Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

Laurent wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
Physics is not philosophy.


Right, but we need a strong philosophical base in order to do good
physics.


Exactly. Physics, if done right, is the instantiation of good
philosophy. We don't currently have that. Since Samuel Alexander [Space,
Time and Deity (1920)] was completely misunderstood by a whole century
of great minds the last best chance was (almost) missed.

Laurent wrote:

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:hnwHc.55676$XM6.18922@attbi_s53...


Mitchell wrote:


The Aether is beyond any physical concept.

Then it is nonsense.

Bob Kolker




Just answer this - Is empty space real, can you observe and measure
it?

--
Laurent




A physicist will never be able to answer that, they have neither the
intellect nor training. Leave them to play with their self-dilating
measuring rods.

"ad" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
Physics is not philosophy.


Right, but we need a strong philosophical base in order to do good
physics.


Exactly. Physics, if done right, is the instantiation of good
philosophy.

And the evidence of this statement is? I do not mean some circular
philosophical type argument that analyses it philosophically and surprise of
surpasses reaches the conclusion you could not have done such an analysis
without philosophy hence philosophy is central to science. What I mean is
actual evidence that it was philosophy that was being done and not science.
And do not counter with the basis of science is philosophy - that can be
applied to any area of endeavor - it is not difficult to tell what is
philosophical from what is not.

We don't currently have that. Since Samuel Alexander [Space,
Time and Deity (1920)] was completely misunderstood by a whole century
of great minds the last best chance was (almost) missed.

And the evidence the misunderstanding this great book your referring to had
this profound impact is? Most scientists simply are not interested in
philosophy and experience has shown that disinterest has not affected
science one wit.

Bill

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"ad" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
Physics is not philosophy.


Right, but we need a strong philosophical base in order to do good
physics.


Exactly. Physics, if done right, is the instantiation of good
philosophy.

And the evidence of this statement is?

The 'evidence' is the contrapositive statement: bad philosophy is philosophy
that is not 'good physics' - i.e. empirically verifiable (either because it
is *logically* flawed or it simply fails *physical* testing).


Tom Davidson
empiricist
Richmond, VA

"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"ad" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
Physics is not philosophy.


Right, but we need a strong philosophical base in order to do good
physics.


Exactly. Physics, if done right, is the instantiation of good
philosophy.

And the evidence of this statement is?

The 'evidence' is the contrapositive statement: bad philosophy is
philosophy
that is not 'good physics' - i.e. empirically verifiable (either because
it
is *logically* flawed or it simply fails *physical* testing).

Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns away from
science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the notion of time.
To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by clocks. It
is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion - that this is
true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to philosophers and
they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some underlying
reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality is what
instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar philosophical stuff.
But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at exactly how
each philosophical position will affect experimental results. Since there
is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad philosophy it
does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no experimental
consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider that
Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view). Others
like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory of
mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never strictly
logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of modern
mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But physics does not
really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories correspondence with
expriment is all that coutns.

Bill



Tom Davidson
empiricist
Richmond, VA

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:emwHc.39081$JR4.38618@attbi_s54...


Laurent wrote:
You use physics to solve practical problems, that's good. I use it
to find out why and how I am.

Why, in the ultimate sense, is an unaswerable question and if you need
physics to figure out how you are, you are not thinking clearly.

Your most profound questions have no answer. Get used to it.


Effect, expressing value as relational. Necessarily, such a
non-relational question would not feature.

Get used to it.

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

snip repost

Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns away from
science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the notion of
time.
To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by clocks.

in non-relativistic conditions, that may be taken as an operational
definition of time, albeit a rather crude one.

It
is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion - that this is
true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to philosophers and
they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some underlying
reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality is what
instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar philosophical
stuff.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
Scroll down to the comment "My theory makes more sense" and the comment that
follows (not quite to the middle of the page).

But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at exactly how
each philosophical position will affect experimental results. Since there
is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad philosophy
it
does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no experimental
consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider that
Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view). Others
like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory of
mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never strictly
logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of modern
mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But physics does not
really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories correspondence with
expriment is all that coutns.

Philosophy, I have been told, is about the Search for Truth.

I have seen many philosophies come (and some go), and the only means I have
seen for deciding the Truth of a proposition (such that the proof and the
proposition are not subject to change, refinement, alteration, disproof,
political correction, reinterpretation, or whatever) is objective (read
"empirical") validation.

One of the consequences of Goedel's Undecideability Theorem is that there is
no closed logical system (read "propositional calculus") within which the
truth of all statements is decideable. [Russell also had problems with
Goedel.]

The tool for decideability of statements in physics ("experiment") lies
*outside* the system within which the statements are formulated.

Personally I consider mathematics (such as Euclidean geometry) to also be a
tool. It is a construct within a closed logical system and is only
validated through the accuracy of the results it produces when applied to
the observable world.

Whether Euclidean geometry 'exists' a priori depends on one's definition of
'existence.' Certainly the universe feels no compulsion to heed the axioms
thereof, as evidenced by the fact that the decidedly non-Euclidean concept
of spatial curvature (Euclidean geometry applies only to 'flat' space) does
a most excellent job of describing gravitation without invoking 'spooky'
action-at-a-distance principles, novel particles with puzzling properties,
or mysterious forces that cause inertial paths to curve. In a non-Euclidean
universe, the orbits of the planets and their moons are "straight lines" in
the sense of *inertial* paths.

But then I'm preaching to the choir, am I not?


Tom Davidson
empiricist
Richmond, VA

Bill Hobba wrote:
Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns away from
science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the notion of time.
To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by clocks. It
is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion - that this is
true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to philosophers and
they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some underlying
reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality is what
instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar philosophical stuff.
But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at exactly how
each philosophical position will affect experimental results. Since there
is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad philosophy it
does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no experimental
consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider that
Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view). Others
like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory of
mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never strictly
logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of modern
mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But physics does not
really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories correspondence with
expriment is all that coutns.

Bill


If you really believe that then it's very sad. Is physics still really
stuck in the dark ages like that? Don't they teach how to think in
physics courses?

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"ad" wrote in message
...
Laurent wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
Physics is not philosophy.


Right, but we need a strong philosophical base in order to do
good
physics.


Exactly. Physics, if done right, is the instantiation of good
philosophy.

And the evidence of this statement is?

The 'evidence' is the contrapositive statement: bad philosophy is
philosophy
that is not 'good physics' - i.e. empirically verifiable (either because
it
is *logically* flawed or it simply fails *physical* testing).

Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns away from
science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the notion of
time.
To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by clocks.
It
is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion - that this is
true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to philosophers and
they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some underlying
reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality is what
instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar philosophical
stuff.
But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at exactly how
each philosophical position will affect experimental results. Since there
is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad philosophy
it
does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no experimental
consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider that
Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view). Others
like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory of
mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never strictly
logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of modern
mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But physics does not
really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories correspondence with
expriment is all that coutns.


Is this Billy Hobba talking a kind of "philosophical mumbo jumbo"?
And what has that with the aether and aether-physics to do?

Time, Mr. Hobba, is duration, whether you and your clock exists.
And duration match some movement in space, which is measured
by the length of the path of movement, it is the so-called distance,
while movement itself is measured by the speed of movement, it is
the so-called velocity. All of it without the presence of you and your
clock, and even without your observation at all.

If, however you want to do physics, which I doubt, you have to
consider whether your clock is too fast or too slow. If it is moving,
or if it is at rest. If some external forces may effect your clock,
which is made of a good many massive parts effected to expansion
or contraction by their temperature, as also by the viscosity of the
lubrication of the working parts, and - first and foremost - by the
(variable?) force(s?) driving your clock, that constantly interacts
with the physical fields and forces mediated by the space-time-
energy continuum of the aether, and do so by enduring exchange
of radiant energy between your clock and the aether.

All that philosophical mumbo jumbo should be basic knowledge
to you Mr. Hobba, so when do you begin speak physics of the
space-time-energy continuum which is The Aether, as it has been
in countless æons of time, - for the old Greeks as for us meaning
from eternity by duration of concept, implicating that it be so also
for ever, independent of any human definition or description?

So tell us now, what is physics about? And what should aether
physics be about? Will you please get to physics Bill, if this is
some physics news group, and not about your private and, as
it seems, very primitive philosophy, which you probably have
less idea about than about physics and the history of physics?

Ole

"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

snip repost

Tom it is usually not difficult to see when an argument turns away from
science and ventures into philosophy. Take for example the notion of
time.
To do physics you simply need to assume time is what is read by clocks.

in non-relativistic conditions, that may be taken as an operational
definition of time, albeit a rather crude one.

Even in relativistic conditions. Yes it is crude - the point being it is all
that is required.


It
is a fact that one can do science with such a simple notion - that this
is
true is beyond question. But such is not satisfying to philosophers and
they mount all sorts of arguments such as there must be some underlying
reality where time exists independent of clocks or that reality is what
instruments tell us and that is all there is or similar philosophical
stuff.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
Scroll down to the comment "My theory makes more sense" and the comment
that
follows (not quite to the middle of the page).

Tom I do not quite see your point - of course I agree with Dr Siegel - his
position and mine are in complete accord.


But such is irrelevant to science as can be seen by looking at exactly
how
each philosophical position will affect experimental results. Since
there
is none is not relevant to science. Thus if something is bad philosophy
it
does not follow it is bad physics because providing it has no
experimental
consequences then it is irrelevant to physics. Eg some consider that
Euclidan geomtry exists a-priori (I belive Kant held that view). Others
like Russell claim this is bad philosphy because it is "a theory of
mathematical reasoning according to which the inference is never
strictly
logical, but always requires...'intuition'. The whole trend of modern
mathematics...has been against this Kantian theory." But physics does
not
really care if it is bad philosphy or not. A theories correspondence
with
expriment is all that coutns.

Philosophy, I have been told, is about the Search for Truth.

But they have never been able to agree on anything - scientists at least
(largely) agree of experimental results. Thus their search strikes me as
rather fruitless - but to each their own.


I have seen many philosophies come (and some go), and the only means I
have
seen for deciding the Truth of a proposition (such that the proof and the
proposition are not subject to change, refinement, alteration, disproof,
political correction, reinterpretation, or whatever) is objective (read
"empirical") validation.

Only direct experiment and observational statements have any objective
validity eg things like gravity exists or that clock now reads 12.00 pm or
whatever. All the rest is simply conjecture and in the case of philosophy
often (but not always) nothing but word sophistry. And even then
philosophers would mount arguments that such things as I mentioned
previously are up for grabs by, for example, saying how do you know the
clock is reading 12.00? - is may just be your imagination.


One of the consequences of Goedel's Undecideability Theorem is that there
is
no closed logical system (read "propositional calculus") within which the
truth of all statements is decideable. [Russell also had problems with
Goedel.]

True with caveats - remember the fine print of Godels theorem that is often
left out - the system must be at least as strong as arithmetic.


The tool for decideability of statements in physics ("experiment") lies
*outside* the system within which the statements are formulated.


That is the same for all science - what is used to propose new theories and
to decide between theories equally as valid experimentally is not part of
the scientific method. It lies in areas like creativity and how well it
fits in with other theories.


Personally I consider mathematics (such as Euclidean geometry) to also be
a
tool. It is a construct within a closed logical system and is only
validated through the accuracy of the results it produces when applied to
the observable world.


So do I. But it also exists as an abstract mathematical system having no
correspondence with anything out there in reality.


Whether Euclidean geometry 'exists' a priori depends on one's definition
of
'existence.'

Sure. These days it usually is taken to mean abstract mathematical
existence.

Certainly the universe feels no compulsion to heed the axioms
thereof, as evidenced by the fact that the decidedly non-Euclidean concept
of spatial curvature (Euclidean geometry applies only to 'flat' space)
does
a most excellent job of describing gravitation without invoking 'spooky'
action-at-a-distance principles, novel particles with puzzling properties,
or mysterious forces that cause inertial paths to curve. In a
non-Euclidean
universe, the orbits of the planets and their moons are "straight lines"
in
the sense of *inertial* paths.

Sure.


But then I'm preaching to the choir, am I not?


Of course.

Thanks
Bill