"ad" wrote in message
...
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?

I am self taught in physics but am formally trained in mathematics to
masters level. That it is how you are taught in applied mathematics I can
vouch for. And no one who has any acquaintance with mathematics can doubt
it requires thought, that its practitioners are trained in how to think, and
that it has made considerable progress well beyond the dark ages - with that
progress underpinning much of the advancement mankind as whole has made.
Actually no one who has any acquaintance with physics can doubt the same
applies to it - but since I have no formal qualifications I will not push
the point. I think it is sad that people who hold the view I espoused above
make progress and those that bemoan it as sad seldom seem to. For example
what progress has philosophy made other than to understand the issues
better? - philosophers never seem to actually agree on anything - science at
least agrees on the results of experiment and in broad terms on the
scientific method. Or do you think that Bertrand Russell, who wrote the
quote I gave and held similar views (not the same but similar) was unable to
think and stuck in the dark ages? Pull the other one - it plays jingle
bells.

Bill

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

So sorry your reasoning ability is so impaired that you consider the fact
the aether has never been detected is not relevant to its existence. That
is one obvious consequence of 'A theories correspondence with experiment is
all that counts'; but reasoning is not your strong suit. Actually in your
case I would settle for simple coherency.


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.

Make a prediction at variance with current theories with your gibberish.
Can't do that? - then it is scientifically of zero value.


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.

You mean this aether that has never been detected? Wake up from your
delusions.


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?

See a dicitonary - The science of matter and energy and of interactions
between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics,
mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern
extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state
physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to actually detect
it.

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?

Sure - as soon as crackpots like yourself stop deluding us with rubbish
about an aether that has never been detected.

Bill

"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 Davidson
empiricist
Richmond, VA

I think I agree; that physics needs good philosophy.

Shead

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

So sorry your reasoning ability is so impaired that you consider the fact
the aether has never been detected is not relevant to its existence. That
is one obvious consequence of 'A theories correspondence with experiment
is
all that counts'; but reasoning is not your strong suit. Actually in your
case I would settle for simple coherency.


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.

Make a prediction at variance with current theories with your gibberish.
Can't do that? - then it is scientifically of zero value.


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.

You mean this aether that has never been detected? Wake up from your
delusions.


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?

See a dicitonary - The science of matter and energy and of interactions
between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics,
mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern
extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state
physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to actually detect
it.

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?

Sure - as soon as crackpots like yourself stop deluding us with rubbish
about an aether that has never been detected.


Dear Bill,
You have been told what the aether is and where to find it.
It is definitely not "empty space in which the Universe sits".
You will never detect it because you believe you are deluded.
Hence you deny solid logic and scientific facts asking for
predictions from crackpots you stubbornly assert are worse
morons than yourself. This is your philosophy and creed of
some weired religion in which you hope to find your salvation.

Therefore you will never get to physics, and as regards your
primitive line of thoughts, you will probably never be able to
understand how science works and why civilized manners
are preferred in scientific discussions. - I predict that!

That is quite O.K. Don't worry, be happy! But please do not
pretend that you have anything worth to say about science.

When you make postings "to learn science", as you coin it,
please do not waste other peoples' time with your funny and
wrong ideas about their personallity and qualifications or
with your experiencies about remedies and drugs, you think
may help them as it has helped yourself. Don't do that, because
it is simply irrelevant noise, which has nothing to say in science.

If you do not agree in some statement, simply show why you
believe it is false or wrong. If you agree to something and see
further aspects that may develop the idea and further discussion,
give your opinion without your personal values about those
with whom you interlope. Otherwise, keep happily silent.

Be good, and have a nice day!
Ole

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

So sorry your reasoning ability is so impaired that you consider
the fact
the aether has never been detected is not relevant to its
existence. That
is one obvious consequence of 'A theories correspondence with
experiment is
all that counts'; but reasoning is not your strong suit. Actually
in your
case I would settle for simple coherency.


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.

Make a prediction at variance with current theories with your
gibberish.
Can't do that? - then it is scientifically of zero value.


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.

You mean this aether that has never been detected? Wake up from
your
delusions.


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?

See a dicitonary - The science of matter and energy and of
interactions
between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics,
optics,
mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in
modern
extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics,
solid-state
physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to
actually detect
it.

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?

Sure - as soon as crackpots like yourself stop deluding us with
rubbish
about an aether that has never been detected.

Bill



Aether is synonymous to empty space, but you want us to detect the
aether and are opposed to trying to detect empty space. That's
nonsense.

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

So sorry your reasoning ability is so impaired that you consider
the fact
the aether has never been detected is not relevant to its
existence. That
is one obvious consequence of 'A theories correspondence with
experiment
is
all that counts'; but reasoning is not your strong suit.
Actually in your
case I would settle for simple coherency.


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.

Make a prediction at variance with current theories with your
gibberish.
Can't do that? - then it is scientifically of zero value.


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.

You mean this aether that has never been detected? Wake up from
your
delusions.


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?

See a dicitonary - The science of matter and energy and of
interactions
between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as
acoustics, optics,
mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in
modern
extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics,
solid-state
physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to
actually detect
it.

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?

Sure - as soon as crackpots like yourself stop deluding us with
rubbish
about an aether that has never been detected.


Dear Bill,
You have been told what the aether is and where to find it.
It is definitely not "empty space in which the Universe sits".
You will never detect it because you believe you are deluded.
Hence you deny solid logic and scientific facts asking for
predictions from crackpots you stubbornly assert are worse
morons than yourself. This is your philosophy and creed of
some weired religion in which you hope to find your salvation.

Therefore you will never get to physics, and as regards your
primitive line of thoughts, you will probably never be able to
understand how science works and why civilized manners
are preferred in scientific discussions. - I predict that!

That is quite O.K. Don't worry, be happy! But please do not
pretend that you have anything worth to say about science.

When you make postings "to learn science", as you coin it,
please do not waste other peoples' time with your funny and
wrong ideas about their personallity and qualifications or
with your experiencies about remedies and drugs, you think
may help them as it has helped yourself. Don't do that, because
it is simply irrelevant noise, which has nothing to say in
science.

If you do not agree in some statement, simply show why you
believe it is false or wrong. If you agree to something and see
further aspects that may develop the idea and further discussion,

give your opinion without your personal values about those
with whom you interlope. Otherwise, keep happily silent.

Be good, and have a nice day!
Ole


Measuring aether drag is the same as measuring inertia and momentum.

--
Laurent

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

So sorry your reasoning ability is so impaired that you consider
the fact
the aether has never been detected is not relevant to its
existence. That
is one obvious consequence of 'A theories correspondence with
experiment
is
all that counts'; but reasoning is not your strong suit.
Actually in your
case I would settle for simple coherency.


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.

Make a prediction at variance with current theories with your
gibberish.
Can't do that? - then it is scientifically of zero value.


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.

You mean this aether that has never been detected? Wake up from
your
delusions.


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?

See a dicitonary - The science of matter and energy and of
interactions
between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as
acoustics, optics,
mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in
modern
extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics,
solid-state
physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to
actually detect
it.

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?

Sure - as soon as crackpots like yourself stop deluding us with
rubbish
about an aether that has never been detected.


Dear Bill,
You have been told what the aether is and where to find it.
It is definitely not "empty space in which the Universe sits".
You will never detect it because you believe you are deluded.
Hence you deny solid logic and scientific facts asking for
predictions from crackpots you stubbornly assert are worse
morons than yourself. This is your philosophy and creed of
some weired religion in which you hope to find your salvation.

Therefore you will never get to physics, and as regards your
primitive line of thoughts, you will probably never be able to
understand how science works and why civilized manners
are preferred in scientific discussions. - I predict that!

That is quite O.K. Don't worry, be happy! But please do not
pretend that you have anything worth to say about science.

When you make postings "to learn science", as you coin it,
please do not waste other peoples' time with your funny and
wrong ideas about their personallity and qualifications or
with your experiencies about remedies and drugs, you think
may help them as it has helped yourself. Don't do that, because
it is simply irrelevant noise, which has nothing to say in
science.

If you do not agree in some statement, simply show why you
believe it is false or wrong. If you agree to something and see
further aspects that may develop the idea and further discussion,

give your opinion without your personal values about those
with whom you interlope. Otherwise, keep happily silent.

Be good, and have a nice day!
Ole


They say science is only good to find truth only if it is about
practical matters, like making a trip to the moon, but it is no good
when trying to find about the ultimate truths. They are wrong.

--
Laurent

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"Bill Hobba" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Ole D. Rughede" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

So sorry your reasoning ability is so impaired that you consider
the fact
the aether has never been detected is not relevant to its
existence. That
is one obvious consequence of 'A theories correspondence with
experiment
is
all that counts'; but reasoning is not your strong suit.
Actually in your
case I would settle for simple coherency.


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.

Make a prediction at variance with current theories with your
gibberish.
Can't do that? - then it is scientifically of zero value.


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.

You mean this aether that has never been detected? Wake up from
your
delusions.


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?

See a dicitonary - The science of matter and energy and of
interactions
between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as
acoustics, optics,
mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in
modern
extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics,
solid-state
physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And what should aether physics be about?

Beats me. Before deciding that it might be a good idea to
actually detect
it.

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?

Sure - as soon as crackpots like yourself stop deluding us with
rubbish
about an aether that has never been detected.


Dear Bill,
You have been told what the aether is and where to find it.
It is definitely not "empty space in which the Universe sits".


Please, carefully read this quote, and if you disgree with Bohm, be
kind enough to explain why.

--
Laurent

-------------------------

"Well, perhaps we should finish with this business about empty
space.

If you follow through the mathematics of the present Quantum Theory,
it treats the particle as what is called the quantized state of the
field, that is, as a field spread over space but in some mysterious
way with a quantum of energy. Now each wave in the field has a
certain quantum of energy proportional to its frequency. And if you
take the electromagnetic field, for example,in empty space, every
wave has what is called a zero point energy below which it cannot
go, even when there is no energy available. If you were to add up
all the waves in any region of empty space you would find that they
have an infinite amount of energy because an infinite number of
waves are possible. Now, however, you may have reason to suppose
that the energy may not be infinite, that maybe you cannot keep on
adding waves that are shorter and shorter, each contributing to the
energy. There may be some shortest possible wave, and then the total
number of waves would be finite and the energy would also be finite.

Now, you have to ask what would be the shortest length and there
seems to be reason to suspect that the gravitational theory may
provide us with some shortest length, for according to general
relativity, the gravitational field also determines what is meant by
"length" and metric. If you said the gravitational field was made up
of waves which were quantized in this way, you would find that there
was a certain length below which the gravitational field would
become undefinable because of this zero point movement and you
wouldn't be able to define length. Therefore, you could say the
property of measurement, length, fades out at very short distance
and you'd find the place at which it fades out would be about
10^ -33 cm. That is a very short distance because the shortest
distances that physicist have ever probed so far might be 10^ -16
cm. or so, and that's a long way to go. If you then compute the
amount of energy that would be in space, with that shortest possible
wave length, then it turns out that the energy in one cubic
centimeter would be immensely beyond the total energy of all the
known matter in the universe.

Present theory says that the vacuum contains all this energy which
is then ignored because it cannot be measured by an instrument. The
philosophy being that only what could be measured by an instrument
could be considered to be real, because the only point about the
reality of physics is the result of instruments, except that it is
also said that there are particles there that cannot be seen in
instruments at all. What you can say is that the present state of
theoretical physics implies that empty space has all this energy,
and matter is a slight increase of the energy, and therefore matter
is like a small ripple on this tremendous ocean of energy, having
some relative stability, and being manifest. Now, therefore, my
suggestion is that this implicate order implies a reality immensely
beyond what we call matter. Matter itself is merely a ripple in this
background.

If you take a crystal which is at absolute zero it does not scatter
electrons. They go through it as if it were empty. And as soon as
you raise the temperature and (produce) inhomogenities, they
scatter. Now, if you used those electrons to observe the crystal
(e.g., by focusing them with an electron lens to make an image), all
you would see would be these little inhomogeneities and you would
say they are what exists and the crystal is what does not exist.
Right? I think this is a familiar idea, namely to say that what we
see immediately is really a very superficial affair. However, the
positivist used to say that what we see immediately is all there is
or all that counts, and that our ideas must simply correlate what we
see immediately.

So now, with this vast reserve of energy and empty space, saying
that matter itself is that small wave on empty space, then we could
better say that the space as a whole (and we start from the general
space) is the ground of existence, and we are in it. So the space
doesn't separate us, it unites us. Therefore it's like saying that
there are two separate points and a certain dotted line connects
them, which shows how we think they are related, or to say there is
a real line and that the points are abstractions from that.The line
is
the reality and the points are abstractions. In that sense we say
that
there are no separate people, you see, but that 'that' is an
abstraction
which comes by taking certain features as abstracted and
self-existent." --- David Bohm