Re: Mechanical Light


JoeT wrote:
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.

No you don't. That's not how physics works. Here is how physics works.
a) You notice a buch of phenomena that appear regular in some way.
b) You develop a theory that explains that regularity and predicts that
the regularity might extend to other phenomena.
c) You find indeed that the regularity predicted by the theory does
extend to some other phenomena.
d) Later you find that for a particular phenomenon the regularity
predicted by the theory does NOT work.
e) You develop a new theory that predicts all the regularity of the
previous theory but also explains the new phenomenon in a way that the
old theory does not.

There are a couple of key points here where your understanding of
physics is grim at best.
- Note that (b) does NOT necessarily say that the regularity predicted
by the theory MUST extend to ALL phenomena or the theory is flat wrong.
- Note that the theory in (e) is better than the theory in (b) because
it explains the regularity in a wider class of phenomena than (b) does.
This does NOT mean that the theory in (b) is *disproven*. Indeed, the
theory in (e) must agree with the theory in (b) where the latter is
*successful*. This is known as the correspondence principle.

For example, quantum mechanics does NOT have to show that Newtonian
mechanics is *wrong* in cases where in fact Newtonian mechanics works
quite well. In fact, it is crucial that quantum mechanics predict the
*same* results as Newtonian mechanics where the latter works well. But
quantum mechanics *also* explains things well that Newtonian mechanics
does not. This is why quantum mechanics is taken to be a better,
deeper, broader theory than Newtonian mechanics: it explains everything
that Newtonian mechanics does but also explains more.


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.

OK, but here's a little problem. We already know that in a gas, which
we model as little balls (molecules) caroming off each other, the
little balls do not in fact actually touch. They *approach* but are
deflected off each other before they actually touch. Can you think of
an example an interaction where two little balls actually touch? (Be
careful!)


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.

Aether is a collection of little balls, isn't it? I said there are
experiments that are *inconsistent* with an explanation involving
little colliding balls.


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.

No, they don't. See above.

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.

That's not correct. Here is the problem. You can come up with two
different but equally plausible explanations for the same phenomenon.
(This has been demonstrated repeatedly.) And so the question arises how
you tell the difference, which one is right? The only way to tell which
of these is right is to ask each explanation to also account for *how
much* one would expect to see in that phenomenon. In developing the
explanation to have quantitative power, one finds that the two
different purported explanations will predict two different values of
"how much*. Then it is easy to settle the matter: measure. The
measurement then decides which of the two completely plausible
explanations is in fact truly correct.

The quantitative predictability also has an important benefit: it lets
you *design* things. That is, if conditions are set to be this much and
that much, then you can expect to get a result of so much. And this is
how science produces practical devices. The design requires
calculations. This is how we know how much concrete to pour in the
columns of a bridge even if no other bridge like it has been built
before. This is how we know how fast a computer chip will run, even if
we've never built one like it before. This is how we know where a
satellite will be a week from Thursday, even though we are going to
lauch it later this afternoon.

This mathematical power IS precisely the "Load" of science. The load of
science is NOT to produce plausible explanations. The load of science
is to recognize principles that are *useful* in the sense that they can
be used to design things.

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.

The *quantitative* study of objects, yes. And not necessarily massive
objects. Objects don't necessarily have mass. Some do, some don't.


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.

Sorry, you haven't demonstrated that a neutrino-aether theory gets the
right answers where other mechanical theories have demonstrated
themselves to get the wrong answer. You need to do that.

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.

No, that's not right. See above.

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)