Well, no - not only according to me - but the number of people who recognize/claim it is irrelevant to the point.
That's right.
Regardless of if it is just you, or also several other people, it won't magically make your opinion a fact.
Fields are no less scientific than other things, like matter.
As I said, one cannot hope to discuss, evaluate, or practice science if their definifions are wrong (as most are, due to miseducation).
So why do you continue to try to do so, when your definitions are so clearly wrong due to your extreme bias against what science has shown which you don't like?
If an emperical scientist proposes that a field (or zeus, or fairies) is real - they need to get to work figuring out what it is comprised of (and measuring that!) and how it interacts with other matter.
Again, this can applied to literally everything.
As such, by your standard, NOTHING is scientific.
After all, what is matter ultimately made of?
So if you truly want to hold to this position, you need to claim that literally nothing is scientific.
Even things like a table, which can easily be observed and interacted with in reality, can't be scientific, as we do not know what it is ultimately made of.
But any sane person realises that is pure nonsense.
You don't need to know exactly what something is made of in order for it to be scientific.
Instead, in order to be scientific, it needs to be testable, and repeatable, and thus observable in some way.
The other important aspect is falsifiability.
Fields do this by mediating interactions between matter.
Gods and the like are not. A key part they fail on is the falsifiability.
If you didn't get the result you predicted, will, that was just God not giving you what you wanted, rather than God not being real.
I can argue that god is the cause (as newton did)
Do you mean aether?
Because I can't find anywhere where he suggests it.
But you ignore the key point, they aren't discussing the CAUSE of gravity. They are discussing gravity itself.
As I said, every physicist worth their salt has known that "gravitation" is unscientific and philosophically unsound.
And that is just your biased opinion, which you make, because you hate the RE.
It is not a position based upon fact.
Gravitation, contrary to your hate based opinion, is scientific. It is based upon plenty of experiments. It is repeatable, observable and testable.
The only way in which you can have a consistent position and claim it is unscientific is if you claim EVERYTHING is.
The issues with gravitation are long standing, and part of any adequate training in physics.
And the big one, which made it distinct from the other fundamental forces, was why inertial mass was the same as gravitational mass. General relativity, with curved space time was actually able to address that issue. This also explained other things, such as gravitational lensing of light.
No the main "long standing" issues are those in common with the other fundamental forces and the issue of dark matter/gravity changing with distance.
Why do you think that?
Because the 2 make no sense at all being equated.
They are fundamentally different.
You cannot claim that a non-real thing is acted upon or causes action upon anything manifestly real.
And you can't simply dismiss something as non-real because you don't like it or because you don't know everything about it.
There is nothing scientific about that dismissal.
It’s observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
Again, by definition, this is incorrect. The ONLY test of hypothesis in science is done by experiment. There are no exceptions.
Just what do you think an experiment it?
Because from what you say, you seem to have no idea.
One of the simplest ways to define an experiment, would be an observation/measurement to test a hypothesis.
Roughly consistent with what I said.
But directly contradicting your claim that they have no place in science.
So if you think that is consistent, you are claiming your position is self-contradictory.
Ok, share one you have in mind!
You have already been provided with plenty and just repeatedly ignored it.
Some key parts for magnetism are:
Like poles repel.
Opposite poles attract.
Paramagnetic materials are attracted to both sides of a magnet.
A key part for air and other fluids is that they exert a force based upon pressure and area.
If an object is inside a fluid, then the force is based upon the pressure gradient across it where it is pushed from the high pressure side towards the low pressure side.
What scepti is suggesting requires directly contradicting one or both of these.
His entire idea of a replacement for gravity directly defies everything we know about how fluids work.
Instead of accepting that things are pushed from high pressure to low pressure, he instead claims that the air will magically push an object down, pushing from the low pressure side to the high pressure side; except when it decides to not do that for things like helium filled balloons.
Likewise, his idea for magnets, as repeatedly explained to you requires violating that, as what we know about fluids indicate that magnetism caused by fluids will have the outwards flowing sides repel and the inwards flowing side attract.
This applies if you put 2 magnets together, in contrast to like poles repelling and opposite poles attracting; and it would also apply to putting paramagnetic materials near a magnet, where the inwards flowing side with a low pressure region should attract them and the high pressure region from the outwards flowing side will push them away.
Stop playing dumb and ignoring this.
What he is suggesting goes directly against what has already been established beyond any sane doubt by science. It is not simply empty space where any wild speculation can be provided.
So we are taught, yes. Looking deeper into that data, you will find the problems with it
No, looking into the data, honestly and without bias, you find that it shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.
It is only looking into the data with extreme bias, with a hatred for the RE (or the like), that you pretend there are problems, such as pretending there is massive global conspiracy to try to pretend Earth is round.
If you want to claim there are problems with it, how about you try to provide some, without just going with the sophistry of "we can't know anything".
Every claim needs to be validated thoroughly, regardless of source.
Yes, such as your claim, that water is magically flat.
Especially considering in order to make that claim you already need to modify it to explicitly exclude things which show you are wrong.
It is not, and has never been a law.
The wonderful thing about natural law (and science), is it is demonstrable! We can verify and validate this law today
You mean we can invalidate it, just like they did long ago.
Your claim has NEVER been a natural law.
It is based upon wilful ignorance and is refuted by plenty of observations, including those you try to exclude from your "law" because you know it shows your "law" is just a wild claim.
What we can't do, and have never done, is refute it!
Ignoring the refutations of your baseless claim (not a natural law), doesn't mean it hasn't been refuted.
It has been refuted by countless observations.
The surface of water has been repeatedly observed to NOT BE FLAT!
You not liking that fact will not change that fact.
You repeatedly ignoring it just means your position is based upon wilful rejection of reality.
The horizon drop doesn't measure the shape of the world, obviously. To measure the shape of the world - you have to DO that!
No, not obviously.
Try to clearly explain why the horizon drop doesn't measure the world.
After all, it is measuring the angle to a part of the world, from another part, which measures the world.
Right, by which they concluded that it must be weakly interacting. The inertial resistance to change in motion could fit well with a weakly interacting fluid which interacts more with increasing density.
No, it doesn't,
They reasoned it doesn't interact with matter because it doesn't have that drag.
That drag would not account for inertia.
Even if it was just weakly interacting, it would still attempt to prevent relative motion, it would not resist change in motion.
The simplest way to see this is an object moving relative to this magical aether which you then try to slow down or stop, i.e. make it stationary relative to the aether.
The drag idea would provide no resistance to this.
This means you should be able to find the motion of this aether trivially by trying to accelerate an object in every possible direction (in sequence) with a negligible force, and seeing which one then has no force required to accelerate it.
And do this with objects which are moving relative to each other.
Doing so will lead to the conclusion that the aether is not moving relative to the object, regardless of the motion of the object, which would cause most people to discard that model.
Until verified/validated by rigorous and repeated experiment, yes. But in terms of generating hypothesis, imagination, and proposing something philosophically sound and physical/emperical for something that isn't (the "field") is a major step back towards science for physics at large.
This again shows you have no idea what sound is.
Wild speculation is not sound.
Sound is effectively the same as true.
In order for it to be sound, it has to be supported by evidence.
Instead, it is refuted by evidence.
Wild speculation, which ignores what we already know about reality is not scientific in any way.
It's really more a criticism of the quantumnists and their religious ideologies/philosophies.
So you think appealing to a god was a criticism of religious ideas?
Are you sure that is the path you want to go down?
It was an attack on the idea that there is randomness inherent in reality.
It's an exception, and one no doubt ingrained in you. What has wavelike properties but is not a wave? Is this a riddle?
Like I already told you, ALL MATTER!
For example, electrons and neutrons, which are routinely used in diffraction, and in case you don't know, diffraction is a wave property.
In classical mechanics, particles do not diffract. At best, you get reflection from it bouncing off things, but you do not get diffraction.
Instead, diffraction is a property limited to waves, and initially was one piece of evidence used to support the idea that light was a wave.
This means electrons, something pretty much only ever thought of in classical mechanics as a particle, a fundamental building block of matter, has wave nature.
So no, it isn't just light.
It also includes electrons and neutrons as a bare minimum.
A key take away of quantum mechanics is that ALL particles have wave nature.
If you didn't keep ignoring reality, you would already know this and not need to ask the same questions and make the same false statements.
In order to experimentally validate the hypothesis (and for the hypothesis to be "valid" depending on specific criteria used to determine that) we must be able to measure and manipulate aether.
No, you don't. At least not directly.
For example, you can measure your speed relative to the aether, as was done with the aberration of starlight and MMX.
The problem is the 2 speeds contradicted each other, showing that idea of aether was untennable.
Now the attempts to try to keep aether alive try to do whatever they can to keep it indistinguishable from relativity.
A statistician once "proved" (mathematically of course)
So they showed their conclusion by starting with true statements and using mathematical principles to show their conclusion?
If not, that isn't proving anything mathematically.
Do you mean they showed a correlation?
If so, that would be the generating a hypothesis/model step.
You then need to test that hypothesis/model.
That is the validation part of the model.
Making a model from available data is not testing and validating the model.
So that doesn't apply to what was stated.