We cannot. But it would be very arrogant to assume that only our neck of the woods is valid. 😉
I agree that what we have now is by no means perfect. And dark matter/energy is a controversial subject sure. Of course we need to further refine our understanding of the physical reality, but I feel that going back to the ether is a big step backwards.
Sure I heard of Occams razor.
I don't think we need the ether to explain our physical reality and Occams razor would suggest that is basis to get rid of it.
We originally conceived the ether to explain our physical reality. Experiments have shown that there is NO ether wind. Other experiments have confirmed the validity of the SRT as well. Why still cling to the idea of the ether?
It presents to me a fundamental problem, which I have tried to explain, and will re-iterate quickly. Our movement with respect to the ether may be fast, but is by no means fast enough to really throw off our physical reality.
A planet similar to earth with people living on it just like us but moving relative to us with 80% of the speed of light, willl also be moving very fast relative to the ether. Then light will move much much slower OR faster there. Maxwell's field equations will NOT work there. Light will be hindered in one direction and accelerated in another. This presents massive problems for the physical reality. It implies that MOST of the universe has different laws of physics from ours. That is something that IMHO simply cannot be true.
So you may think that the ether simplifies things, but I think they only complicate things. A lot.
SY help me out here. 😛
Last edited:
Similarly, in one factory that used to make transistors once all parameters of devices changed, but they could not find the cause until somebody said that she changed a boyfriend at the same time.
It appeared, that a new boyfriend liked a different perfume...
After that perfume was prohibited there.
And of course the batch of transistors infused with the new perfume are highly sought after by DIY-enthusiasts because of their warm sound. 😀
Wavebourn, I have not worked with semiconductor manufacturing, but a colleague of mine has, and he discovered a problem with the tech's eating french fries at lunch and coming back on the line, because of the salt. You know, NaCl. You are correct, though many others cannot understand you.
My point was, if the experiment has to prove something experimenters must consider other impacts on the result. It is the basic, and I believe everyone understands that.
It depends how good (accurate) we want our explanation of physical reality to be. You've already admitted the current explanations don't cut it in various diverse areas. So I agree, many people are happy with a set of explanations which don't actually work in those areas, so obviously they don't need the aether. That you think the PP (Process Physics, Cahill's ontology) explanations are more complex ontologically just shows you really need to read the papers to correct your misunderstandings.
Cling to the idea? Who's doing the clinging here? The reason for employing the idea of aether in PP is because the explanations are thereby ontologically more parsimonious. But I've already said that.
I agree you have a problem in your understanding - so recheck your assumptions. You'll have made either an error in them or in your reasoning.
Well this is science, so what you or I think is totally irrelevant. Opinions have no place in science. Now if you're able to show that having the aether makes things more complex, then go ahead, I'm interested.
You're mistaken in your claim that I think the aether simplifies things - I'm observing that it does (in the PP formulation of aether).
abraxalito is referencing Occam's Razor.
Then, it turns out, completely inappropriately. The aether is a needless complication, providing no useful insight. That is the crux, nothing useful flows from it's inclusion.
Laugh? I nearly wet myself.
Get a grip 'brax. Inter nos, you're out of your depth, and not just linguistically. Settle down, go back to making observations about grounding systems. Too much pondering of imponderables has left more than one person permanently unhinged.
w
Argument from ignorance waki.
Great, I'm all for providing entertainment here😀
Thanks for the advice waki, appreciated that you took the time to chip in here. I just don't find it at all persuasive😀
The problem is, if to assume it's presence calculations are simplified. I don't remember all details, I studied Physics in Irkutsk State University more than 30 years ago, but I can tell you for sure it actually simplifies, and a lot.
I don't know anything much about the calculations, but the ontology moves from dualistic to monistic. That's one hell (ooops, can't seem to shrug off the dualities😛) of a simplification - both space and matter are aspects of aether rather than being disparate things.
Is that aether ancient Greek thing something roughly perceived like the dark matter thing in modern relativistic physics, only those who deny relativity put the aether in its role? 
PP is inspired by Heraclitus' philosophy amongst other things - his notion of 'logos' fits very well with the 'internally meaningful information' proposed in PP. Incidentally Cahill doesn't deny relativity, he merely highlights its limitations.
I can see this has the potential to continue for some time guys.😀 I'm guessing there are different flavours of aether, some make things more complex and others simplify. SY can't be talking about PP's aether as a thing can't be abandoned before being accepted.
Are you a fan of Reich too?😀
(Only people make profits, machines are incapable😉)
I think it was from Hesiod's mythology, and Aristotle later used that name for his fifth element. Alas, in the end Bruce Willis played in it.🙂
Back to Truth vs Reality: you know, I heard a story about one English senior lady who reported to the local phone station that her telephone used to ring right after her dog starts barking. Every time. Without exceptions. No phone call without barking!
Instead of calling mental clinic they sent a technician that discovered that old lady's telephone was connected to dog's chain instead of being properly grounded (they used 1-wire telephone system then).
She reported the truth, but who would believe?
Instead of calling mental clinic they sent a technician that discovered that old lady's telephone was connected to dog's chain instead of being properly grounded (they used 1-wire telephone system then).
She reported the truth, but who would believe?
Relativity doesn't exist? Gold, Mercury and several other elements at the bottom of the periodic table would beg to differ. Almost all metals are silvery solids, gold is yellowish and mercury is a liquid. Why? This is due to relativity. The e-s in the 6s orbital are moving so fast that relativity comes into play and the mass of the e- increases resulting ina contraction of the orbital. This results ina narrowing of the energy gap between the 5dand 6s orbitals moving the energy into the visible light. In mercurys case, the 6s contraction is so large the electron pair is no longer available for isoelemental bonding or interaction, making hg-hg bonds essentially nonexistant resulting in a liquid instead of a solid.
EDIT: I apologize for the truncated choppy style to my post; I am posting from my phone.
EDIT: I apologize for the truncated choppy style to my post; I am posting from my phone.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.