sci.physics.electromag

"Benj" wrote in message
news:24b9e9f6-1a3f-49b5-a11e-b4ccab517e99@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

>However, the problem we are struggling with here is the
> question if Kepler's analytical geometry actually IS the solar system!
Perhaps I chose my words poorely, because I actualy couldn't agree more with
the above.

> Does it have a reality GREATER than the sun and the planets? Is that
> mathematical model somehow MORE real than what we see through our
> telescopes. Good choice, because we can answer that one! No it is
> not. In fact it's not even correct! The stability of the multibody
> system of the solar system remains an unsolved problem TO THIS DAY!
> Yet, all of physics goes about yaking about the emperor's new clothes
> pretending that this is all solved and water over the dam! Sorry,
> this is what happens when you start thinking your models have more
> reality than what you observe through your telescope!
>
Don't include me in that appology. I've used experiment almost exclusively
myself for reasons previoulsy explained.
A previous post that you are familiar with should bear that out.

> > Perhaps "real" is what needs more definition here. Perhaps contextual
> > reality is , if accurate and correctly applied, perfectly valid. What a
> > blind mans sees is not what sighted people see, but if his skills are
well
> > developed are his visualizations (so to speak) any less valid? Is one
> > method of seeing "what is" less valid than another? Perhaps the
ultimate
> > reality is the overlaying of all these "images", as long as all those
> > "images" are derived accurately.
>
> Yes, this is a valid point. Definitions of "real" are important as are
> all precise definitions in science. However, generally speaking,
> science views experiment as the definition of reality. Philosophy
> clearly questions those experiments and can propose new experiments to
> extend the testing beyond our senses. But in the end it is not
> mathematical models that determine what we regard as reality but hard
> measured data.
Yes, a blind man knows what an echo pattern represents by feeling and
bumping untill the two are in agreement. Pure speculation would undoubtedly
find him one day in free space with a nasty sudden decelleration awaiting
him.

>Without experimental data all science is just
> speculation. Speculation COULD coincide with "reality" but how would
> you know if it did? If experimentalists, for example, tell you that
> "we've been unable to ever find a case of a changing E field creating
> an H field in free space", it's clear you need to re-think your
> speculation!
>
> I just can't seem to shut up on this topic, can I?

I think I can understand why.
Vince