[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moontanman
You are asking why the electron has a charge? the best I can tell you is if it didn't you wouldn't be here to ask the question. The universe is put together with certain knowable laws. The interaction of these laws results in the universe we see and live in. The cause is the fundamental laws of the universe. No one knows why the universe has the laws we have, all we know for sure is if they were different in even a small way we wouldn't be here to question them. For me that is a very unsatisfying answer but it's all we got at this time. I'm not sure if "why we have these laws" is a knowable thing.
|
No I am not asking why the electron has a charge? I am asking what is it that physicists know that prompts them to say that there is such a thing as charge. I don't think they have the justification for insisting that electric charge is a fundamental property. I would be here whether or not theoretical physics is correct. I agree that we have what we have. What I dispute is that we have what theoreticdal physicists say we have. This does not mean that I prefer unscientific answers. It means that I think the basis of many conclusions presented to us by theoretical physics are unscientific. I have pointed to what I see as the problem in an earlier message. I said something like this: We see the damage done by theoretical physics in disunity, indefinable properties, and arbitrarily assigned units of measurement. Perhaps it would be helpful to give more specific examples. The arbitrary units of measurement that I speak of include all units except those of distance and time. The indefinable properties are mass, electric charge, and temperature. The disunity is seen in separate fundamental forces, and multiple theories instead of one general theory.
Quote:
|
I have never heard any one claim to know the cause, what's your point?
|
Electric charge is a cause. Mass is a cause. I am not speaking about the cause for either one. There does not have to be one. They are the cause, supposedly. I think they are both very vulnerable to challenge as representing causes.
Quote:
|
Can you prove there is a reason other than it's the way the laws of the universe cause the basic parts of matter to behave? Does there need to be a more basic cause of the charge?
|
I accept the way empirical evidence demonstrates that the universe operates. What I challenge is that we know anything at all about why or how it does what it does. The invented ideas of theoretical physics are too limited and too questionable to be trusted as representing the truth about the nature of the operation of the universe.
Quote:
|
First of all DNA has no direction or purpose. On top of that DNA or evolution or what ever has no purpose or direction to form intelligent life. Chemicals when exposed to excess energy will push toward complexity. Some molecules can be pushed to more complex forms than others. Carbon and it's compounds can be pushed by energy to complexities that allow reproduction. Reproduction doesn't mean DNA or even RNA but they are the end result of energy building ever more complex molecules. No purpose, no ultimate goal. You are asking the wrong questions from an assumption that is not valid. Read Peter D. Wards really great book "Life Not As WE Know It" for a very detailed explanation of the chemical processes involved. If you do you will realize you are assuming a question that is totally invalid and makes no sense at all.
|
This quote of yours is an example of declarations that represent a philosophy that you prefer, but clearly cannot be substantiated scientifically. You use the word energy as if it is the magical substance that can produce all these magnificent results including intelligent life. What is energy? What is the empirical evidence that there is a substance that you refer to as energy. What is it about building more complex molecules that gives rise to intelligent life? Do the molecules begin to think? Do the molecules change from lifeless to life giving? We know by observation that these molecules produce intelligent life. It makes a great deal of sense to wonder what are the properties of the molecules that produce such magnificent results. It makes a great deal of sense to doubt that the mechanical properties put forward by theoretical physics lead to this result. It makes more sense to doubt that theoretical physics has anything at all to do with learning why this occurs. It makes the most sense to look for different fundamental properties that demonstrate a logical connection to intelligence and life. That is what I think.
James
