I mean absolutely everything) follows from the lack of causation. How does that fit into your system? Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    @FlatterMann that's nomological causation. And in any case, it is by no means the universal opinion in physics that there is no mechanistic causation. Commented 2 days ago
  • 2
    @FlatterMann, Galileo didn't come up with the modern concept of relativity; he came up with what is called Newtonian relativity which is significantly different from Einstein's relativity. And it would be trivially easy to overcome my beliefs with evidence; you just don't have any. Show me how your theory can account for the motion of a football pass, the strength of a beam, or the eyesight of a cat. It can't be used for any of that. All it's good for is highly artificial, highly constrained lab experiments. Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    But are they QUALITATIVE as well? That's what people are looking for here. Commented yesterday
  • 1
    @FlatterMann, Galileo only argued for spatial relativity. In modern physics, "relativity" always means space-time relativity unless specified otherwise. I think you know this and are just bickering because you can't admit you were wrong. Commented yesterday