Re: Mechanical Light


PD wrote:
JoeT wrote:
Again, it appears hopelessly divided in all the discussions. Of course
you all support PD's views learnt from all no-aether theories,

My views are informed by *experiment* as well as theory. This is a
crucial point that you don't seem to get.

All your views contradict physics of mechanics. To do so you need to
disprove physics of mechanics first.

Formal
science philosophy-based mathematical models and against physics of
mechanics-based explanations.

Joe, let's figure out what you mean by "mechanics-based explanations".
Do you mean little balls bouncing off little balls? And at what point
do you think that physics started to deviate from this little picture?

When scientists accepted Newton's postulations that all objects have
attraction act-from distance forces.

Secondly, are you aware of *experimental findings* that simply cannot
be explained in any reliable, quantitative way by little balls bouncing
off of little balls? If you are not, would you like to hear of a few? A
number of them are quite startling.

That's why scientists before 20th century firmly believe the existence
of aether. Now it is found.

Perhaps you didn't know that the fundamental concepts underlying a
theory are sometimes shaken up by *observations* that cannot be
explained by those concepts.

So that no-aether theories have been developed to explain universal
phenomena. Before doing so scientists must disprove physics of
mechanics. They have not. So that we have a physics and a cosmology
full of controversies.

Before, you thought that there is no
aether and it is not possible that all universal phenomena can have
simple mechanical interpretation. Now, even such explanations are found
and presented to you,

Again, we have a difference of opinion about what "explanation" entails
in physics. To physicists, and this has been true for 350 years, an
explanation without being able to calculate with it is not really an
explanation. This has nothing to do with ether or not ether. It has to
do with what predictive science is.

Physics of mechanics is still accepted as the core of physics. Why you
can not use it as the scientific standard to judge my posts and use all
available experimental findings to re-evaluate whether physics of
mechanics or all no-aether theories is the real science.

Mathematics is for quantification. It is a good and needed tool for
science but it is neither science nor the Load of science. Maxwell's
finding that the speed of electromagnetic wave (a mathematical function
derived from the postulations that force fields exist) is the same as
that of light. His find and theory that light is a mathematical
function has (mis)led to the development and acceting formal science
philosophy believing that mathematics is science and the Load of
science. This is a religious belief and the tool to supress real
science.

you can no longer accept them and become the
protecters of religion-like pseudo-science of all no-aether theories.
Please open your eyes and have a good look at the science of all other
fields. None of them are mathematical theory based.

Why, that's where you're wrong. Let's take some examples:
- Chemistry, dominated by quantitative models
- Economics, dominated by quantitative models
- Genetics, includes a healthy amount of probability and rate-tracking
- Psychology, where no research psychologist would succeed without
tremendous grasp of statistical analysis
- Engineering, dominated by quantitative calculation

What field of science were you thinking of that doesn't involve
quantitative modeling?

Quantification is the normal role mathematics play in science. However,
an atom or molecules is not a mathematical function like
"electromagnetic wave, or spacetime, or photon". A phenomena has energy
and/or force, which must produced by objects. (nature) Science
therefore is the study of objects having masses and relative motions.

I repeat, unlike social issues there is only one real science or
correct scientific answer. The real science must be consistent through
and is supported by all experimental findings.

Precisely. And there are some experimental findings that are simply
inconsistent with the predictions of a mechanical theory. Mechanical
theories get the *wrong answer*.

Now, neutrinos have been found to be the aether scientists have
searching for centuries. No-aehter theories are found to be the wrong
answer. It is time to re-visit physics of mechanics.

Physics of mechanics is
the only scientifically repeatedly proven scientific physics, not any
nor all no-aether theories.

You are apparently unaware of the *experimental evidence* in support of
these models.

Without disproving physics of mechanics first all no-aether theories
were scientifically wrong to begins with. Upon finding aether and
aether science they are now conclusively proven wrong.

It appears that I have little change to
convince any of you participating in the discussions but I believe that
the silence majority are finding my posts exciting and bringing hope to
bring real science back.


PD

JoeT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mechanical Light
    ... All your views contradict physics of mechanics. ... Science is to find out what it is, why it works that way, and how it ... That's why scientists before 20th century firmly believe the existence ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mechanical Light
    ... All your views contradict physics of mechanics. ... So that no-aether theories have been developed to explain universal ... do with what predictive science is. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Mechanical Light
    ... let's figure out what you mean by "mechanics-based explanations". ... do you think that physics started to deviate from this little picture? ... do with what predictive science is. ... protecters of religion-like pseudo-science of all no-aether theories. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: (mechanical) Gravity
    ... I certainly agree with that "The greatest enemy of science is ... But physics of mechanics is certainly not. ... by the presence of a dense energetic atmosphere of neutrinos in the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Failure of science education (was: Whats the beef with Einstein)
    ... >>Relativists argue with cranks for years and never get even one little ... >>misconceptions about the nature of science first. ... indoctrinated into modern physics philosophy. ... No one should be allowed to get through Newtonian mechanics tacitly ...
    (sci.physics)