 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Lightspeed exceeded... |
|
Page 5 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Inertial... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5f225d7-999d-4fc0-ab33-0c8290deb40c at (no spam) u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 28, 7:17 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 8:05 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The issue may very well be whether the scientific method inherently
includes causality, as that term is understood based on the history
of
scientific thought.
If you mean by causality the time-ordered mechanism of
deterministically trackable material entities acting on other material
entities, then I believe the answer to that is already established in
the 20th century. The answer is "no". The scientific method does NOT
presume this.
This did come as a great shock to a large number of people.
One of the first clues to this was the fact that time-ordering between
events is essential to deterministic causality. If you can't time-
order, then the assumption of causality everywhere becomes suspect.
But space-like separated events don't have frame-independent time
ordering! A will be "before" B in one frame, and B "before" A in
another. Then how can you make time-ordered causality is a systemic
and all-pervasive assumption?
That's a good example, combined with your statement below:
That certainly isn't a good case for acausality. Just look at the
very basic definition provided in the likes of Taylor & Wheeler's
"Spacetime Physics", name an 'Events' are independent, something all
agree happened. The next question is, where and when did it happen.
If it a flash of light it take s/c time to reach you (to detect it).
Now, depending upon the distances, speeds, and intial orientation in
space when they occur, different observers will perceive them in
different orders. This is because of the propagation delays in
getting to the point where the observers can detect them. A may be
before B for observer X and B before A for Z. So what, the 'events'
only occur at a single point in space and time, ordering is how we
detect/see them. This is certainly no violation of causality or hint
of acausality.
[/quote]
Well said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 9:17 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 23, 2:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 8:05 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The issue may very well be whether the scientific method inherently
includes causality, as that term is understood based on the history of
scientific thought.
If you mean by causality the time-ordered mechanism of
deterministically trackable material entities acting on other material
entities, then I believe the answer to that is already established in
the 20th century. The answer is "no". The scientific method does NOT
presume this.
This did come as a great shock to a large number of people.
One of the first clues to this was the fact that time-ordering between
events is essential to deterministic causality. If you can't time-
order, then the assumption of causality everywhere becomes suspect.
But space-like separated events don't have frame-independent time
ordering! A will be "before" B in one frame, and B "before" A in
another. Then how can you make time-ordered causality is a systemic
and all-pervasive assumption?
That's a good example, combined with your statement below:
PD apparently will never concede that a model that provides causality
is preferable to one that doesn't or having no model at all,
But there IS a model. It just violates the traditional, deterministic
view of causality.
Can you explain to me how space-time provides a model for light? How
does space-time propagate a light wave?
[/quote]
Sure. Spacetime is imbued with certain measurable properties,
including those values we ascribe to something called the
electromagnetic field. But that field *means* a certain subset of
properties of spacetime. That field's values are governed by a
particular set of physical laws, which are at the core of a theory
called QED.
[quote] Space-time only provides a
model for gravity, at best,
[/quote]
Kinetic theory only provides a *model* for a gas-like medium. What's
your point?
[quote]and then only the field interpretation
(which is essentially validation of a medium), not the geometric
interpretation, is free of force initiation problems (Tom VanFlandern
argued this extensively with Tom Roberts).
A non-ether interpretation of SR results in a violation of time-
ordering.
[/quote]
And why do you think that time-ordering is a NECESSARY feature of
nature? Are you convinced that there are a certain class of assertions
that you are free to impose on nature?
[quote] So why wouldn't an ether model be preferable as it
encompasses everything SR gives us and does not violate causality.
[/quote]
Whoa, hold on there pal. Who says causality is NECESSARILY time
ordered? Are you imposing your idealized notion on nature, or are you
trying to find out how nature works?
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 9:49 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 7:17 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 8:05 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The issue may very well be whether the scientific method inherently
includes causality, as that term is understood based on the history of
scientific thought.
If you mean by causality the time-ordered mechanism of
deterministically trackable material entities acting on other material
entities, then I believe the answer to that is already established in
the 20th century. The answer is "no". The scientific method does NOT
presume this.
This did come as a great shock to a large number of people.
One of the first clues to this was the fact that time-ordering between
events is essential to deterministic causality. If you can't time-
order, then the assumption of causality everywhere becomes suspect.
But space-like separated events don't have frame-independent time
ordering! A will be "before" B in one frame, and B "before" A in
another. Then how can you make time-ordered causality is a systemic
and all-pervasive assumption?
That's a good example, combined with your statement below:
That certainly isn't a good case for acausality. Just look at the
very basic definition provided in the likes of Taylor & Wheeler's
"Spacetime Physics", name an 'Events' are independent, something all
agree happened. The next question is, where and when did it happen.
If it a flash of light it take s/c time to reach you (to detect it).
Now, depending upon the distances, speeds, and intial orientation in
space when they occur, different observers will perceive them in
different orders.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote] This is because of the propagation delays in
getting to the point where the observers can detect them.
[/quote]
No. This is even AFTER accounting for propagation delays.
This is the point of the train gedanken by Einstein, to illustrate
that EVEN AFTER accounting for propagation delays, what is
simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous (and in one sequence) in
another frame, and a moment's thought will show that the same pair of
events is not simultaneous and in the reverse sequence in another
frame.
[quote] A may be
before B for observer X and B before A for Z. So what, the 'events'
only occur at a single point in space and time, ordering is how we
detect/see them. This is certainly no violation of causality or hint
of acausality.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:35 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 9:17 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Can you explain to me how space-time provides a model for light? How
does space-time propagate a light wave?
Sure. Spacetime is imbued with certain measurable properties,
including those values we ascribe to something called the
electromagnetic field. But that field *means* a certain subset of
properties of spacetime. That field's values are governed by a
particular set of physical laws, which are at the core of a theory
called QED.
[/quote]
That is not a description of a model for light propagation as it
offers no explanation for how an electromagnetic field is created.
QED is a mathematical theory and offers nothing in the way of a
model.
[quote] Space-time only provides a
model for gravity, at best,
Kinetic theory only provides a *model* for a gas-like medium. What's
your point?
[/quote]
My point was made in the later statement about the field vs. geometric
interpretation of GR. Again, space-time provides no model for light
or gravity without invoking a physical field, which needs an
underlying substance.
[quote]and then only the field interpretation
(which is essentially validation of a medium), not the geometric
interpretation, is free of force initiation problems (Tom VanFlandern
argued this extensively with Tom Roberts).
A non-ether interpretation of SR results in a violation of time-
ordering.
And why do you think that time-ordering is a NECESSARY feature of
nature? Are you convinced that there are a certain class of assertions
that you are free to impose on nature?
So why wouldn't an ether model be preferable as it
encompasses everything SR gives us and does not violate causality.
Whoa, hold on there pal. Who says causality is NECESSARILY time
ordered? Are you imposing your idealized notion on nature, or are you
trying to find out how nature works?
[/quote]
The issue is of two competing theories, one which provides a model for
reality with no violations of logic, the other which offers no model
and violates logical principles. Which is preferred?
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 10:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Vern" <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:699a66a7-3f97-443e-bc8a-3765c6c8db8c at (no spam) g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Can you explain to me how space-time provides a model for light?
EMR, such as light, is a change in E and M fields. Without SR, a change in
field would apply everywhere at one. With the limitations of speed of
information to c, that means that the information about the change of a
field cannot travel faster than c. That is why you get the change
propagating like a wave. No need for an aether.
[/quote]
How is that a model? A physical field is evidence for an underlying
medium. Limitations of the speed of information transfer is also
indicative of the information being carried by a medium.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:26 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:35 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 9:17 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Can you explain to me how space-time provides a model for light? How
does space-time propagate a light wave?
Sure. Spacetime is imbued with certain measurable properties,
including those values we ascribe to something called the
electromagnetic field. But that field *means* a certain subset of
properties of spacetime. That field's values are governed by a
particular set of physical laws, which are at the core of a theory
called QED.
That is not a description of a model for light propagation as it
offers no explanation for how an electromagnetic field is created.
QED is a mathematical theory and offers nothing in the way of a
model.
[/quote]
Hmmm...
The law of conservation of momentum offers no explanation for why that
particular quantity is conserved and not other possible quantities.
The study of collisions does not offer any explanation for why in some
cases, kinetic energy is conserved and in other cases it is not.
These are both essential elements of a kinetic theory of a medium.
Somehow the lack of "explanation" in these cases does not seem to
bother you.
I'm curious what you think are the critical elements of a "physical
theory" are and WHY those are indispensable elements, and what you
think are the critical elements of a true "explanation" and WHY those
are indispensable elements.
[quote]
Space-time only provides a
model for gravity, at best,
Kinetic theory only provides a *model* for a gas-like medium. What's
your point?
My point was made in the later statement about the field vs. geometric
interpretation of GR. Again, space-time provides no model for light
or gravity without invoking a physical field, which needs an
underlying substance.
[/quote]
I don't know where you got the idea that a physical field needs an
underlying substance.
Do all mammal females require a womb just because most of them do?
[quote]
and then only the field interpretation
(which is essentially validation of a medium), not the geometric
interpretation, is free of force initiation problems (Tom VanFlandern
argued this extensively with Tom Roberts).
A non-ether interpretation of SR results in a violation of time-
ordering.
And why do you think that time-ordering is a NECESSARY feature of
nature? Are you convinced that there are a certain class of assertions
that you are free to impose on nature?
So why wouldn't an ether model be preferable as it
encompasses everything SR gives us and does not violate causality.
Whoa, hold on there pal. Who says causality is NECESSARILY time
ordered? Are you imposing your idealized notion on nature, or are you
trying to find out how nature works?
The issue is of two competing theories, one which provides a model for
reality with no violations of logic, the other which offers no model
and violates logical principles. Which is preferred?
[/quote]
I'm curious what you think a "violation of logic" is.
To me, the following are violations of logic:
1. That there are statements other than axioms that do not follow from
the axioms.
2. That there two statements in the theory that are directly
inconsistent.
I don't know of anything else that qualifies as a violation of logic.
Now you may have "logic" confused with "human intuition" or your
"conceptual framework or worldview". You may regard, for example, that
unless nature can be described with time-ordered determinism (because
that is central to your conceptual framework), then it is hopeless for
humans to understand nature, and that therefore nature must be
expected to hew to that dictum. To this, I will only make two
observations: 1) You make some pretty tight restrictions on what
science is capable of understanding, and 2) Not everyone is as limited
as you are.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:31 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 10:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Vern" <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:699a66a7-3f97-443e-bc8a-3765c6c8db8c at (no spam) g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com....
Can you explain to me how space-time provides a model for light?
EMR, such as light, is a change in E and M fields. Without SR, a change in
field would apply everywhere at one. With the limitations of speed of
information to c, that means that the information about the change of a
field cannot travel faster than c. That is why you get the change
propagating like a wave. No need for an aether.
How is that a model? A physical field is evidence for an underlying
medium.
[/quote]
No it isn't. Is an animal having fur evidence that it has four legs,
just because a lot of them do?
[quote] Limitations of the speed of information transfer is also
indicative of the information being carried by a medium.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 10:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"Vern" <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]As John Kennaugh has been saying for years in this group, SR's second
postulate is just stating the known properties of a medium (invarience
of c).
Nope. There is no medium mentioned in the postulate. Just saying light
moves at a given speed relative to some medium is not good enouigh
[/quote]
The postulate was based on what was held to be true at the time
through the investigations of the luminiferous aether, studied by
Maxwell, Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Lorentz and others. There is no other
known way for there to be a limitation on propagation. Ballistic
theory is the only other choice, which leads to a different result
(composition of velocities).
<snip>
[quote]I'm still waiting for [Eric] to state what [he thinks] the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether. I've
given you all the textbook ones, but you acted like they were the
wrong ones.
Its just overly complex and adhoc and its inclusion doesn't change anything
.. and it raises more questions .. We just don't need it.
[/quote]
Complexity should not be a factor in weighing the merits of a model,
if the model otherwise fits all the experimental evidence. I'm not
sure what you mean by ad hoc, but if you read the history of the
consideration of aether as a model for light propagation, it is hardly
ad hoc. Now, with such models as Ilja's also including the modeling
of gravity and QM, it would seem that it answers, not raises
questions, and as no model currently exists for light, gravity or
atomic and quantum phenomena, it seems it is sorely needed.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 11:04 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 10:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Vern" <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
snip
As John Kennaugh has been saying for years in this group, SR's second
postulate is just stating the known properties of a medium (invarience
of c).
Nope. There is no medium mentioned in the postulate. Just saying light
moves at a given speed relative to some medium is not good enouigh
The postulate was based on what was held to be true at the time
through the investigations of the luminiferous aether, studied by
Maxwell, Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Lorentz and others. There is no other
known way for there to be a limitation on propagation.
[/quote]
That's just an incorrect statement. "There is no other known way" is a
statement based on YOUR inventory of permissible explanations.
[quote] Ballistic
theory is the only other choice, which leads to a different result
(composition of velocities).
snip
I'm still waiting for [Eric] to state what [he thinks] the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether. I've
given you all the textbook ones, but you acted like they were the
wrong ones.
Its just overly complex and adhoc and its inclusion doesn't change anything
.. and it raises more questions .. We just don't need it.
Complexity should not be a factor in weighing the merits of a model,
if the model otherwise fits all the experimental evidence. I'm not
sure what you mean by ad hoc, but if you read the history of the
consideration of aether as a model for light propagation, it is hardly
ad hoc. Now, with such models as Ilja's also including the modeling
of gravity and QM, it would seem that it answers, not raises
questions, and as no model currently exists for light, gravity or
atomic and quantum phenomena, it seems it is sorely needed.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 11:04 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]The postulate was based on what was held to be true at the time
through the investigations of the luminiferous aether, studied by
Maxwell, Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Lorentz and others. There is no other
known way for there to be a limitation on propagation.
That's just an incorrect statement. "There is no other known way" is a
statement based on YOUR inventory of permissible explanations.
[/quote]
Sure, the issue is whether any explanation is provided. Just saying
that space-time has properties such that it causes the propagation of
light waves is not sufficient for the purposes of a theory. From
Wikipedia:
"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic
structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A
scientific theory does two things:
1) it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of
phenomena, and
2) makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or
affects this class."
You seem to buy into the philosophy that no explanation of how
something works is necessary. That's a personal choice, but it would
certainly seem that a model that provides an explanation of how
something works is preferrable. One would think that only if all
possible explanations are ruled out, would one resort to saying,
"There's no explanation for how it works, but nonetheless we know
that's the way reality is.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 1:07 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 12:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:04 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
The postulate was based on what was held to be true at the time
through the investigations of the luminiferous aether, studied by
Maxwell, Fitzgerald, Heaviside, Lorentz and others. There is no other
known way for there to be a limitation on propagation.
That's just an incorrect statement. "There is no other known way" is a
statement based on YOUR inventory of permissible explanations.
Sure, the issue is whether any explanation is provided. Just saying
that space-time has properties such that it causes the propagation of
light waves is not sufficient for the purposes of a theory. From
Wikipedia:
"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic
structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A
scientific theory does two things:
1) it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of
phenomena, and
2) makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or
affects this class."
[/quote]
Which is satisfied by spacetime and QED.
[quote]
You seem to buy into the philosophy that no explanation of how
something works is necessary.
[/quote]
You still haven't explained what you think are necessary elements of
"explanation".
[quote] That's a personal choice, but it would
certainly seem that a model that provides an explanation of how
something works is preferrable. One would think that only if all
possible explanations are ruled out, would one resort to saying,
"There's no explanation for how it works, but nonetheless we know
that's the way reality is.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 11:54 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:26 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]That is not a description of a model for light propagation as it
offers no explanation for how an electromagnetic field is created.
QED is a mathematical theory and offers nothing in the way of a
model.
Hmmm...
The law of conservation of momentum offers no explanation for why that
particular quantity is conserved and not other possible quantities.
The study of collisions does not offer any explanation for why in some
cases, kinetic energy is conserved and in other cases it is not.
These are both essential elements of a kinetic theory of a medium.
Somehow the lack of "explanation" in these cases does not seem to
bother you.
[/quote]
I'm just adhering to the causality principle as outlined by Tom
VanFlandern (link below). There are on violations of those principles
in kinetic theory.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
[quote]I'm curious what you think are the critical elements of a "physical
theory" are and WHY those are indispensable elements, and what you
think are the critical elements of a true "explanation" and WHY those
are indispensable elements.
[/quote]
Just the necessity of not violaing causality principles.
<snip>
[quote]My point was made in the later statement about the field vs. geometric
interpretation of GR. Again, space-time provides no model for light
or gravity without invoking a physical field, which needs an
underlying substance.
I don't know where you got the idea that a physical field needs an
underlying substance.
Do all mammal females require a womb just because most of them do?
[/quote]
Non sequitur.
Again the causality principle.
<snip>
[quote]The issue is of two competing theories, one which provides a model for
reality with no violations of logic, the other which offers no model
and violates logical principles. Which is preferred?
I'm curious what you think a "violation of logic" is.
To me, the following are violations of logic:
1. That there are statements other than axioms that do not follow from
the axioms.
2. That there two statements in the theory that are directly
inconsistent.
I don't know of anything else that qualifies as a violation of logic.
Now you may have "logic" confused with "human intuition" or your
"conceptual framework or worldview". You may regard, for example, that
unless nature can be described with time-ordered determinism (because
that is central to your conceptual framework), then it is hopeless for
humans to understand nature, and that therefore nature must be
expected to hew to that dictum. To this, I will only make two
observations: 1) You make some pretty tight restrictions on what
science is capable of understanding, and 2) Not everyone is as limited
as you are.
[/quote]
I guess I should have said causality principles instead of logic, but
I think you really knew what I meant. We've been talking about
causality for some time now.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 2:01 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 11:54 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:26 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
That is not a description of a model for light propagation as it
offers no explanation for how an electromagnetic field is created.
QED is a mathematical theory and offers nothing in the way of a
model.
Hmmm...
The law of conservation of momentum offers no explanation for why that
particular quantity is conserved and not other possible quantities.
The study of collisions does not offer any explanation for why in some
cases, kinetic energy is conserved and in other cases it is not.
These are both essential elements of a kinetic theory of a medium.
Somehow the lack of "explanation" in these cases does not seem to
bother you.
I'm just adhering to the causality principle as outlined by Tom
VanFlandern (link below).
[/quote]
And why do you think this is an indispensable principle that applies
to nature?
[quote] There are on violations of those principles
in kinetic theory.
[/quote]
Yes, but that may be why kinetic theory is not sufficient to describe
everything in nature.
Just because a theory respects a rule that IN YOUR HEAD you think is
indispensable does not mean that it is right.
[quote]
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
I'm curious what you think are the critical elements of a "physical
theory" are and WHY those are indispensable elements, and what you
think are the critical elements of a true "explanation" and WHY those
are indispensable elements.
Just the necessity of not violaing causality principles.
[/quote]
WHY do you think that is an indispensable element?
[quote]
snip
My point was made in the later statement about the field vs. geometric
interpretation of GR. Again, space-time provides no model for light
or gravity without invoking a physical field, which needs an
underlying substance.
I don't know where you got the idea that a physical field needs an
underlying substance.
Do all mammal females require a womb just because most of them do?
Non sequitur.
Again the causality principle.
[/quote]
What? Where do you get from the principle of local, antecedent
causality (IF that is true of nature) that a physical field needs an
underlying substance?
[quote]
snip
The issue is of two competing theories, one which provides a model for
reality with no violations of logic, the other which offers no model
and violates logical principles. Which is preferred?
I'm curious what you think a "violation of logic" is.
To me, the following are violations of logic:
1. That there are statements other than axioms that do not follow from
the axioms.
2. That there two statements in the theory that are directly
inconsistent.
I don't know of anything else that qualifies as a violation of logic.
Now you may have "logic" confused with "human intuition" or your
"conceptual framework or worldview". You may regard, for example, that
unless nature can be described with time-ordered determinism (because
that is central to your conceptual framework), then it is hopeless for
humans to understand nature, and that therefore nature must be
expected to hew to that dictum. To this, I will only make two
observations: 1) You make some pretty tight restrictions on what
science is capable of understanding, and 2) Not everyone is as limited
as you are.
I guess I should have said causality principles instead of logic, but
I think you really knew what I meant. We've been talking about
causality for some time now.
[/quote]
Ah, yes, so it isn't logic at all, then. It is a PRESUMED principle
that you are demanding that nature respect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 2:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 1:07 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]Sure, the issue is whether any explanation is provided. Just saying
that space-time has properties such that it causes the propagation of
light waves is not sufficient for the purposes of a theory. From
Wikipedia:
"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic
structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A
scientific theory does two things:
1) it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of
phenomena, and
2) makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or
affects this class."
Which is satisfied by spacetime and QED.
[/quote]
Sorry, not according to the principles of causality. Neither make
assertions about the underlying reality, unless you invoke magic.
[quote]You seem to buy into the philosophy that no explanation of how
something works is necessary.
You still haven't explained what you think are necessary elements of
"explanation".
[/quote]
I think Tom VanFlandern's causality principles are necessary and I
believe that physicists historically followed those principles. The
break from those principles appears to have begun with SR.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Androcles... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vern" <vthodge2 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f2d038e-b34a-4f7b-9e1e-ae1264b139c9 at (no spam) j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Ballistic
theory is the only other choice, which leads to a different result
(composition of velocities).
<snip>
Ballistic theory leads to this, the ONLY choice.
http://www.britastro.org/vss/
Light Curves
Visual Light Curves including short and long term and historical plots.
V 1493 Aql. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:50 pm
|
|