From: nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be   
      
   Op maandag 15 november 2021 om 13:19:53 UTC+1 schreef J. J. Lodder:   
   > Nicolaas Vroom  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > Op woensdag 27 oktober 2021 om 09:16:18 UTC+2 schreef   
   > > J. J. Lodder:   
   > > > We seem to live in a universe that is ruled by law,   
   > > > rather than a lawless or a chaotic one.   
   > > We are part of world that is constantly changing. This world   
   > > can be divided into parts that behave more or less identical.   
   > > For example 'everywhere' in the universe are galaxies.   
   > Perhaps, but physics deals with the things that are not changing,   
   > better known as 'the laws of physics'.   
      
   Science deals with chemical, mechanical, biological and medical   
   processes. All these processes involve change. The descriptions of   
   processes we can call laws.   
      
   > (and their consequences) Astronomers, looking back in time,   
   > can see that the laws of physics have not changed.   
   > (in any way that they can detect)   
      
   A whole different issue is the validity of these laws.   
   For example, it will be interested to investigate, if in the   
   atmosphere of the three exoplanets of Alpha Centauri, also organic   
   compounds can be detected, identical as here on earth.   
   If, that is the case, we may conclude that there is similar type of   
   life possible, as here on earth.   
   It is also possible, that we can expect there a different type   
   of life. And if that finally is the case, then we have to modify   
   our present laws.   
      
   > > This problem would be simpler if one reference frame and   
   > > one clock is used.   
   > >   
   > > Spacetime is in fact a mathematical approach. To set c to 1   
   > > (and to make it a physical constant) does not 'solve'   
   > >  the issues involved.   
   > Precisely the point of Kant. There is nothing to 'solve'.   
   > Mathematics must come before all physical theory.   
   The first step is to make observations. This includes instruments to   
   observe.   
   The second step is to make a physical model. This is important   
   to identify different parts or subprocesses and how they influence   
   each other.   
   The third step is to quantify and to use mathematics.   
      
   A good example to study is to answer the question:   
   What is faster the speed of light or the speed of a neutron?   
   Also, here there are two different situations:   
   	We can qualify or quantify.   
   If we want to 'qualify' we have to perform an experiment which   
   emits simultaneous a short beam of neutrons and a short beam   
   of photons and 'observe' which arrives the first.   
   If we want to 'quantify' we have to do the same to 'qualify', but   
   besides that, we have to measure the distance travelled and the   
   time of emission and detection using two synchronised clocks   
   in both path ways. This is important in order to compare the results.   
      
   > Without a well-understood mathematical framework,  you can't even   
   > begin measuring things.   
   We should start with a good physical framework, before   
   we can measure anything.   
      
   > (beyond the most naive level) This still holds, despite the   
   > mathematical framework having been changed from   
   > Euclidean geometry to relativistic Riemannian geometry,   
   WE must understand what that physical means.   
      
   Just a thought: We must understand, how it is possible, that at   
   any moment in time all the planets in the universe move around   
   a star. This has nothing to do with mathematics. Part of the   
   solution is that the universe is not empty, but 'filled' with   
   photons, radiation and gravitons.   
      
   https://www.nicvroom.be/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)