You were asking before whether I was suggesting you were an idiot or a conman; it looks like we have the answer now!

Personal attacks don't further this discussion.

RWebb said it well:

Provide your theory of the ether.
Define it mathematically.
Devise at least one testable prediction based on your theory.
Test it.

That's the standard these scientific theories you question are held to.
If your own can't meet it and you still cling to it,
that's faith not science.

Again, you cannot even support your claims. You do not need a medium for force transfer between objects from gravity or electromagetism, you need a CARRIER. We know of these CARRIERS. Naturally we don't know of any ether medium, because you don't need an ether medium, and it was shown that an ether medium is wrong. So, AGAIN, which particle behaviors are you talking about? Just list a few, that's all, it's easy.

Because I said that Newtonian gravity is wrong, I'm a liar or a con man? You get more messed up every time you post.

I will respond to personal attacks with personal attacks, if I choose. If people respond to my argument with suggestions that I'm smoking dope, or huffing ether, I reserve the right to hurl my own attacks. I would agree with you that they do not further the discussion, but they do make the conversation more lively.




My position is one of extreme anti-mysticism. I am arguing against certain positions (the one that started it was the concept of "space-time") of modern physics. Near mystical concepts, being offered as "science" -- like that of "forces" without anything that is forcing and anything that is being forced -- imply some anti-physical/anti-mechanical universe.

My position is that everything is mechanical. (There is no room for "faith" in my view.) There is action and reaction of "matter," nothing more. The interactions of matter can take place across a broad size spectrum, from the smallest sub-atomic particles to the interaction of galaxies and every "size" in between.

I also see, and disagree with, the seeming refusal in modern physics to utilize qualitative analysis when trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Modern physics will just blindly accept certain observed phenomena -- like gravity or magnetism -- without asking, "What is the mechanism(s) causing the observed action." The approach is one of "it is, we measure it."

An extreme focus on quantitative analysis (while tremendously useful in certain respects) does not always result in qualitative understanding. "Measuring" phenomenon does not necessarily give us a complete understanding of it.

Your suggestion (while you were paraphrasing "RWebb") that good science requires that every "theory" must be presented as a "mathematical equation" before experiments can be designed to test that theory, is precisely the sort of excessive focus on the quantitative I'm talking about.

The quantitative language of mathematics is not the only language science can be studied with.

I wasn't making "claims" as much as I was asking questions.

What is being "carried"? What is doing the "carrying" in your CARRIER theory (which is not something I've studied)?

There were many arguments/questions about the original Michelson-Morley experiment (for one, it was first done measuring the speed of light in air) and subsequent experiments. I haven't looked into it in years, but remember pulling out a number of excellent books (whole books on the subject) from the stacks in the Detroit Public Library years ago. Maybe Google's books project now has those books online and you can research the subject easily if it interests you.

(Sadly, I remember there were fascinating sounding titles in Detroit's card catalog for which the books were missing. I suspect there was a "clean out" of our libraries during WW2 -- as part of anti-espionage efforts -- but have never been able to find any proof of it.)


Detail, details; the original question was whether you were an idiot or conman.

SmileWavy

No longer Physics but I guess that's your point. Fair enough.

Revised:
Provide your theory of the ether.
Devise at least one testable prediction based on your theory.
Test it.

This is the scientific method. It's responsible for more progress in the last several hundred years than in the thousands of years before. If you object to it please outline your method of scientific investigation and the progress it's led to.

Without a track record it'd be like me saying I got the fastest Pcar on the forum. Has it won any races? Nope. 0-60 times? Never tested. Dyno even? It's so fast it'd blow the darn thing up if I tried. Can we agree this method of reasoning will not lead to truth?

I prefer the use of the old term "natural philosophy" -- that approach does not reject the language of mathematics, but does not try to rely upon it almost exclusively when examining the universe. (I'm not sure why "modern physics" suggests it's "not physics" if it's not in mathematical language.)

I have no argument against the scientific method -- my previous comments on this thread about "building stuff" and seeing that it works is all about testing theory in reality.

My argument with some of the modern theoretical physics' ideas is that the ideas are so speculative, with so little grounding in reality, they are, for all practical purposes "untestable." (I think the physicists like it that way.) It's a "mind game" being presented as "science." It is about as useful as mysticism. (My original comments on this thread that started the whole debate.)

Nearly everything you see around you can be explained mathematically. It's just a method of describing how the universe works. It's by no means the *reason* why it works.

"The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God." Euclid

Ignoring god from that post, mathematics is a method to describe the laws of nature, not define them.

It would be simpler, and save a lot of time, if you just admitted that you neither understand modern theoretical physics nor have the capacity to understand it. Science is presented as science. Take responsibility that you can't understand it and need to create "unrecognized forces," i.e., mysticism, to comfort your limited reality.

I would interpret "God" as "Mother Nature" in Euclid's quote, though I'm not sure how he intended it (whether he meant "god" as some supernatural being or not).

Mathematics is just a language. Its use focuses almost exclusively on the quantitative elements in the world around us; any "description" it provides is a measurement or "comparison" with some other quantitative element(s) of nature.

The "laws of nature" are (generally agreed upon) observations about the functioning of the natural world. Descriptions and definitions of those laws can be made using both common languages and the language of mathematics.

I do not "understand" modern theoretical physics.

And I also do not "understand" Catholic theology.

Neither are understandable in rational terms.

Those of us who live with "limited reality" cannot understand the supernatural world of the mystics.

You are now free to disappear in a puff of smoke if you like.

The photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force. The graviton is the carrier of the gravitational force.

They travel at the speed of light between two particles, causing interactions.

This would be considered basic stuff, by those crazy mystics.


See, it's only taken 6 pages for us to finally understand where you're coming from. You don't understand weird physics. It doesn't make any sense to you, yet is put down as fact (it's not, but you interpret it that way). Since it makes no sense in your world around you, and since you don't understand it, you have made the decision that it is lies and corruption. People since time began had feared and vilified that which makes no sense to them, you're in good company.

You coulda just said that immediately.

I'll even make you feel better about this...

I do not understand music. I cannot make music, I cannot drum a beat nor hum worth a damned, and the thought of actually MAKING original music? That's mysticism to me. Those people who can make music must be touched by god or something, because it's completely unnatural to me. However, I do not call those people idiots or con men when they claim they can make music.

That is called circular argument.

How do you describe magnetism? Through the "carrier" of the electromagnetic force.

How do you describe gravity? Through the "carrier" of the gravitational force.

The "force" creates "the force." You just use two different words to describe the same observed action (the actions of electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces).

A rational, mechanical view of the world requires something doing the "forcing" and something being "forced." There is no such thing a "a force," in the literal sense, separate and apart from things.

I don't know what the mechanism is behind observed phenomena like gravity or magnetism -- and neither do you. You offer pseudo-answers (circular argument) which stifles scientific inquiry, but perhaps that is your intention.

Admitting "we don't understand the mechanism" is the first step in scientific inquiry.

So in place of ignorance you use "unrecognizable forces" to fill in for your lack of intelligence, curiosity, and capability.

You attribute mysticism to concepts that are beyond your capacity.

If you were living a few hundred to a few thousand years ago, your behavior would be the norm. "The world is flat." you would say. Spontaneous generation would satisfy how all non-reproductive life forms. God is a big ball of light in the sky in constant battle with the lesser light at night.

You use mysticism to label modern physics, and most likely anything else beyond your comprehension level, as mysticism.

news reported that they got the Hardon Collider up to top/record speed today
but no report yet of any hardon's actually colliding

Great, time for the alternative universe to emerge, wonderful I was just getting used to this one.

Record speed, yes, but still far short of top speed.

They surpassed the record set by Fermilab with their Tevatron. They have particles with kinetic energies higher than the Universe as seen in over 13 billion years.

The LHC is designed to go about 6 times higher than this record ;)

There are hadrons colliding, and based on what I've read about the celebrations, there might be hardons colliding too...i make no comments about the private actions of particle physicists (ehem...IROC...ehem...).


Or, I'm am idiot for understanding any of that, and a complete liar for telling you poor lost unwashed masses about it.