The scientific concern is that the theory is incomplete and there’s more work to be done, which is quite normal.
That is a concern - yes, though as you said it is "normal" for our theories to be incomplete and inaccurate (in various regards).
The serious concern I spoke of is very different. It is the presupposition (which has slowly mutated into belief and even worship over time) of an unscientific (non-emperical) entity - the "field".
It is unacceptable in physics (and philosophy, of which physics is a branch) for something to act upon nothing. If the "field" is real, then physicists have been remiss in their duties (and/or incompetent) to discover and make scientific progress understanding it for centuries now.
Flat Earthers tend to claim none of it is real. Big difference.
Gravitational fields (or gravitons, if you wish) are not real, as far as anyone knows or ever has known (scientifically or otherwise). The perspective on shape of the earth doesn't enter into it.
It is relatively clear how this fiction entered science and who is responsible for it.
Einstein came up with special relativity because of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment and because Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetism were not compatible with Galilean relativity at velocities approaching the speed of light.
Every physicist worth their salt since newton has recognized the unscientific and philosophically unsound nature of gravitation - just as newton did when he first invoked (not invented) it. It is not so much that what you wrote above about relativity isn't correct, it is more that it doesn't contradict what I said. Relativity was created, in part, to break newton's magic spell of gravitation and make it, finally, scientific. Without an aether (space-time) that physically exists to "warp" this cannot be done. Which is why einstein said that if aether is disproven, so is relativity.
Sounds like science to me
It may SOUND that way, however science has strict and rigorous definitions. Science is only what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge which that method produces (with the sole caveat of natural law, established through repeated measurement alone)
One cannot hope to understand, discuss, or practice science if their definitions are wrong. The vast majority of people do not have or use the correct (working) definitions.
Erm, no. Theories of light propagating through luminiferous aether were superseded by relativity. Newton was a proponent of some kind of aether.
This is just what we are taught. The history is more nuanced. Relativity doesn't supersede aether, it depends on it (from einstein's lips no less)
What you find acceptable or not is irrelevant.
It is not simply my determination, it is one necessitated by the very definition of science (and the rules of philosophy/logic which it is bound by). I agree, my personal feelings are not what is relevant.
Measurements and observations are what matter, remember?
No, that is only useful to establish natural law. In science, what matters is experiment! Experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement, nor can it ever be.
Aether theories of light were largely abandoned when they no long fit the available data.
That is again, merely what we are taught (today). The history tells a different story, for those with an interest in such stories.
Funny that relativity is one of the main reasons that aether was done away with then.
Not so much funny as sad. Once again, this is what we are taught today - but it is incorrect.
Not sure I follow this?
The simplest form of sophistry is the nagging child endlessly repeating "why". Sophistry is a type of anti-philosophy designed to "unmake" conversations and philosophical progress. Sophistry is intrinsically connected to SOPHISTication. In this case, you are saying that because I recognize (and am claiming/stating) that magnetic fields are a mystery that therefore everything that we know about magnets (or perhaps, anything else) is also not understood. It is to unmake knowledge, and to remove the necessity of further evaluation or discussion. It is to be avoided and curtailed wherever found.
Scientific models are representations of the thing being studied (can just be a simple equation). You build a model from your hypothesis and test predictions against experiments or observations. How is that not following the scientific method?
Excellent question, very much at the heart of our discussion.
The scientific method does not involve models in any step. The use thereof today is to limit experimentalism (for multiple reasons, one of the chief ones being money). One may (and arguably should, if not must) employ models to generate hypothesis, but experiment happens out here in the reality we hope to understand (and no place else)! As I said above, experiment is NEVER mere observation/measurement - nor can it ever be.
Yet you say you’re not even sure what Scepti is talking about. How can you say its a more sound concept?
Yes. Because scepti's conception involves a material (emperical, unlike "fields" which are composed of mystery) cause, it is vastly more sound than the current lack of composition offered by the "field" (a scientific "placeholder" for science that was expected to come in the future - a deviation from the scientific method)
You know we have quantum mechanics, right?
I do! And you know why they call it that and not quantum physics right?
If scepti was correct, we would!
He’s not.
Like I said, the only way to determine that scientifically is by experiment. Of course, the hypothesis needs to be valid and properly defined first in order to take any further steps.
And that would fine if he didn’t keep on about everyone else mindlessly believing what we’re told, which is kind of insulting.
Virtue untested is no virtue at all! If we are educated, and we know (and perhaps more importantly, know how we know, with conviction, and can convey that to others), then we shouldn't take such insults too seriously.
In fairness, our "education" process largely turns out parrots. That is the purpose and result of conditioning by rote (under the guise of education). It was because we needed more factory workers - more indians and less chiefs. There is a great (great in explanation, terrible in terms of speechwriting/reading) speech that explains it all by woodrow wilson if you are interested.
And what do you suggest we do with all that experimental data?
There is nothing wrong with the latter, it just isn't science. It's meta-science, and its only scientific purpose is the generation of hypothesis that can be experimentally validated or refuted. We are not talking about mathematical formalization/generalization of data - that is all well and good (though the language you "translate"/represent scientific knowledge into/with is somewhat irrelevant)
You should check out his explanation for the sun and moon.
I may do that! They are quite mysterious and most certainly not at all the things our creation mythology (disingenuously/erroneously taught as science from childhood) purports.
Nobody has to post anything at all, but if someone wants an honest discussion of their ideas, they should explain what they mean.
I agree! As I said, if they want anyone else to understand their perspective they will have to do just that. However, as I also said, it is easier said than done - especially when there is an inherent resistance to it caused by "education". The committed will keep trying, though sadly may still fail to understand for a variety of reasons. I agree it is significantly dependent on scepti's ability and success at explaining to us / helping us understand them.
What if imagine from the perspective of my own experience designing and testing things including pressure and vacuum systems?
That is a great place to start! I think that scepti has done a mostly adequate job of addressing the "vacuum" issue. They have said (or I have inferred from deduction) that the vacuum chamber cannot keep this, proposed/conceived, small matter out. I agree that, at least in theory, it may be possible to test the "magnetic fields wane in strength under extreme low pressure" claim. It also may be beyond our precision and ability to both evacuate a chamber sufficiently and measure a small change in the magnetic strength caused by it - ESPECIALLY if the "magneton" responsible doesn't have any difficulty entering and exiting a "fully evacuated" chamber from our perspective, if such a thing were possible. It is important to recognize that what Scepti is saying about the evacuation is fundamentally correct and consistent with modern science. When the vacuum pump creates an relative pressure imbalance, it does not suck the air/matter out of the container. It allows the air inside the container to push outwards on its own. This pushing happens as the gasses themselves expand to fully fill the (vacuum) container once more - always. This is one way of describing/conceptualizing why "perfect vacuum" is unattainable, even in theory (at least the way we're commonly going about it).
But I also accept that what I personally understand barely scratches the surface of what’s been determined. And that’s really the biggest difference between our positions.
I hope that isn't the case. I hope Scepti shares this humility, as the alternative of pride is vastly worse (and more costly).
I give Scepti the benefit of the doubt that he means what he says, and isn’t just here for a laugh.
It is certainly possible, many come here for that specific purpose. Again, I hope not - but time will tell (for me, I recognize some have put in significant time and already come to that conclusion)
Maybe there is nothing more than he says?
Which is why I suggested that the discussion best turn to a scientific one. Hypothesis and experiment - that will sort it out. We can talk and imagine and model endlessly with little to no progress. Empericism is the way out of the cul-de-sac.
A globe denier, but not a flat earther? So what shape do you think it is? And how do you reconcile that with your respect for science?
I have no idea what the shape of the entire world is, because like all people I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination.
The shape of the surface of bodies of water at rest (under natural conditions and barring irrelevant meniscus effects) is flat, level, and horizontal. This is a well established law of hydrostatics that has stood unchallenged for centuries. In order to refute it, and to make the globe posit even conceivable in emperical science, something other than that would need to be directly measured repeatedly and rigorously (namely a sustained convex curve required by the globe model). The fact that no such measurements exist should be enough to concern any empirical scientist. Whenever water is measured at rest (with the caveats above, only mentioned to curtail irrelevant pedantry) it only has the one shape. That's why it's a law.
If you want to call photons a component of air, then it almost makes sense. Although then maybe we can include gravitons too? I don’t think that’s what denpressure is all about though.
It sure sounds like it to me, though that is merely my interpretation/rationalization. Even the things the gas is made of is breaking down and recombining.
Ignoring the actual definition of air though.
Perhaps. For the purposes of discussion, we can use any definition we wish as long as its meaning is shared. Scepti has shared that air includes the things that air breaks down into, and I don't personally have any issue with that (inside this conversation nor outside of it) - do you?
You might be surprised just how much air we can evacuate in ultra high vacuum chambers.
Of course! Not as good as "space" though. They should bring a container of that back for study (they should have and would have done it decades ago if it were possible)!
It’s not very clear what you mean, but it sounds like you think you get to decide what counts as science and what doesn’t?
By the definition of science (and the other technical vernacular of the scientific method, like hypothesis and experiment etc.), yes - WE do!
Scientists of years gone by also reasoned that such a fluid must be non interacting or very nearly non interacting with matter. Unlike Scepti’s atmospheric stacking business.
That's true! However inertia remains a mystery... Drag caused by an interacting fluid would tie things up nicely - but so would other speculations (like the spin of all atoms creating a "gyroscopic" resistance to change in motion). Scientists (people) are always wrong, and it never hurts to try again with old and new ideas alike.
No we don’t. The notion of light being a simple wave is about 100 years out of date.
Only as taught to us in school. In reality, that's not the case. Waves can only exist in a media and are typically composed of that media to boot. The "exception" for light is more or less indefensible, philosophically and scientifically. Light does things impossible for matter, but easy/commonplace for pressure waves within that matter (instantaneous acceleration, reflection etc.)
Not that it’s completely dead, as some scientists are revisiting it.
As they ought, and I wish them the best of luck!
But they do so taking into account everything we’ve since learned about relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.
If they remain bound to equation and do not find the path back to experimentalism they will remain confused and lost. God does not play dice with the universe.
Light is not a wave according to current theory.
There are few, even theoretical, physicists that would agree with you. Most proclaim that it is both a wave and a particle, or at least that it exhibits the behavior of both. One of the most successful new conceptions considers the wave and the particle moved by that wave separate and distinct, it has been used to corporate and military success. The proof is always in the pudding if you ask me!
It’s strong evidence that air has nothing to do with it. The existence of a medium is an assumption.
It's a deduction! It also has lots of support, but like I said - it depends largely on interpretation of evidence / experiment - not the data itself!
People who fully understand the subject?
People who are competent physicists, both historically and contemporarily - yes. But who cares about accolades or pedigree? Those never prevented any previous generations from being hopelessly wrong for centuries.
If Scepti wants to amend his ideas to something that could potentially be compatible with reality that’s up to him, but he doesn’t appear interested.
Well they clearly feel that the reality you speak of is non-real. If there really is any contradiction (experimentally especially) I have yet to see it. What did you have in mind?
So prediction isn’t part of the scientific method, apart from it being a vital part of the scientific method?
Prediction is required in the hypothesis. Hypothesis is validated/invalidated by experiment alone. There is no "predict" step. A hypothesis can be a mere guess (not really a "prediction" the way you are using the word)
But once a model has been validated we have pretty high confidence it can be used for practical applications. This is where applied science comes in.
I like pudding! If things are useful, let's use them! It is a logical fallacy that all bayesians fall for/suffer from that useful = correct. Useful is different from correct, and models are different from science. Models are created for specific and limited use. Use them and enjoy the pudding!
It’s cleared up your position a bit, but I still don’t agree with a lot you say.
Nor should you! I would hate for you to have to change your username!
Like Scepti, it will only take time and your earnest interest to clear up my position further.