Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

From: mountain man (hobbit_at_southern_seaweed.com.op)
Date: 07/23/04 

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 07:11:29 GMT

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:UrMLc.11148$K53.9353@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
> news:grCLc.10587$K53.1058@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:17kHc.84891$sj4.28384@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >
> > > "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > news:L5idnVERD4YQLnDdRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
> > > > Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Must we assume that in the absence of particles and fields, and in
> > > > the absence of space and time, there would be nothing?" - John
> > > > Dobson
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Nothingness does not exist and creation ex-nihilo is not physically
> > > > possible.
> > >
> > > Physics is not philosophy.
> >
> >
> > Every physical theory has an express and implied philosophy.
>
> Sure - it is just a rather simplistic one.

Simple, often inter-related to technological issues,
rather than natural issues, and piece-meal rather than
unifying.

> > Not that modern physicists could enunciate it, as they are often
> > totally unaware (ie: ignorant) of the philosophical foundations
> > of the physical scientific theories to which they subscribe.
> >
>
> I disagree - at least one philosopher has enunciated what most physicists
> such as Richard Feynman believe very well - see
> http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm. If one philosopher can nut it out I
> have no doubt any competent philosopher can. In fact I have no doubt
anyone
> with a reasonable bit of effort can nut it out - it is not that hard.
What
> he says is not news - people like you probably know it already - you just
do
> not like it. So you claim they are ignorant of such things when such is
> obviously not the case.

It is not a question of (academic) philosophers trying to present the
specification of modern scientific theories, it is a question of modern
physicists trying to understand the dimension of philosophy.

Here is a preface:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/buddha/Stcherbatsky_Buddhist_logic.htm

> > The philosophy embraced by modern contemporary science
> > is idealistic realism, and it effects the physics dramatically, most
> > particularly at the axiomatic and hypothetical level where the
> > definitions used are outlined and defined.
>
> You call it idealistic realism I call it mathematical realism - the idea
> 'reality is represented in the equations, which are the stuff of things'.

Read the above article very carefully.

> But guess what - it is irrelevant - all that matters is correspondence
with
> experiment - all else simply is gloss and dross. Do you have anything to
> discuss on that score? To be blunt about it science sticks very well to
its
> principles of ensuring theories are in accord with experiment which is all
> that really counts - it is people that do not like what modern theories
say
> that attack it on the only ground left open - philosophy. But of course
it
> is an attack science is invulnerable to - because in the final analysis if
a
> theory cam make predictions and is in accord with experiment then nothing
> else really matters.

Experiments are critical for the wholesome nature of physics, and to
keep everything in a state of research and development. But experimental
results can be re-analysed as new information comes to light. What one
day is taken to be evidence in support of Ptolemaic celestial mechanics,
is in another day taken to evidence of Newtonian celestial mechanics.

See for example the register of experiments which may be claimed to
demonstrate the systematic evidence of absolute motion, such notion
a totally banned concept in modern physics due to Einsteinien hypotheses
inbuilt into the current mathematical (GR) framework.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/absolute_motion_register.htm

Cahill shows that relativistic effects and absolute motion are not
mutually incompatible ---- see the process physics directory.

Experiments are critical and are turning points in the history of
science.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Physics & Philosophy
    ... How Western science education has failed. ... Philosophy gets used all over the place in physics. ... impose a formal point of view, as Einstein said: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... >> Every physical theory has an express and implied philosophy. ... >> of the physical scientific theories to which they subscribe. ... specification of modern scientific theories, it is a question of modern ... Experiments are critical for the wholesome nature of physics, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult?
    ... >> Not another philosophy dude posturing meaningless gibberish as physics. ... All science has is a collection of theories and experimental ... > You wished a clarification for my definition of the universe, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult?
    ... >> Not another philosophy dude posturing meaningless gibberish as physics. ... All science has is a collection of theories and experimental ... > You wished a clarification for my definition of the universe, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ scientific methods ]
    ... > That may be true for your science, and for some possibly Post Modernist ... of physics are like that eg the law of conservation of energy is no more ... should not be used - its context is not well defined. ... >> training but not of the type used in philosophy which is along the lines ...
    (sci.physics)