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

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/24/04 

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 01:44:51 GMT

"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:BS2Mc.12519$K53.10883@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:UrMLc.11148$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.

The philosopher whose link I gave showed otherwise - physics requires
nothing more than quite simple philosophical notions. If you failed to see
his point no skin off my nose - believe what you like. The main thing is
others who have read it will understand what is going on - in fact others
have and commented how well it presented Feynmans views on the matter. And
none can doubt he was a great physicist.

>
>
> > > 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

But of course you have yet to demonstrate such philosophical musings
actually aids in doing physics. Science is an experimental discipline so it
is natural to look at what physicists actually used to make progress ie
observe them. This is analyzed here -
http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/SecretsGenius.pdf. As can be seen philosophy
had nothing to with it. What you basically saying is philosophy is
important to physics because I find philosophy important and will justify my
views by philosophical discourse. I say if philosophy is useful to physics
is to be found by analyzing what physicists actually did in order to make
progress. I think most people will immediately recognize which method is
likely to lead to valid answers.

>
>
>
>
> > > 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.

I did. It says things like:

There is only One Substance! It is God (in his Cosmical Body).

Such are obviously philosophical musings. What you have yet to provide is
evidence such considerations leads to progress in physics, while I have
provided a link that anywise exactly what is required - and it has nothing
to do with philosophy.

>
>
>
> > 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.

As discussions around here about the existence of an aether clearly indicate
any theory that is in accord with experiment is just as valid as any other.
Ptolemaic celestial mechanics is rejected because it is not in accord with
experiment not because we reinterpreted experiments differently. When faced
with two theories equally in accord with experiment (aether theories and SR
for example) then other considerations come into play. What experience has
shown is that mathematical elegance and how well it meshes other theories is
what has fueled progress - not philosophical considerations.

>
> 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

I have examined such evidence before and just like Dayton Millerts
experiments the problem is they do not provide conclusive evidence for the
existence of an aether. As a previous link I gave on this matter stated (I
really can not be bothered digging it up again) when we are faced with a
number of experiments that say an aether does not exist, an experiment
(Dayton Millers experiment and maybe others) that says it may exist but may
not as well, then the evidence is it does not exist. Such is simple logic.
And your claim absolute motion is 'totally banned concept in modern physics
due to Einsteinien hypotheses inbuilt into the current mathematical (GR)
framework.' is hogwash of the first order. Any scientist who was able to
actually demonstrate such would be awrded he highest honors - simply look
what explaining the photoelectric effect with the then 'sacrilegious' idea
of light having a particle nature did for a certain patent clerk at the turn
of the last century. To be blunt it is obvious such claims as yours are a
conspiratorial rant more indicative of some psychological problem, just like
the claims that 500 mpg carburetors exist but are suppressed by the petrol
companies is recognized as such.

Bill

>
>
> 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
    ... >> physicists trying to understand the dimension of philosophy. ... > actually aids in doing physics. ... >> day is taken to be evidence in support of Ptolemaic celestial mechanics, ... "Die so entstandenen Formeln für die elektrische Kraft ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... >> physicists trying to understand the dimension of philosophy. ... > actually aids in doing physics. ... >> day is taken to be evidence in support of Ptolemaic celestial mechanics, ... "Die so entstandenen Formeln für die elektrische Kraft ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits
    ... >> actually aids in doing physics. ... What you basically saying is philosophy is ... >> Ptolemaic celestial mechanics is rejected because it is not in accord ... >> I have examined such evidence before and just like Dayton Millerts ...
    (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)
Loading