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

From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 12/31/04 

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:13:41 GMT

On 30 Dec 2004 09:33:49 -0800, "reany@asu.edu" <reany@asu.edu> wrote:

>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> 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!
>
> Well, what does it distinguish then?

 Are you asking about the CMBR? If so, see Sam's reference for
 clarification,

  http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html

 Section: "How come we can tell what motion we have with respect
           to the CMB?"

> Every reference frame can be used as a reference?

 True, but can the Zetharian in Galaxy NC1234 see your nose and
 reference it reliably as their FOR anchor?

>>> 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.
>
> I'm telling you the historical semantics of "absolute."

 Hmmm, looked it up, didn't find that in thar. Perhaps you'll
 point it out.

 http://www.onelook.com/?w=absolute&ls=a

>>> One cannot talk about the notions of absolute frames and physical
>>> laws as independent of each other.
>>
>> Sure they can.
>
> Then prove it by doing so.

 See Sam's reference, above...

> [snip]
>
>>>> 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???
>
> I'll be less ambiguous: an absolute frame of reference has no
> connection to the distribution of matter, energy, or any physical
> stuff in the universe (i.e., happenstance).
>>
>>> (happenstance).
>>
>> Where does this come from except as a strawman for you!
>
> Explain.

 It simply a label you've invented to apparently cover the overall
 state of the universe as observed today. Actually, this state
 is a result of deterministic evolution. You must be a creationist.

>>> 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.
>
> Not historically though! Historical precedence, rational or not,
> is still historical precedence. You don't seem to care about it,
> though.

 I care about using word in there common context. NOT what some
 Bozo decided to arbitrarily to change to suit their own agenda.

>> 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.
>
> Happenstance is the locations, velocites, and accelerations of all
> matter, energy, or any other physical stuff of the universe
> relative to some reference frame from which the universe is being
> described. By that definition, it must have something to do with
> your vague notion of "physical properties of the universe."
> Please define a "physical property of the universe."

 Paul Stowe

Relevant Pages