Sure, and what I'm saying is that that go to Church attitude as you call it was incorporated into quantum physics, which gives us some pretty fine precision, because of that incorporation.
Think we're talking past each other a bit...I consider the question of knowing whether it's real or illusion beyond the province of science. Of course my personal bias is it's damn real and tonight's dinner in Old Town should be tasty - gotta go!
And then there's this possibility
Much of modern physics suggests strongly that we're living in a simulation.
Much of modern physics suggests strongly that we're living in a simulation.
I think you mean "mentally visualizable" sense. That just means that you can't understand it, not that it can't be understood. So, we're back to physics, no metaphysics needed to correctly predict phenomena and to develop the technologies that allow you to be typing that message.
pfft, what your are experiencing is a direct result of thaumaturgic waves! You would have known, if you had studied in the department of high energy magic at the U.U. like me! 😀
The aether is NOT at absolute rest. Aether drift experiments do NOT detect absolute velocities.
Anti-Relativity.com - View topic - Lorentz, aether and absolute rest
Anti-Relativity.com - View topic - Lorentz, aether and absolute rest
There, I fixed that for you. What is non-locality if not something non-physical, or in other words something constitutive of what we call material. Bohr's the observer is the observed is metaphysical, but of a metaphysics not removed from (rather constitutive of) physical reality. Physics necessarily implies metaphysics (non-physics), relative implies absolute, male implies female. If you cannot conceive one without the other, both must have reality for any definition at all to make sense. And if both have reality, then what was called "reality" under just one of them has been superceded. That's what Zeilinger is telling us he's finding in his lab. But Bohr intuited this 80 years ago, plus or minus.
So, a new theory puts Inertia Constant instead of "C" in the center of the Universe? 😉
It's not physical, it's a mathematical construct. The construct successfully predicts the outcome of measurements.
I know. It's a mathematic construct that exists in potential space until it actualizes (collapses, etc). I'm asking why that construct gives prediction? What is the link between construct and result? I'm saying you will never find that link, because "linking" is of the order of actual, not potential, potentiality being fundamentally indistinctly "everywhere". That everywhereness is beyond physical.
I'm further saying quantum physics is seeing the necessity of that polarity between actual and potential and using both in the theory itself. Non-locality is baseline implied by quantum physics, and is showing up as viable in labs, as expected. Quantum physics is therefore already-metaphysical, and physical---both.
I'm further saying quantum physics is seeing the necessity of that polarity between actual and potential and using both in the theory itself. Non-locality is baseline implied by quantum physics, and is showing up as viable in labs, as expected. Quantum physics is therefore already-metaphysical, and physical---both.
Not new...absent the question of the life expectancy of a particle (proton for instance) I believe the accepted rest inertial mass as a fixed value is settled.
By the way, very interesting article in the February Scientific American on the Quantum Universe. Foam like structures rule space time at the tiniest levels apparently.
Maybe I utilize different definitions...
Science - study of the nature of existents.
Metaphysics - study of the nature of existence.
BIG difference.
Science - study of the nature of existents.
Metaphysics - study of the nature of existence.
BIG difference.
They have been talking foam for years. One of many ideas. Has SA changed from "two paragraphs of really good stuff followed by four pages of trying to impress their friends" format? That's why I dropped it years ago. I get the first paragraph from most of the significant publications in a news feed at work (Science, Nature etc) , so I have never gone back.
If you could measure a velocity relative to a point in space, that would be an absolute velocity based on Newtonian mechanics. This is considered impossible based on Newtonian mechanics. Since aether and space are two different things, then a velocity relative to the aether is NOT an absolute velocity, at least in the pre-Einsteinian aether theories, such as the Lorentz aether theory. Einstein fanatics were brainwashed into believing the unproven assumption that the aether would be at absolute rest if it existed. The air and oceans have their own frame of reference relative to observers on earth. Are they at absolute rest?
Sure you can view the ocean at "rest" from the standpoint of any single particle.
So you have many many points of reference, all of which are at rest relative to the others around it.
So the ocean is completely at rest, all the time, depending how you want to look at it. 😉
So you have many many points of reference, all of which are at rest relative to the others around it.
So the ocean is completely at rest, all the time, depending how you want to look at it. 😉
Last edited:
A particle can only be at rest at absolute zero. So the argument is that if you are sitting on one particle and do not sense inertia as your speed is constant, then it is everything else looks to be in motion.
Kind of reminds me of a friend who owned a stereo store back in Boulder. A kid came in and asks what a cartridge cost. "$29.95" was the reply (very fair). The kid asked if he had a better price. "$39.95" "It is all a matter of perspective!"
Kind of reminds me of a friend who owned a stereo store back in Boulder. A kid came in and asks what a cartridge cost. "$29.95" was the reply (very fair). The kid asked if he had a better price. "$39.95" "It is all a matter of perspective!"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.