|
philnov
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
|
Thanks to WLC and his kalam-style arguments, I've been able to successfully show that relativity theory is wrong, and I expect my nobel prize soon! Thanks WLC!
Here's my undeniable argument, in the style of the kalam argument!
Premise 1) the force applied to an object is proportional to that objects acceleration (newton's law)
Premise 2) if I apply a constant force to an object, it will accelerate indefinitely (appeal to intuition and everyday experience)
Therefore: 3) if a constant force is applied to an object it will eventually exceed the speed of light, so the speed of light is NOT the cosmic speed limit for massive objects!
I'll be sure to thank Dr. Craig in my acceptance speech.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RandyE
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by philnovThanks to WLC and his kalam-style arguments, I've been able to successfully show that relativity theory is wrong, and I expect my nobel prize soon! Thanks WLC!
Here's my undeniable argument, in the style of the kalam argument!
Premise 1) the force applied to an object is proportional to that objects acceleration (newton's law)
Premise 2) if I apply a constant force to an object, it will accelerate indefinitely (appeal to intuition and everyday experience)
Therefore: 3) if a constant force is applied to an object it will eventually exceed the speed of light, so the speed of light is NOT the cosmic speed limit for massive objects!
I'll be sure to thank Dr. Craig in my acceptance speech. So you don't like deduction?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
philnov
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
|
Deducing from unreliable premises that appeal to intuition and common sense is not great. I don't like that.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RandyE
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by philnov
Deducing from unreliable premises that appeal to intuition and common sense is not great. I don't like that. Well then it's disanalogous, unless you just beg the question.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
philnov
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
|
Hehe. Craig's first premise is an appeal to intuition.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RandyE
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by philnov
Hehe. Craig's first premise is an appeal to intuition. You said "unreliable."
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
philnov
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
|
Yep. Premises based on intuition alone are unreliable, which is exactly what my first post shows.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RandyE
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by philnov
Yep. Premises based on intuition alone are unreliable, which is exactly what my first post shows. No one who does not already agree with you will do so, which is question-begging. Which is exactly what your first post shows.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
philnov
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Randy, the whole point of this is to show that intuition doesn't suffice to say that something is true or not. My argument in my first post, you will agree, is intuitively based, correct?
And, yet, the result it reaches is demonstrably false, correct?
Answer the two questions.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RandyE
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by philnov
Randy, the whole point of this is to show that intuition doesn't suffice to say that something is true or not. My argument in my first post, you will agree, is intuitively based, correct?
And, yet, the result it reaches is demonstrably false, correct?
Answer the two questions. No and yes.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RandyE
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RandyEQuote: Originally Posted by philnov
Randy, the whole point of this is to show that intuition doesn't suffice to say that something is true or not. My argument in my first post, you will agree, is intuitively based, correct?
And, yet, the result it reaches is demonstrably false, correct?
Answer the two questions. No and yes. That is, assuming Newton's law has anything going for it besides intuition. If not, then yes and yes.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
philnov
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
|
So you'd agree that my argument uses a premise (#2) that is intuitively based. You'd also agree that the conclusion my argument reaches in demonstrably false.
If the conclusion that the argument arrives at is false, it follows that one or more premises is not true. Correct?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RandyE
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by philnovSo you'd agree that my argument uses a premise (#2) that is intuitively based. You'd also agree that the conclusion my argument reaches in demonstrably false.
If the conclusion that the argument arrives at is false, it follows that one or more premises is not true. Correct? At least one, yes. 
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
philnov
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
|
Unless you can show that Newton's law is false, it would seem as though our intuitions can be unreliable!
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
RandyE
|
|
Posted 02/24/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by philnovUnless you can show that Newton's law is false, it would seem as though our intuitions can be unreliable!
But as we've discussed, that some intuitions are, it doesn't follow that they all are. You'd have to show why the particular intuition at work in the kalam doesn't work, or is overriden by some other fact.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
