Re: Hobba's misconceptions


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43a94b8b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:NN4qf.70611$V7.11198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> <bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1135131446.362091.317710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Bill Hobba wrote:
>> >> <bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1135105284.096595.240040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> > Bill Hobba wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip down to the new stuff]
>> >
>> >> >> What you missed is the generally accepted conception of what the
>> >> >> aether is -
>> >> >> namely a physical medium that is supposed to be what light
>> >> >> undulates
>> >> >> in..
>> >> >> Fields do not have this additional property.
>> >> >
>> >> > But they do have the property of being able to apply forces. How do
>> >> > they do this? Magic
>> >>
>> >> Rigorously a field is defined as a function on a manifold. It may of
> may
>> >> or
>> >> may not have the property of exerting a force (see what I say alter)
>> >> eg
>> >> the
>> >> metric tensor does not have this property. Generally speaking fields
> do
>> >> not
>> >> exert forces because they are fields - we need to add some other
>> >> attribute
>> >> eg for EM fields we need to add the attribute of an interaction term
>> >> in
>> >> its
>> >> lagrangain. In the case of gravity in certain approximations the
> metric
>> >> tensor plus the principle of maximal ageing leads to forces - eg the
> non
>> >> relativistic approximation. It is these added assumptions that leads
> to
>> >> forces - not the fact they are fields.
>> >
>> > Nice tap dancing. Now when two magnets are held near each other and
>> > snap together when released, what caused them to move.
>>
>> Motion implied by the equations of EM. Those are found by carrying out
> the
>> variation on the EM lagrangian. That is another assumption one needs to
>> make about the fields for them to produce force - they are derivable from
>> the PLA.
>
> Bill, knowing how to calculate an effect has little to do with explaining
> its cause.

An example would be nice. I believe the exact opposite.

> Either one proposes that there is an "ether" that transmits the actions,
> or
> it's done by means of "virtual photons", or... what do you think?

I think the number of different theories we have in accord with the facts
demonstrate such questions are generally meaningless eg Feynamn and Wheelers
formulation of EM in terms of action at a distance with no field. It is
only those who think nature should work along the lines they want that yap
on about 'irrelevancies'. Scientists should concentrate on what is
experimentally verifiable and leave philosophy to philosophers - in fact
most do. Which is not to trivialize the accomplishments of great scientists
interested in philosophy - but the demands of science are not the demands of
philosophy. Scientists generally wish to make progress - not get bogged
down in issues experience has shown has no resolution.
http://www.friesian.com/feynman.htm
'Now, one might ask, What is "mass"? What is "distance"? What is "time"? As
questions of physics these are going to be very different from similar
questions in philosophy. In physics, all one need say, to get started, is
that "mass resists acceleration" (intertial mass) or "mass exerts
gravitational attraction" (gravitational mass), that "distance is what we
measure with this rod," and that "time is what we measure with this clock."
Wow. These answers, of course, are not philosophically very satisfying. They
are all one needs, however, to start doing the science. And there is a
reason for that. Scientific explanations are logically only sufficient, not
necessary, to the phenomena. This means that they are enough to explain
something about what we are seeing, but that logically they are not the only
possible explanation and they do not explain everything about what we are
seeing. Indeed, explaining everything is a tall order, though it is what,
philosophically, we would like ultimately to have.'

It is only at kiddy level we think science will give us one and only one
definite answer - it may do - but generally what we have is competing
theories and scientists study the consequences of each theory. Being biased
against one and more inclined towards another while unavoidable is IMHO
counterproductive.

> By means of magical equations?

Equations describe nature - they do not, and in principle can not, answer
all questions one can ask. You know as well as I do non aether theories
meet the gold coin of science - ie are in accord with experiment. That and
logical consistency is all that can be asked - and even logical consistency
is sometimes swept under the rug. This implies they are valid - simple as
that. It is you that wishes to resort to terms like 'magic' when describing
aspects of equations you do not understand in terms of how you think nature
should work or think requires deeper explanation without first demonstrating
such is required. Most simply accept them as part of theories and if truth
be told change their views of how they think nature should work rather than
clinging to ideas like an aether. That most do that is an observed fact -
not a conjecture. Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe in the spirit of science
they should hold onto all ideas. But the arrogant attitude of most
aetherists that an aether must exist, if you don't believe in it you believe
in magic or some such rubbish, does not appeal to those of a generally
tolerant persuasion. I try to be tolerant and I know it does not appeal to
me.

Bill

>
> tolerant
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... >> philosophy in the US, ... >>> encourage students to consider the nature of comparative faith and the ... he was a North Carolina State science prof.. ... etc. are complicated and often misunderstood by scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]
    ... > endurance of our one and only Universe, are not 'serious scientists', ... My position, as you very well know, is that science is test, hypothesize, ... > the Aether Theory and is pathetically unable to disprove its statements. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? [ Apparent Red Shift ]
    ... > endurance of our one and only Universe, are not 'serious scientists', ... My position, as you very well know, is that science is test, hypothesize, ... > the Aether Theory and is pathetically unable to disprove its statements. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hard Sci-fi?
    ... it down with your nonsens philosophy. ... math are never going to be more than a subset of science. ... everything is part of nature. ... some experimental scientists might). ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Science is a Philosophy
    ... there being 'philosophy of X' and 'X is a philosophy' -- Jazz ... there are), the theories to explain them (evolution), and the method ... known the science is on a subject. ... scientists haven't thought about and that therefore they are ignorant, ...
    (talk.origins)