Post Number:#16 May 16th, 2012, 2:07 pm
Sorry, I don't agree, at least not given how you define the aether. To me, analogies to aether in this context smack of a desire for "hidden-variable" solutions to QM, that is, the attempt to instate causality behind QM. Hidden-variable physics is fine (and fun) speculation, but let's not call it science, please.
Yes, hidden variable physics is fun. I agree! I have a article that I have written ON EPR and a possible solution. Does that surprise you? NO, ha ha ... It will need to be rewritten as in the last couple of months I have a new and improved solution. It involves a mechanism for allowing faster than light communication. I am even working on a formula to help prove it. Should be fun but fairly difficult task for me to accomplish. I actually got the idea just last night about 4 in the morning. The same formula may help solve a few more questions as well.
Once upon a time, I was a business analyst for about 15 years, at 2 different companies. I had opportunity to read numerous business proposals, white papers, functional and technical specifications. A fair percentage of those written by each company's software developers displayed rather similar organizational principles as your website displays.
Well done, on the deduction that is very impressive! I agree with your observations of my writing style.
No, as a philosophical position, mathematics is unnecessary. What you need is a conceptual framework that functions as an explicit alternative to conventional understanding of material solids. I say explicit, because without explicit description, your current descriptions of the aether still imply all the conventional structures of material solids...which rely on concepts that don't depend on an aether, undercutting your position.
Well we are just not going to agree on this. I use the identity principle to equate my aether elastic solid to similar standards of other know existing objects and further establish relationships to those objects. That's enough for me and if I do it well enough it will be enough for others as well. I know you don't agree and that's fine. If my latest attempt at a formula for matter energy transformation works out I just may be able to make a new prediction that can be validated with our current technology. That should help as well.
If you mean an objective physical reality, independent of human consciousness, then you are correct.
I think at this point we are approaching a very important topic to discuss that should be in another thread. Perhaps we should start a new thread dedicated to the battle between Objective Realty and Subjective Reality. I believe Subjective Reality best describes what you believe in. If there is a better term let me know in your next reply. For people commenting on this thread they must be willing to accept the possibility of a physical reality independent of us and our consciousness.
Yes it is, but it sure hasn't stopped scientists who care not a whit about the a priori status of "reality." It should also suggest something to you about the limitations and ad hoc nature of logic (Logic is not among the tools of basic cognition; it's one of the products). Ultimately, all human concepts when analyzed to their fundamental premises betray circular reasoning as far as I've been able to tell. I should add that this is a good thing in my book, providing the epistemological basis for free will, and consistent with my disbelief in objective reality.
The fact that you and others do not care about “reality” is another core issue for me. The entire attitude is that of a person that has given up. Reality and some of the things we observe are difficult to explain for QM. So let’s just say we can’t explain these things, no even worse we shouldn’t even bother to explain them. It’s all relative to our human experience and consciousness. That my friend, is a cop out. So tell me what is the name of your book? I would like to check it out.
I agree. Einstein consistently displayed that he was a classical thinker all his life. GR is very much a classical theory.
Hmm, yet as a classical thinker he made some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Huh just lucky I guess. Not bad for a hubristic unenlightened spiritual person. That last statement will make sense when you read my last comment.
I disagree. Your statement serves up what to me is a self-contradiction, stating that GR describes both a physical reality and Einstein's physical model. A model cannot be physical reality by definition. My guess is that you see no contradiction because you believe in a one-to-one correspondence between the model's components and specific elements of reality. So, philosophically, you believe in the correspondence theory of truth...no surprise given your realist views. But I don't believe in the correspondence theory of truth at all. To me it is obvious that the only correspondence involved in truth is one of concepts-to-concepts.
Perhaps I said it wrong or perhaps you simply misinterpreted what I was trying to say. So let me say it again. Einstein conceived a mechanical model in his mind. I define a model as something that represents or simulates something else. I am not saying that a model actually is the same thing as a physical object. I am saying that he constructed a model in his mind of how he thought that gravity works. He then developed the mathematics based on his mental image of physical reality. He used mathematics to bridge his mental image (Model) to explain the physical reality that is observed. So what I am saying is that if a reality model that we conceive and explain using mathematics is proven by test and observation that is a physical truth. I know you don’t agree it’s all relative…. We need to start a new thread and battle it out on that thread, I am not contradicting myself here, as I am not saying a model is physical reality. I am saying a model represents physical reality. Remember my definition. A model is something that represents or simulates something else. You really missed the boat on that analysis.
To me, your conclusion that experimental verification of GR means GR represents objective physical reality is erroneous and, moreover, a non sequitur. If it wasn't a non sequitur, then we'd logically have to conclude that Newtonian Physics represented objective physical reality until 1919 (when Eddington experimentally verified GR's predicition of gravitational lensing). After 1919, Newtonian Physics stopped being reality and reality began following the principles of GR instead. I think even you will agree that this is preposterous, yet it follows logically and directly from your belief that GR represents objective physical reality.
Now you are beginning to disappoint me here. Your logic in the above paragraph is completely non sequitur. Allow me to demonstrate. The logical argument you propose is so flawed I am having difficulty knowing where to start. The idea that experimental verification of GR provides us with proof of a physical reality is not in any way inconsistent. It is certainly not a non sequitur (I see you are a Star Trek fan). There is no problem in concluding that Newtonian Physics represented objective reality until 1919. Your statement is simply not accurate and not sensible. Newtonian Physics (gravity in particular) did and still does represent an approximation objective reality. Einstein’s General Relativity is the most accurate and most likely the perfect representation of gravity. Newtonian physics as so far as gravitational theory is concerned did not stop being a reality it was superseded by a more accurate formalization. By the way Nasa still uses Newton’s formula’s to launch rockets and calculate trajectories. Perhaps you might convince them to use Quantum Mechanics to calculate trajectories. Yes, that would be good. We could have an infinite amount of rockets taking an infinite amount of trajectories and just simply let our consciousness decide which trajectory the rocket will take. Don’t you see how broken your logic is. Our world does not work that way. When one really examines QM it breaks down and becomes nonsensical. We really need to debate reality versus QM on another thread that would be fun.
To that end, you are just shooting yourself in the foot when you declare--by fiat as it were--that GR (and your SR superstructure hoisted upon it) are physical (objective) objects. It is an obstacle to your reader's understanding, not a benefit. Your reader, entrenched in current theory, is saying, "Well, wait...we don't need an aether, we've got QM." You need to compell them to stop thinking that, so you have to discredit QM before you build your castle in the sky upon the foundations of GR.
Discrediting QM is fine with me. The question is what kind of argument or evidence would it take to convince a true believer of QM that the theory is not a complete theory. It is merely a mathematical abstract formalization that uses statistical method to predict the behavior of real world phenomena. It is just a useful tool for analyzing groups of measurements and really tells us nothing about why and how things work in our Universe. I know you will say we just don’t give a damn about reality. All we care about is getting the right answer without understanding how we got it or what it means. That may be good enough for you. It’s not good enough for me.
"Wait a minute...that's what they thought the transformations were for in the 1880s. Why do I want to think like a dinosaur?"
I love it when scientist types think like that. You would think that it would make me angry but it does not. I can definitely see why you or others of the same mindset would think that way. My beliefs are such old style thinking compared with what we have come to believe in this day and time. It matters not to me. You don’t care about objective reality. I care about the truth and what is real and what is not. Maybe I am just an ole fuddy duddy nostalgically clinging to the past. On second thought, I just like to solve mysteries and I have examined both sides of this argument and I have decided to go with the proven winners Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, Faraday and Newton. I would put that team up against anyone in these times, anytime, anywhere and anywho. LOL… They were on the right track and we in this time are not.
QM is certainly 100% mathematical abstraction to my way of thinking, yes. Humans have no cognitive apparata to fully reconcile its counterintuitve predictions and philosophical implications with their entrenched cognitive biases which evolved solely in response to macroscopic phenomena. That is what makes QM so wonderful to me: we finally have a model of reality that both (1) stretches our imagination out of its comfort zone, forcing us to evolve intellectually up to the new bar it sets, and (2) it has a scientific basis! It makes me proud to be a human being to think that we could conjure something so beautiful into existence. And its delightful complementarity to General Relativity makes it seem almost holy. I just wish there were more farsighted scientists like Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin, who can see this complementarity and how Gravity is made even more beautiful when conceived as an emergent property instead of a fundamental force or particle.
I think your in love… Ah. It’s nice that you have a great appreciation for your ideas and such. We all should back what we believe in.
This would take us far afield and I would fail, given the lack of a common reference frame for our analysis. Suffice it to say I see overwhelming evidence in every arena of experience that human knowledge is entirely relative, that there is no such thing as absolute truth even in principle, and that any claim to ojectivity--even a claim of the potential for objectivity via some priveleged methodology--is utter hubris and, I might add, indicative of a rather unenlighted development "spiritually."
This one I wanted to save for last. Let me sum this up for the readers. You’re a Chicken brock… brock… your afraid that you might lose the debate. First of all, we have a common reference frame. We are both human and speak the same language and live in the same Universe. We just have opposing points of few. So what. If you don’t convince me and I don’t convince you is that a big deal? No, not really. I will force you to think and you will do the same for me. This and all the other statements you make in this paragraph are excuses, except for the last sentence. I am a little disappointed in you. When you use fancy words to disguise what you are saying it is not fooling anyone. To call me ”hubris” (code word for arrogant) and then add the description of me as unenlightened (code word for ignorant). Oh, by the way you misspelled unenlightened. Ironic don’t you think. LOL Well that little burst above was just ole fashioned name calling. I thought you said that you wanted to get away from that kind of conversation. What this tells me is that you are intolerant of people that do not agree with you. Shame, shame. “Unenlightened spiritually” well that one really hurts. I am not sure how you got there. Actually I am a very spiritual person. You have no idea. So are people who believe as you spiritually enlightened and everyone else ignorant fools. It’s a good thing I don’t take those kinds of comments seriously. I still think we should start a new discussion and debate your reality vs mine and we can see what will happen. It should be fun if you can resist name calling and hurtful comments.