Re: [reality] = physical laws + absolute frames + happenstance + interventions

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 12/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:35:17 GMT

On 30 Dec 2004 05:30:59 -0800, "reany@asu.edu" <reany@asu.edu> wrote:

> Paul Stowe wrote:

 [Snip...]

>>> If you choose to use the CMBR as a survey marker, that's up to
>>> you. It's a large-scale Greenwich Meridian.
>>>
>> Isn't that ALL a global 'absolute' reference frame is, a
>> large-scale Greenwich Meridian... :)
>
> Absolute frames were introduced into physics to ascribe to them
> unique physical properties not shared by other frames of
> reference.

 That is artifical, all that is objectively required of an
 absolute frame is that it can 'naturally', by it fundamental
 nature be used as a reference, PERIOD!

> As Einstein put it: In Lorentz's ether rest frame alone did
> the laws of electrodynamics hold in which time and space
> measurements were not "distorted."

 True, but so what? Tell me HOW this is important when measuring
 motion.

> One cannot talk about the notions of absolute frames and physical
> laws as independent of each other.

 Sure they can. By what criteria is there a limit???

>>> No. Maxwell's equations have the same form in all the inertial
>>> frames of which I know.
>>
>> What does Maxwell's equations have to do with whether or not one
>> can reliably detect their motion wrt a global rest frame of the
>> universe? We ARE talking about absolute motion, and moving through
>> space, and nothing else here!
>>
>>> If there is anything special about this absolute frame of which
>>> you speak,
>>
>> Special? Nothing special except that it (the CMBR) is a universal
>> photonic sea. It has a mean density, is isotropic (to better than
>> 4 orders of magnitude) ONLY in one state (frame) only. In old
>> fashion aether theory light is carried by the aether, thus, like
>> the background 'white noise' in Earth's ocean we CAN detect &
>> quantify all motion wrt it. But one does NOT need to invoke aether
>> to realize that the CMBR is 'special' in this respect. Hell,
>> SWormley's own reference point this out.
>
> What is 'absolute' about an absolute frame of reference is that is
> has no connection to the distribution of matter in the universe...

 And the CMBR does???

> (happenstance).

 Where does this come from except as a strawman for you!

> So, even if the CMBR frame is useful as a preferred frame in physics,

 It is...

> ... it is certainly not an absolute frame!

 By definition it meets a rational criteria for for it. Now you
 can be irrational if you like Reany... Just as much as the Bozos
 that claim we can screen it out thus it can't be fundamaental.

> We can model reality (indicated as "[reality]") most generally as
> this:
>
> (1) [reality] = physical laws + absolute frames + happenstance + interventions
>
> "interventions" are whatever else could be out there can influence the
> physical realm that aren't as yet covered by the other three.
>
> My guess is that the CMBR is part of the happenstance of the universe
> as an epiphenomena.
>
> The relativist believes he or she can get by on this:
>
> (2) [reality] = physical laws + happenstance + interventions
>
> And, no doubt, there are those that believe they can get by -- at least
> in principle -- on this:
>
> (3) [reality] = physical laws + happenstance

 A fourth,

  (4) [reality] = physical properties of the universe

 and NOTHING ELSE! There is no 'happenstance', no 'intervention'
 since we are slaves & children of that objective universe.

> I prefer (2) for the time being.

 Good for you Reany... I prefer (4)...

 Paul Stowe

Relevant Pages