Re: Hobba's misconceptions


"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vNdqf.75823$V7.63787@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "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.

Keppler, and he was outspokenly unhappy about it. Calculating is like
operating -- everyone can operate a TV set but not everyone understands how
it works.

> > 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.

Some don't, for example Newton didn't -- and so he developed classical
mechanics. Maxwell didn't -- and so he developed electrodynamics. Einstein
didn't -- and so he developed general relativity. Not bad at all!
And I think that Feynman thought in virtual photons (do you have a
reference?).

> 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

Bill, I don't believe in magic: I don't believe in the power of equations,
just as I don't believe in the power of words as in Ali Baba. And if you
want to call virtual photons rubbish: I don't care.
Anyway, the phenomena that according to you are caused by math equations in
what you call "non aether" theories, are according to Newton, Maxwell and
Einstein caused by something unseen but physical; but it doesn't matter for
experimental physics -- we agree that the equations match the measurements.

Thanks,
Harald


.

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)
Quantcast