John;
This discussion would be a __lot_ easier and more fruitful if you'd
take the trouble to read the Colloquium, "Criticism and the Growth
of Knowledge", Lakatos and Musgrave, eds. [1976].
>
> Because observation is not important to your theory there is no way to
> disprove it, so it's not science.
<Sigh>. You completely miss the point. Science is _difficult_. There
are _unsolved problems_. If we find anomalies, we should work hard to
explain them within the Scientific Research Programmes, or explore the
problem-situation to discover previously unknown forces, quantities etc.
So the question I seek to answer is:
"What is it, out there, that is causing the redshift?", NOT:
"Gimme a new theory, I can't solve the problem with the one I've got..."
> >>Me:
> >>Galilean or even Newtonian physics is wrong.
>
> >Name six 'experiments' -- I dare you!!!
>
> 1) The 2 slit interference experiment.
Popper explains this neatly with propensities. Propensities are real
properties, albeit a little like 'hidden variables.' A dice has a
propensity of one in six to come up 6. The _physics_ of dice throws is
very complex.
> 2) Heat up an iron bar, it glows with a blackbody spectrum, the electrons do
> not spiral into the nucleus.
Electrons only 'spiral into the nucleus' in aether theory. In
Relational Mechanics, they're held in various orbits of near-constant
radius by electric force, and the requirement for their sinewave
circular tracks to be non-precessional -- self-equilibrating to
integer frequencies, that is. Photons alter the electron masses and
characteristics, necessitating shifts to different orbits. It's
beautifully simple, and extraordinarily powerful -- especially for
nanotechnology.
Bohr's [1913] model of the hydrogen atom is very nearly a classical
mechanical explanation, albeit with ad-hoc postulates.
Unsurprisingly, since Bohr and Einstein both originally sought to
extend classical mechanics into the microworld. As I do now. I
provide physical explanations insted of ad hoc hypotheses. This, we
call a 'progressive problemshift.' >:-}
> 3) The quantum well LASER in your CD player.
Relational Mechanics handles lasing easily. It's a quantized phenomenon
- (RM includes the ballistic -- quantized -- theory of light). What's
your problem?
> 4) The Michelson Morley experiment.
The Michelson-Morley experiment perfectly corroborates the ballistic
theory of light. Doesn't everyone know this? I'll bet the bank on it.
> 5) Gravitational redshift.
Sheesh!!! Gravitational redshift is perfectly predicted by the
ballistic theory of light. Go look up 'Ballistics.'
> 6) The detection of gravity waves by Taylor and Hulse for which they won the
> Nobel Prize in 1995.
But this is an _emprirical_ matter on which Relational Mechanics takes
no position -- it doesn't have to. You just factor in the velocity of
propagation of gravity, electromagnetism etc. Ideally, I'm looking for
non-linear equations of force interactions, instead of Waldemar Voight's
linear algebraic Doppler stuff, purloined (without any acknowledgement)
by Lorentz and Einstein.
> Just curious but is there anything special about the number 6?
Good question... Remember, you did ask... >:-}
'The Prisoner' TV series -- Number Six?
"SIX: Symbolic of ambivalence and equilibrium, six comprises the union
of two triangles (of fire and water) and hence signifies the human soul.
The Greeks regarded it as a symbol of the hermaphrodite. It corresponds
to the six Directions of Space (two for each dimension), and to the
cessation of movement (since the Creation took six days). Hence it is
associated with trial and effort. It has also been shown to relate to
virginity, and to the scales."
and:
"SIX is, like two, a particularly ambiguous number: it is expressive of
dualism ( 2 x 3 or 3 x 2 ). However, it is like four in that it has a
normative value as opposed to the liberating tendencies of five and the
mystic (or conflictin) character of seven."
or:
The Sixth Enigma of the Tarot is The Lover, symbolizing enmeshment,
union, antagonism, equilibrium, combination...
Then, there's the Zodiac... Libra, equilibrium? >:-}
-- J.E. Cirlot, "A Dictionary of Symbols", RKP, [1971].
> General relativity predicts 42.98, the observed value is 43.11 +- .21
The point you insist on ignoring is that the velocity of propagation of
gravitational force (if any) is not a feature of Classical or
Relational Mechanics. In Newton's theory, gravity acts instantaneously
at a distance (even though he also says that it doesn't, because that
would have been 'occult' and could have gotten him executed). Stop
conflating incompatible propositions, fer Chrissake!!!
>
> >If I assert that -- in a gravitational field -- the frequency of a
> >quartz clock slows, due to gravitational force modifying the
> >structure of the quartz molecules and the electron orbits, that's
> >not the same as saying 'time itself slows down.'
>
>
> Why not? I say time is what a clock measures, you say time is ... that is to
> say, according to your theory time is ..., ah, ... sorry, I'm stumped.
>
>
> >You say 'time slows': I say the clock slows.
>
>
> If this thing you call "time" is not a measure of how particles of matter and
> energy interact, such as the particles in my clock my body my brain or my
> world, then why should I be the slightest bit interest in it?
Sheesh!!! Time is a _dimension_. You never studied Dimensional Analysis?
> You think the logical positivists were foolish because they refuse to say
> things, like atoms, exist because they couldn't directly see them. I think
> your criticism is valid, but then you do something just as bad, you refuse to
> say a thing, like time dilation, exists even though you can directly see it.
> Let me hear your own ideas about this, please don't tell me to read yet
> another philosopher's book.
Again, you miss the point. I'm asserting that there are alternative
explanations, one of which -- 'time dilation' is positivistic. I
don't buy into positivistic stuff -- it's all obsolete.
> >The 'cosmic soup' scatters the starlight, and gravitational
> >accretion reconstitutes the photons back into stars again.
>
>
> What the hell?!
>
>
> >It's a true 'steady-state' system. Perpetuum Mobile -- there's 'no
> >way out of the system.'
>
>
> Sounds dreadful. I thought a static universe gave you the creeps.
Einstein's four-dimenional Parmenidean Block Universe idea sure
does. Since when is a (more or less) steady-state 'Perpetuum
Mobile' the same as 'static'? Where do you log-in from? >:-}
>
> >No 'entropic heat-death' in this, our Relational Mechanics Universe,
> thank you! Strike the Second Law of Thermodynamics...
>
>
> Why would you want to strike the Second Law of Thermodynamics? All it says is
> that entropy always increases, nothing pessimistic in that, it would only be
> so if the total amount of information was constant. We'd be in very bad
> shape if Entropy did not increase, that's the very definition of the heat
> death of the Universe, but as long as entropy ALWAYS increases infinite life
> is possible.
Because it's _incorrect_. Continually recombine the (material,
massy) photons back into stars via gravity, and 'heat-death' just
doesn't ever happen.
> cars or the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Now _there_ are two interesting subjects... >:-}
/ /\ \
--*--<Tony>--*--
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora