Starting with MIckleson-Morley in 1887, and successive experiments, it has become understood and accepted by anyone with at least a high school, or even junior high school, science class that the aether simply does not exist. And this is the science of the thing. — tim wood
This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . .
You're in a science discussion, which you are determined to derail, and your account is just that you're "doing" no science at all, but metaphysical speculation. — tim wood
The classical notion, yes, but perhaps not quite that simple. — jgill
The question before us, if I recall correctly, is whether light propagates absent aether. MU uses logic to prove to himself that there must be an aether, because light is a wave, waves require media, therefore the aether. And probably M&M's aether itself because he says their experiment is blatantly false and pseudoscience.The classical notion, yes, but perhaps not quite that simple. From Wikipedia: "...The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. — jgill
And of course Mickleson-Morley is "pseudoscience" and "blatantly false."
10 hours ago — tim wood
Typical. You're asked three questions, which you ignore. You confuse "forum" with "discussion." And of course Mickleson-Morley is "pseudoscience" and "blatantly false." — tim wood
It's fundamentally different from the aether, because the aether was always understood as an independent, separate substance from the bodies which exist within it. This was the premise of the M-M experiment. Now, respecting the results of M-M, we can either say that this was a misunderstanding of the aether, and produce a new model of the aether which does not have that requirement, or we can insist that "separate substance" is essential to the conception named "aether", and therefore dismiss "aether" as inadequate, and come up with a new word to refer to the medium for light.
Clearly, "field" is inadequate because it represents the medium with random locations, arbitrary points, instead of identifying the true particles which must exist within the medium, comprising the medium, as is required to support the observed wave motion of electromagnetism. Only through identification and modeling of the true particles of the medium can an adequate understanding of it be produced. And according to what M-M indicates (no aether wind), along with what the experiments of quantum field theory indicate, all massive objects must be composed of this same medium. — Metaphysician Undercover
The idea is that MU can have his aether - there is no evidence for it - as what he calls metaphysical speculation, and which I disqualify of substance in a scientific discussion. — tim wood
I was arguing that the conclusion, that some people draw, that Michelson-Morley type experiments have proven that there is no medium for light waves, is pseudoscience. — Metaphysician Undercover
So just to be clear, you sincerely believe that Einstein (along with the entire scientific community) misinterpreted the results of M-M and are engaging in some form of pseudoscience? — EricH
Relativity theory was created for pragmatic purposes, and is fundamentally not truth-apt. — Metaphysician Undercover
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable — flannel jesus
I have. Read books on them. And in refusing answer you make clear you do not know what you are talking about. And you have made completely clear in other threads that you consider learning about these things a waste of your time, because you have already decided that you know what they mean.If you want to know what "cause" and "metaphysics" mean, try looking them up. — Metaphysician Undercover
Since effing when has science ever been "truth-apt"? Where in any edition of the scientific method does "truth" enter in. And another question to you, what is it that you imagine "truth" to be? Because at least in this context it's clear you do not know.Relativity theory was created for pragmatic purposes, and is fundamentally not truth-apt. — Metaphysician Undercover
Most physics is applied physics, and the extremely speculative part is better known as metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover
:up:I used your quote to track down the article - "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" by Albert Einstein. Here's a link:
https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/ — T Clark
Since effing when has science ever been "truth-apt"? Where in any edition of the scientific method does "truth" enter in. And another question to you, what is it that you imagine "truth" to be? — tim wood
Metaphysics has been defined as either the study of being, which is the study of nothing at all, because if being has any predicates it ceases to be just being. — tim wood
Cause is so difficult a concept to make rigorous that for a century most of science has dispensed with its use as a meaningful term, except in informal usage where it stands as a shorthand, or in the few areas it may still be used. — tim wood
OK, so now we see a big difference between science and metaphysics. I would say metaphysics seeks truth, and truth means corresponding with reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
I would say metaphysics seeks truth, and truth means corresponding with reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
We're going way off topic here, but when you use the word "truth" are referring to the Correspondence Theory of Truth? — EricH
I'm still not clear on your usage of the word truth - because I went back and am seeing this:Yes, that's what I said, truth means corresponding with reality, therefore I'm using "truth" in the sense of correspondence theory. — Metaphysician Undercover
"Truth" implies an understanding of what is going on, which takes us beyond the ability to predict. — Metaphysician Undercover
E.g., if I say that I observed an object in a vacuum chamber accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/sec**2, I think you would agree that that is a true statement (it corresponds with reality). — EricH
Also, is there a distinction when you put the word in quotes? — EricH
What does "sec**2" even mean? — Metaphysician Undercover
That something is "accelerating" requires a multitude of measurements of velocity, and each measurement of velocity requires multiple determinations of spatial-temporal location. — Metaphysician Undercover
Assume all of that is done to your satisfaction beyond all reasonable doubt. — EricH
The concept of "acceleration" involves a fundamental philosophical problem. Acceleration is the rate of increase of velocity. So if an object goes from being at rest, to moving, there is a brief period of time where its "acceleration" is necessarily infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover
Really! And after "a brief period of time" of infinite acceleration, how fast are we going? But yours was in response to a good and fair question asked you by EricH, here:there is a brief period of time where its "acceleration" is necessarily infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, that's what I said, truth means corresponding with reality, therefore I'm using "truth" in the sense of correspondence theory.
— Metaphysician Undercover
I'm still not clear on your usage of the word truth - because I went back and am seeing this:
"Truth" implies an understanding of what is going on, which takes us beyond the ability to predict.
— Metaphysician Undercover
E.g., if I say that I observed an object in a vacuum chamber accelerating towards the center of the earth at 9.8 m/sec**2, I think you would agree that that is a true statement (it corresponds with reality). But there is no understanding in that statement - it's just an observation. — EricH
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.