Theories , Models and their Evolution

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WM:- Which gets to the point of what the division is between entities.

Quoted message said:

A model can validly set variables to zero, or artificially low/ high, values, but it cannot delete
or change any absolute assumption. When it does so, nothing exists of the original assumption
within the model, i.e. it becomes a defacto contesting theory. Always, the absolute assumption
provides the testable basis of an idea and is conceived within a theoretical framework termed: "a
theory". Here, variables are attached to it in a _defined_ way. A theory evolves via the
refutation of an absolute assumption within it. Here an original absolute assumption becomes
demoted to just a variable and a new absolute assumption is appended to the view.

There are no absolute assumptions in science.

Quoted message said:

'The evolution of ideas via the refutation of absolute assumptions allows science to create
expanding domains of truth.

Science doesn't deal with absolute truth.

Quoted message said:

'Refutation only defines the truth domain of a particular assumption, i.e. it is NOT just a
negative process. This is why refuted views can still be validly used within the sciences. The
desire for an absolute truth that does not have to evolve via contesting absolute assumptions is
just that: only a desire. It is religion and not science that feeds such a childish need.

The building of a model of any theory is only a 2nd step

This makes no sense. Maybe you are using model in a non standard way.

Quoted message said:

'and _not_ the first step. Any model only represents a valid aid. Models help test the theory from
which they are derived as a simplification.

This makes no sense. Its the other way round, even if it is assumed that such a distinction can be
made. Theories are derived from models and axioms. For example, a model of reality might be that
there is an entity, say a photon, that has some basic properties, e.g. spin, mass, charge. This
model is then used as the *basis* for the theory. For example, quantum electrodynamics, uses this
model to derive Maxwell's equations from momentum exchange of photons.

The model forms the basic definitions and or the axioms of the theory, so they can't be
derived from it.

Quoted message said:

To allow a model to contest and win against the theory it was just a simplification from,
is absurd.

Since the theory is derived from the model, if the model collapse, so does the theory.

A theory is something that contains all of the ideas. It doesn't exist without its core axioms and
definitions. This is the way it is:

1 Basic definition are made concerning physical entities, e.g. charge, mass, velocity etc.

2 Axioms are declared relating tto the definitions e.g. conservation of energy, conservation of
energy, representation by a Hilbert space, speed of light is invariant etc..

3 Results are derived from 1 and 2.

The whole of 1, 2 and 3 is, arguble, called the Theory. Without 1, no theory can exist. 1 forms the
heart of any model. For example, mass is just a property that we arbitarily declare that an entiy
has. That is, mass is a model property of the particle model.

Quoted message said:

Such crazy model misuse remains endemic within Neo Darwinism but not, Darwinism.

You need to define what *you* mean by model. It doesn't seem to bare an relationship to what is
accepted in science.

Quoted message said:

Neo Darwinism is the only supposed "science" that allows the model to contest and win against the
theory from which the model was simplified. Such an error is so gross, it becomes embarrassing to
discuss it. The level of denial that Neo Darwinists will stoop to in order to defend their gross
model misuse, remains unprecedented.

It would help if you learnt a bit of physics so that you could understand what a model and a theory
derived from that model is, as conventionally understood.

For example, the Kinetic Theory of gases uses a simple model that there are particles with momentum
and which have elastic collisions with other particles and its container. This model (behaviour
subject to the axioms) allows a deduction to be made, e.g. PV/T=a

In a real sense, the theory "is" the axioms. The definitions and axioms, inherently result in
everything else that is contained in the theory.

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WM:- Which gets to the point of what the division is between entities.

Quoted message said:

A model can validly set variables to zero, or artificially low/ high, values, but it cannot delete
or change any absolute assumption. When it does so, nothing exists of the original assumption
within the model, i.e. it becomes a defacto contesting theory. Always, the absolute assumption
provides the testable basis of an idea and is conceived within a theoretical framework termed: "a
theory". Here, variables are attached to it in a _defined_ way. A theory evolves via the
refutation of an absolute assumption within it. Here an original absolute assumption becomes
demoted to just a variable and a new absolute assumption is appended to the view.

KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

JE:- Firstly, an absolute assumption is NOT the same concept of a supposed, known absolute. We do
not know and cannot know if a known absolute exists but we must assume an absolute ASSUMPTION (a
guess) to make ANY view testable. OK?

________________________________________________________
You have contradicted yourself, ABSOLUTELY, above. The view that "no absolute assumptions in
science" exist is an absolute assumption, albeit an absolute negative assumption. To remove the
contradiction you have to amened what you said to read:-

"there are no positive absolute assumptions in science".
________________________________________________________

Take ANY science. Identify ANY total or constant within it. When you find one you have identified
the absolute assumption within the proposition and refuted your claim. It is pointless continuing
this discussion until you amend the basic error you made otherwise everything you claim subsequently
will produce Epimenides paradox (the liar paradox).

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> WM:- Which gets to the point of what the division is between entities.

Quoted message said:

A model can validly set variables to zero, or artificially low/ high, values, but it cannot
delete or change any absolute assumption. When it does so, nothing exists of the original
assumption within the model, i.e. it becomes a defacto contesting theory. Always, the absolute
assumption provides the testable basis of an idea and is conceived within a theoretical framework
termed: "a theory". Here, variables are attached to it in a _defined_ way. A theory evolves via
the refutation of an absolute assumption within it. Here an original absolute assumption becomes
demoted to just a variable and a new absolute assumption is appended to the view.

KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

JE:- Firstly, an absolute assumption is NOT the same concept of a supposed, known absolute.

There are no known physical absolutes. Hint: Special relativity pointed the way to the way the rest
of the universe worked.

Quoted message said:

We do not know and cannot know if a known absolute exists but we must assume an absolute ASSUMPTION

No. We only have to pretend.

Quoted message said:

(a guess) to make ANY view testable. OK?

No, we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make assumptions. Period.

Quoted message said:

________________________________________________________
You have contradicted yourself, ABSOLUTELY, above.

Wow...aren't you clever. Look, I'm not concerned with one off technicalities. I am referring the
basics of *real* science. Science never claims absolutes.

Quoted message said:

The view that "no absolute assumptions in science" exist is an absolute assumption, albeit an
absolute negative assumption.

Ho humm...No brownee points for you here. I am discussoing realities here.

Quoted message said:

To remove the contradiction you have to amened what you said to read:-

"there are no positive absolute assumptions in science".
________________________________________________________

I am not concerned with daft trivialities like this. I am referring to the basic concepts of
science. Science does not deal with absolute truth. It deals with arbitrary assumptions, and
predicts results. It doesn't care if the assumptions are actually true. Its predicting results that
matter, in as simple a manner as possible.

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
determined by the external world." - Einstein

We invent concepts, assumptions are always only provisional in science.

Quoted message said:

Take ANY science. Identify ANY total or constant within it. When you find one you have identified
the absolute assumption within the proposition and refuted your claim.

Show me one.

Quoted message said:

It is pointless continuing this discussion until you amend the basic error you made otherwise
everything you claim subsequently will produce Epimenides paradox (the liar paradox).

Its pointless continuing this discussion until you stop being a smart [censored]. This is the real world.
If you want to spend your life senselessly debating the 0.0000000001% exceptions to a general rule
as a mtter of oneupmanship, be my guest. Others actually get on with doing something useful with the
other 99.9999999999 of cases.

Your basic argument, to which I replied, was the claim that "...A theory evolves via the refutation
of an absolute assumption...". This is incorrect. Theories do not have absolute assumptions, and
never claim such a daft notion. In reality, an "absolute assumption" is an oxymoron. An assumption
is something that we pretend to be true. An absolute pretence makes no sense whatsoever.

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> WM:- Which gets to the point of what the division is between entities.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- A model can validly set variables to zero, or artificially low/ high, values, but it cannot
delete or change any absolute assumption. When it does so, nothing exists of the original
assumption within the model, i.e. it becomes a defacto contesting theory. Always, the absolute
assumption provides the testable basis of an idea and is conceived within a theoretical framework
termed: "a theory". Here, variables are attached to it in a _defined_ way. A theory evolves via
the refutation of an absolute assumption within it. Here an original absolute assumption becomes
demoted to just a variable and a new absolute assumption is appended to the view.

Quoted message said:

KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Firstly, an absolute assumption is NOT the same concept of a supposed, known absolute.

KA:- There are no known physical absolutes.

JE:- Wow! KA knows everything in the entire universe.

KA:- Hint: Special relativity pointed the way to the way the rest of the universe worked.

JE:- So the speed of light is not absolutely maximised at c, so WE CAN go faster than c?

Quoted message said:

KA:- We do not know and cannot know if a known absolute exists but we must assume an absolute
ASSUMPTION

KA:- No. We only have to pretend.

JE:- An assumption is just a PRETENCE? I suggest you have a negative personality disorder.

You have to employ at least one absolute assumption. This can be just imagined or be an observed
maximum/constant found within nature. After you have done this you attach variables to it. The way
the variables are attached alters the theory structure. When you have achieved a theory structure
that is not contradictory then valid deductions become possible from that theory. These deductions
allow you to test the proposition against nature.

Quoted message said:

JE :- (a guess) to make ANY view testable. OK?

KA:- No, we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make assumptions. Period.

JE:- Mad Hatter nonsense. Assumptions can be absolute

selection exists within a model is an absolute assumption because it is the total deletion

selection where natural selection determines

Quoted message said:

JE:-
________________________________________________________
You have contradicted yourself, ABSOLUTELY, above.

KA:- Wow...aren't you clever.

JE:- wow...aren't you stupid. (you asked for it so you got it)

KA:- Look, I'm not concerned with one off technicalities. I am referring the basics of *real*
science. Science never claims absolutes.

JE:- "Technicalities"? So you condone witch burning because of the fact that the absolute
assumption of what a witch was supposed to be could not be tested where this deficiency is
just a "technicality?". Perhaps it would suddenly become a non technicality if you were the
accused witch....

Is it also just a "technicality" that Epimenides paradox is an absolute self contradiction?

Quoted message said:

JE:- The view that "no absolute assumptions in science" exist is an absolute assumption, albeit an
absolute negative assumption.

KA:- Ho humm...No brownee points for you here. I am discussoing realities here.

JE:- Please close your mouth when you yawn, your breath smells (you asked for it so you got it,
yet again).

"Reality"? Your version of reality is absolute AND NOT MINE since it is absolutely _anything_ that
you say it is because it does not have to be testable. Do you know what Epimenides paradox is? Do
you know what a travesty of intellectual thought any absolute self contradiction is??

Quoted message said:

KA:- To remove the contradiction you have to amened what you said to read:- "there are no positive
absolute assumptions in science".
________________________________________________________

KA:- I am not concerned with daft trivialities like this.

JE:- "daft trivialities"!@#$% KA wishes to have a blank cheque to be able to say anything he wishes
in the name of science. KA is behaving like an immature, intellectual thug.

Quoted message said:

snip nonsense<

My Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> WM:- Which gets to the point of what the division is between entities.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- A model can validly set variables to zero, or artificially low/ high, values, but it
cannot delete or change any absolute assumption. When it does so, nothing exists of the
original assumption within the model, i.e. it becomes a defacto contesting theory. Always, the
absolute assumption provides the testable basis of an idea and is conceived within a
theoretical framework termed: "a theory". Here, variables are attached to it in a _defined_
way. A theory evolves via the refutation of an absolute assumption within it. Here an original
absolute assumption becomes demoted to just a variable and a new absolute assumption is
appended to the view.

Quoted message said:

KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Firstly, an absolute assumption is NOT the same concept of a supposed, known absolute.

KA:- There are no known physical absolutes.

JE:- Wow! KA knows everything in the entire universe.

I explained what usual English sentences meant below. You should try reading them sometime.

I know that there is no absolute proof to any physical aspect of the universe, other than, possibly,
the fact that *I* exists.

Quoted message said:

KA:- Hint: Special relativity pointed the way to the way the rest of the universe worked.

JE:- So the speed of light is not absolutely maximised at c, so WE CAN go faster than c?

Not at issue.

It is an assumption of a model that makes correct predictions. It is also possible to dispense with
this assumption, in addition to the assumption of relative motion and produce a theory that also
makes correct predictions. This theory is named the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). It is mathematically
identical to Special Relativity, and can not be experimentally distinguished from it. It is based on
an absolute space assumption (non relative motion) and a variable speed of light, that is measured
incorrectly due to distortions of length.

So, assumptions are indeed not absolute. In addition, I already pointed out:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
determined by the external world" - Einstein

You would do well to understand what this means, as noted, models of the universe are non unique,
that is why absolutes do not exist in science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- We do not know and cannot know if a known absolute exists but we must assume an absolute
ASSUMPTION

KA:- No. We only have to pretend.

JE:- An assumption is just a PRETENCE?

Yes. Of course. You are obviously clueless on simple physics.

Quoted message said:

I suggest you have a negative personality disorder.

This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Quoted message said:

You have to employ at least one absolute assumption.

You have to make an assumption as a starting point. Something, for the sake of argument that you
take to be true in a relative sense. It is not assumed in science that such an assumption is
absolutely true. It is just a model. That is, all else is derived from that assumption. As I noted
above, in SR verses LET, we can chose different assumptions and obtain identical results. This means
that our "assumption" that our speed of light assumption was absolutely true, was false. It may or
may not be true.

Quoted message said:

This can be just imagined or be an observed maximum/constant found within nature. After you have
done this you attach variables to it. The way the variables are attached alters the theory
structure. When you have achieved a theory structure that is not contradictory then valid
deductions become possible from that theory. These deductions allow you to test the proposition
against nature.

But it doesn't show that the assumptions were absolutely true. Descriptions of the universe are
non unique.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE :- (a guess) to make ANY view testable. OK?

KA:- No, we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make assumptions. Period.

JE:- Mad Hatter nonsense.

Personal insults make for a poor argument.

Quoted message said:

Assumptions can be absolute

Quoted message said:

selection exists within a model is an absolute assumption because it is the total deletion

Not at all. Its an assumption for that particular model, different models, predicting the same
results might use different assumptions.

The assumption that

Quoted message said:

selection where natural selection determines

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:-
________________________________________________________
You have contradicted yourself, ABSOLUTELY, above.

KA:- Wow...aren't you clever.

JE:- wow...aren't you stupid.

Personal insults make for a poor argument.

Quoted message said:

(you asked for it so you got it)

So you consider losing technical arguments are a justification to hurl personal insults as a
last resort?

Quoted message said:

KA:- Look, I'm not concerned with one off technicalities. I am referring the basics of *real*
science. Science never claims absolutes.

JE:- "Technicalities"? So you condone witch burning because of the fact that the absolute
assumption of what a witch was supposed to be could not be tested where this deficiency is just a
"technicality?".

Not relevant in the slightest. This has nothing to do with *science*,
e.g. Physics. This is about ignorant peasants with no idea of the *scientific method*, and never
practised such method. You really need to formulate your arguments much better to even appear
credible, let alone correct.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps it would suddenly become a non technicality if you were the accused witch....

I am not discussing the views of peasants, I am discussing the views of modern science.

Quoted message said:

Is it also just a "technicality" that Epimenides paradox is an absolute self contradiction?

This has nothing to do with real science. Its simply a conversation maker for those who are unable
to do real science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- The view that "no absolute assumptions in science" exist is an absolute assumption, albeit
an absolute negative assumption.

KA:- Ho humm...No brownee points for you here. I am discussoing realities here.

JE:- Please close your mouth when you yawn, your breath smells (you asked for it so you got it,
yet again).

You not doing to well are you. Your complete lack of any objective argument is quite apparent.

Quoted message said:

"Reality"? Your version of reality is absolute

Not at all, mine is more on the line of, e.g:

home.earthlink.netpagandef.htmOpen ↗

James Burke writes, in the 1985 PBS series, The Day The Universe Changed [p 337]

"The search for the truth, the 'discovery of nature's secrets,’ as Descartes put it, is an
idiosyncratic search for temporary truth. One truth is replaced by another. The knowledge acquired
through the use of any structure is selective. There are no standards or beliefs guiding the search
for knowledge which are not dependent on the structure. Discovery is invention. Knowledge is man-
made. If this is so, then all views at all times are equally valid. There is no metaphysical, super-
ordinary, final, absolute reality. There is no special direction to events. The universe is what we
say it is. When theories change the universe changes. The truth is relative."

Which is of course, consistant with the views of Einstein noted above.

Quoted message said:

AND NOT MINE since it is absolutely _anything_ that you say it is because it does not have to be
testable. Do you know what Epimenides paradox is? Do you know what a travesty of intellectual
thought any absolute self contradiction is??

You are not discussing science. You are pissing about with words in an effort to obscure your lack
of knowledge on the core subject matter, that is about Science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- To remove the contradiction you have to amened what you said to read:- "there are no
positive absolute assumptions in science".
________________________________________________________

KA:- I am not concerned with daft trivialities like this.

JE:- "daft trivialities"!@#$% KA wishes to have a blank cheque to be able to say anything he
wishes in the name of science.

You have clearly demonstrated that you know nothing of science. Your entire argument has been based
on word games with zero practical content.

Quoted message said:

KA is behaving like an immature, intellectual thug.

Its certainly no effort at all to intellectually beat up your trivial arguments

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Firstly, an absolute assumption is NOT the same concept of a supposed, known absolute.

Quoted message said:

KA:- There are no known physical absolutes.

JE:- Wow! KA knows everything in the entire universe.

KA:-

Quoted message said:

snip<

I know that there is no absolute proof to any physical aspect of the universe, other than, possibly,
the fact that *I* exists.

JE:- Ah, the royal "I" using a plural "exists" ;-)

"I think therefore I am is a self consistent _assumption_ so it is valid, that is all.

Quoted message said:

KA:- Hint: Special relativity pointed the way to the way the rest of the universe worked.

Quoted message said:

JE:- So the speed of light is not absolutely maximised at c, so WE CAN go faster than c?

KA:- Not at issue. It is an assumption of a model that makes correct predictions. It is also
possible to dispense with this assumption, in addition to the assumption of relative motion and
produce a theory that also makes correct predictions. This theory is named the Lorentz Ether Theory
(LET). It is mathematically identical to Special Relativity, and can not be experimentally
distinguished from it. It is based on an absolute space assumption (non relative motion) and a
variable speed of light, that is measured incorrectly due to distortions of length.

JE:- All you did was refute your view that an absolute assumption need not exist. You simply
replaced one absolute assumption with another!

Quoted message said:

snip nonsense<

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- We do not know and cannot know if a known absolute exists but we must assume an absolute
ASSUMPTION

Quoted message said:

KA:- No. We only have to pretend.

Quoted message said:

JE:- An assumption is just a PRETENCE?

KA:- Yes. Of course. You are obviously clueless on simple physics.

JE:- Do you also have to pretend that you were only pretending (!) or do you, SOMEWHERE, have to say
something ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE to avoid entering the black hole of Epimenides paradox?

Quoted message said:

JE:- I suggest you have a negative personality disorder.

KA:- This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

JE:- Really? You don't think your warped perspective for the negative may be creating a bias against
POSITIVE absolute assumptions?

Quoted message said:

JE:- You have to employ at least one absolute assumption.

KA:- You have to make an assumption as a starting point. Something, for the sake of argument that
you take to be true in a relative sense.

JE:- NO, that you take to be true in an ABSOLUTE sense, where this is an ABOLUTE ASSUMPTION and NOT
A KNOWN ABSOLUTE.

KA:- It is not assumed in science that such an assumption is absolutely true.

JE:- Science simply demands it be testable. Only politics within science cares what it actually
means! For science all testable absolute assumptions are equal. They all must be tested without
bias. You can like one more than another, testing the ones you don't like before any others to try
to refute them, but you cannot allow any bias while testing and you cannot evade testing the ideas
you like to refutation.

KA:- It is just a model.

JE:- No. A theory is NOT A MODEL. A model is just a valid simplification of a theory. Models are
created to help test the theory they were simplified from.

KA:- That is, all else is derived from that assumption.

JE:- As I said, an absolute assumption is only testable via the _finite_ set of deductions
it allows.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

JE:- This can be just imagined or be an observed maximum/constant found within nature. After you
have done this you attach variables to it. The way the variables are attached alters the theory
structure. When you have achieved a theory structure that is not contradictory then valid
deductions become possible from that theory. These deductions allow you to test the proposition
against nature.

KA:- But it doesn't show that the assumptions were absolutely true. Descriptions of the universe are
non unique.

JE:- Nobody in science knows (or cares) if absolute assumptions are true or not, that is the point!
All they care about is: are they testable? If the abolute assumptions that are the keystone of any
theory are actually different and not just semantically different, then each theory will have a
unique set of deductions. This means that certain verifications will be unique to each theory. These
unique verifications are much more important than any common verifications that may exist between
them because they separate each theory. However points of refutation must exist for each theory, as
well. This means no anti-thesis deductions are allowed to be observed within nature. If they are,
the theory they are an anti thesis of, stands refuted. OK?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE :- (a guess) to make ANY view testable. OK?

Quoted message said:

KA:- No, we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make assumptions. Period.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Mad Hatter nonsense.

KA:- Personal insults make for a poor argument.

JE:- No, they "make for a poor argument" if they are not accompanied by any valid argument. This was
NOT the case here. Such rhetoric can accompany an argument for emotional emphasis, especially within
less formal discussion, like sbe.

Quoted message said:

KA:- Assumptions can be absolute

Quoted message said:

selection exists within a model is an absolute assumption because it is the total deletion

KA:- Not at all. Its an assumption for that particular model, different models, predicting the same
results might use different assumptions.

JE:- The point under discussion was: "we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make
assumptions. Period." The fact that different models make different types of assumption i.e.
relative and absolute, refutes your proposition it does not verify it. ASSUMPTIONS ARE EITHER
ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE. If you disagree provide any view of science that does not have both an
absolute and relative assumption.

JE:-

Quoted message said:

The assumption that

Quoted message said:

selection where natural selection determines

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:-
________________________________________________________
You have contradicted yourself, ABSOLUTELY, above.

KA:- Wow...aren't you clever.

JE:- wow...aren't you stupid.

KA:- Personal insults make for a poor argument.

JE:- Yes, but you insulted me. firstly. Note that a zero argument is even worse than just an
empty insult...

Quoted message said:

JE:- (you asked for it so you got it)

KA:- So you consider losing technical arguments are a justification to hurl personal insults as a
last resort?

JE:- You lost the argument. Period. You refused to amend your self contradictory view that "nothing
is absolute", to "no positive absolute exists". You have to do this because "nothing is absolute" IS
an absolute negative assumption. Got it?

Quoted message said:

KA:- Look, I'm not concerned with one off technicalities. I am referring the basics of *real*
science. Science never claims absolutes.

Quoted message said:

JE:- "Technicalities"? So you condone witch burning because of the fact that the absolute
assumption of what a witch was supposed to be could not be tested where this deficiency is just a
"technicality?".

KA:- Not relevant in the slightest. This has nothing to do with *science*,
e.g. Physics.

JE:- Only physics is SCIENCE? What nonsane. Why do you bother to subscribe to sbe?

KA:- This is about ignorant peasants with no idea of the *scientific method*, ..

JE:- You have been shown to be one of them.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

KA:- Perhaps it would suddenly become a non technicality if you were the accused witch....

KA:- I am not discussing the views of peasants, I am discussing the views of modern science.

JE:- This means "I refuse to discuss any view that refutes my position".

Quoted message said:

KA:- Is it also just a "technicality" that Epimenides paradox is an absolute self contradiction?

KA:- This has nothing to do with real science. Its simply a conversation maker for those who are
unable to do real science.

JE:- Dear or dear... So, "real science" allows an absolute self contradiction?

Quoted message said:

snip<

Quoted message said:

JE:- "Reality"? Your version of reality is absolute

Quoted message said:

snip<

KA:-

Quoted message said:

snip<

James Burke writes, in the 1985 PBS series, The Day The Universe Changed [p 337] "The search for the
truth, the 'discovery of nature's secrets,’ as Descartes put it, is an idiosyncratic search for
temporary truth. One truth is replaced by another.

Quoted message said:

snip<

JE:- Yes, one absolute assumption is replaced by another after a testable view is refuted. If you
cannot refute the view then truth in science cannot evolve in this way.

Quoted message said:

KA:- AND NOT MINE since it is absolutely _anything_ that you say it is because it does not have to
be testable. Do you know what Epimenides paradox is? Do you know what a travesty of intellectual
thought any absolute self contradiction is??

KA:_ You are not discussing science. You are pissing about with words in an effort to obscure your
lack of knowledge on the core subject matter, that is about Science.

JE:- Yes for you, epistemology is only "pissing about with words"..

In case you are not aware of it this is NOT just a discussion about A SCIENCE it is a discussion
that concerns the epistemology of ANY science. You appear to know nothing, or have zero respect for,
the epistemology of science. You are not alone here, so don't feel bad about it ;-)

_________________________________________
This discussion with KA is a waste of time because KA does not know anything, and does not care to
learn anything, about the epistemology of science, THE SUBJECT OF THIS DISCUSSION.
_________________________________________

Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Hint: Special relativity pointed the way to the way the rest of the universe worked.

Quoted message said:

JE:- So the speed of light is not absolutely maximised at c, so WE CAN go faster than c?

KA:- Not at issue. It is an assumption of a model that makes correct predictions. It is also
possible to dispense with this assumption, in addition to the assumption of relative motion and
produce a theory that also makes correct predictions. This theory is named the Lorentz Ether
Theory (LET). It is mathematically identical to Special Relativity, and can not be experimentally
distinguished from it. It is based on an absolute space assumption (non relative motion) and a
variable speed of light, that is measured incorrectly due to distortions of length.

JE:- All you did was refute your view that an absolute assumption need not exist. You simply
replaced one absolute assumption with another!

Nonsense. I replaced one assumption with another assumption. End of story.

What part of "absolute is absolute, that which cant be changed" do you have trouble with?

This is getting pretty tiresome.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- I suggest you have a negative personality disorder.

KA:- This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

JE:- Really? You don't think your warped perspective for the negative may be creating a bias
against POSITIVE absolute assumptions?

Meaningless gibberish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- You have to employ at least one absolute assumption.

KA:- You have to make an assumption as a starting point. Something, for the sake of argument that
you take to be true in a relative sense.

JE:- NO, that you take to be true in an ABSOLUTE sense,

Nope. Again, you are clueless. That is simply not what is done.

Mathematicians and physicists continually arbitrarily change assumptions and see what they come up
with. If assumptions were absolute, one could not do this, by definition.

Quoted message said:

where this is an ABOLUTE ASSUMPTION and NOT A KNOWN ABSOLUTE.

Your simply pissing in the wind.

Quoted message said:

KA:- It is just a model.

JE:- No. A theory is NOT A MODEL. A model is just a valid simplification of a theory.

Again, you are clueless. A model is not a "simplification of a theory" as this implies that the
theory came first. It doesn't. Theories are developed from models.

Quoted message said:

Models are created to help test the theory they were simplified from.

Complete and utter nonsense. This is pretty pointless. Its so clear that you have no idea at all how
science works. You don't even know the basics.

I have explained what the process is. Typically experimental results suggest some global principles.
Ones suggested, these global principles form the basis or assumptions of a theory. Results are than
derived from those assumptions. The definitions, assumptions and results are all declared to be
under the term "theory". Theories don't exist without the definitions and the assumptions that they
depend on. This is all so simple and trivial. Why you are unable to grasp this is pretty incredible.

You have some major shortcomings in your understanding, you would be well to take advice from
someone who clearly knows what the real deal is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- This can be just imagined or be an observed maximum/constant found within nature. After you
have done this you attach variables to it. The way the variables are attached alters the theory
structure. When you have achieved a theory structure that is not contradictory then valid
deductions become possible from that theory. These deductions allow you to test the proposition
against nature.

KA:- But it doesn't show that the assumptions were absolutely true. Descriptions of the universe
are non unique.

JE:- Nobody in science knows (or cares) if absolute assumptions are true or not, that is
the point!

Then they are not a absolute assumptions, they are just assumptions. Again, an absolute assumption
is an oxymoron. It makes no logical sense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE :- (a guess) to make ANY view testable. OK?

Quoted message said:

KA:- No, we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make assumptions. Period.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Mad Hatter nonsense.

KA:- Personal insults make for a poor argument.

JE:- No, they "make for a poor argument" if they are not accompanied by any valid argument. This
was NOT the case here. Such rhetoric can accompany an argument for emotional emphasis, especially
within less formal discussion, like sbe.

Yeah. Right on dude...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Assumptions can be absolute

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

selection exists within a model is an absolute assumption because it is the total deletion

Quoted message said:

KA:- Not at all. Its an assumption for that particular model, different models, predicting the
same results might use different assumptions.

JE:- The point under discussion was: "we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make
assumptions. Period." The fact that different models make different types of assumption i.e.
relative and absolute, refutes your proposition it does not verify it.

Nothing was refuted in the slightest. You simply used the word "absolute" appended to "assumption".
I gave clear examples were assumptions can be changed (SR/LET) without effecting the results of a
physical theory. If assumptions were absolute, they couldn't be changed. This is elementary logic.

Quoted message said:

ASSUMPTIONS ARE EITHER ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE. If you disagree provide any view of science that does
not have both an absolute and relative assumption.

I did. I made many. No assumption is science is considered absolute. Try asking a real
scientist sometime.

Quoted message said:

KA:- So you consider losing technical arguments are a justification to hurl personal insults as a
last resort?

JE:- You lost the argument. Period.

ROTFLMAO

Quoted message said:

You refused to amend your self contradictory view that "nothing is absolute", to "no positive
absolute exists".

You have demonstrated no realistic assumption of science that is absolute.

You have to

Quoted message said:

do this because "nothing is absolute" IS an absolute negative assumption. Got it?

We are discussing the real world, not bedroom philosophy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Look, I'm not concerned with one off technicalities. I am referring the basics of *real*
science. Science never claims absolutes.

Quoted message said:

JE:- "Technicalities"? So you condone witch burning because of the fact that the absolute
assumption of what a witch was supposed to be could not be tested where this deficiency is just a
"technicality?".

KA:- Not relevant in the slightest. This has nothing to do with *science*,
e.g. Physics.

JE:- Only physics is SCIENCE? What nonsane. Why do you bother to subscribe to sbe?

Again, you demonstrate your complete lack of logical deduction abilities and/or simple English.

"e.g." means "for example". It points to *one* example, while specifically *including* the notion
that there are *other* examples not specifically referred to.

Further discussion with such an ignorant individual is quite pointless.

Plonk!

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Hint: Special relativity pointed the way to the way the rest of the universe worked.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- So the speed of light is not absolutely maximised at c, so WE CAN go faster than c?

Quoted message said:

KA:- Not at issue. It is an assumption of a model that makes correct predictions. It is also
possible to dispense with this assumption, in addition to the assumption of relative motion and
produce a theory that also makes correct predictions. This theory is named the Lorentz Ether
Theory (LET). It is mathematically identical to Special Relativity, and can not be experimentally
distinguished from it. It is based on an absolute space assumption (non relative motion) and a
variable speed of light, that is measured incorrectly due to distortions of length.

Quoted message said:

JE:- All you did was refute your view that an absolute assumption need not exist. You simply
replaced one absolute assumption with another!

KA:- Nonsense. I replaced one assumption with another assumption. End of story.

JE:- Then you DIDN'T write: "It is based on an ABOLUTE [my capitals] space assumption (non relative
motion)" which replaced c as absolutely, the fastest speed of light, possible...

It is utterly pointless continuing discussion because KA simply denies what he writes, after he has
written it, when it suits him to do so, i.e. KA is behaving like an intellectual thug.

Quoted message said:

snip<

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO BOX 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

What part of "absolute is absolute, that which cant be changed" do you have trouble with?

This is getting pretty tiresome.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- I suggest you have a negative personality disorder.

KA:- This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

JE:- Really? You don't think your warped perspective for the negative may be creating a bias
against POSITIVE absolute assumptions?

Meaningless gibberish.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- You have to employ at least one absolute assumption.

KA:- You have to make an assumption as a starting point. Something, for the sake of argument that
you take to be true in a relative sense.

JE:- NO, that you take to be true in an ABSOLUTE sense,

Nope. Again, you are clueless. That is simply not what is done.

Mathematicians and physicists continually arbitrarily change assumptions and see what they come up
with. If assumptions were absolute, one could not do this, by definition.

Quoted message said:

where this is an ABOLUTE ASSUMPTION and NOT A KNOWN ABSOLUTE.

Your simply pissing in the wind.

Quoted message said:

KA:- It is just a model.

JE:- No. A theory is NOT A MODEL. A model is just a valid simplification of a theory.

Again, you are clueless. A model is not a "simplification of a theory" as this implies that the
theory came first. It doesn't. Theories are developed from models.

Quoted message said:

Models are created to help test the theory they were simplified from.

Complete and utter nonsense. This is pretty pointless. Its so clear that you have no idea at all how
science works. You don't even know the basics.

I have explained what the process is. Typically experimental results suggest some global principles.
Ones suggested, these global principles form the basis or assumptions of a theory. Results are than
derived from those assumptions. The definitions, assumptions and results are all declared to be
under the term "theory". Theories don't exist without the definitions and the assumptions that they
depend on. This is all so simple and trivial. Why you are unable to grasp this is pretty incredible.

You have some major shortcomings in your understanding, you would be well to take advice from
someone who clearly knows what the real deal is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- This can be just imagined or be an observed maximum/constant found within nature. After you
have done this you attach variables to it. The way the variables are attached alters the theory
structure. When you have achieved a theory structure that is not contradictory then valid
deductions become possible from that theory. These deductions allow you to test the proposition
against nature.

KA:- But it doesn't show that the assumptions were absolutely true. Descriptions of the universe
are non unique.

JE:- Nobody in science knows (or cares) if absolute assumptions are true or not, that is
the point!

Then they are not a absolute assumptions, they are just assumptions. Again, an absolute assumption
is an oxymoron. It makes no logical sense.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE :- (a guess) to make ANY view testable. OK?

Quoted message said:

KA:- No, we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make assumptions. Period.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Mad Hatter nonsense.

KA:- Personal insults make for a poor argument.

JE:- No, they "make for a poor argument" if they are not accompanied by any valid argument. This
was NOT the case here. Such rhetoric can accompany an argument for emotional emphasis, especially
within less formal discussion, like sbe.

Yeah. Right on dude...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Assumptions can be absolute

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

selection exists within a model is an absolute assumption because it is the total deletion

Quoted message said:

KA:- Not at all. Its an assumption for that particular model, different models, predicting the
same results might use different assumptions.

JE:- The point under discussion was: "we don't make absolute assumptions in science. We make
assumptions. Period." The fact that different models make different types of assumption i.e.
relative and absolute, refutes your proposition it does not verify it.

Nothing was refuted in the slightest. You simply used the word "absolute" appended to "assumption".
I gave clear examples were assumptions can be changed (SR/LET) without effecting the results of a
physical theory. If assumptions were absolute, they couldn't be changed. This is elementary logic.

Quoted message said:

ASSUMPTIONS ARE EITHER ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE. If you disagree provide any view of science that does
not have both an absolute and relative assumption.

I did. I made many. No assumption is science is considered absolute. Try asking a real
scientist sometime.

Quoted message said:

KA:- So you consider losing technical arguments are a justification to hurl personal insults as a
last resort?

JE:- You lost the argument. Period.

ROTFLMAO

Quoted message said:

You refused to amend your self contradictory view that "nothing is absolute", to "no positive
absolute exists".

You have demonstrated no realistic assumption of science that is absolute.

You have to

Quoted message said:

do this because "nothing is absolute" IS an absolute negative assumption. Got it?

We are discussing the real world, not bedroom philosophy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Look, I'm not concerned with one off technicalities. I am referring the basics of *real*
science. Science never claims absolutes.

Quoted message said:

JE:- "Technicalities"? So you condone witch burning because of the fact that the absolute
assumption of what a witch was supposed to be could not be tested where this deficiency is just a
"technicality?".

KA:- Not relevant in the slightest. This has nothing to do with *science*,
e.g. Physics.

JE:- Only physics is SCIENCE? What nonsane. Why do you bother to subscribe to sbe?

Again, you demonstrate your complete lack of logical deduction abilities and/or simple English.

"e.g." means "for example". It points to *one* example, while specifically *including* the notion
that there are *other* examples not specifically referred to.

Further discussion with such an ignorant individual is quite pointless.

Plonk!

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Hint: Special relativity pointed the way to the way the rest of the universe worked.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- So the speed of light is not absolutely maximised at c, so WE CAN go faster than c?

Quoted message said:

KA:- Not at issue. It is an assumption of a model that makes correct predictions. It is also
possible to dispense with this assumption, in addition to the assumption of relative motion and
produce a theory that also makes correct predictions. This theory is named the Lorentz Ether
Theory (LET). It is mathematically identical to Special Relativity, and can not be experimentally
distinguished from it. It is based on an absolute space assumption (non relative motion) and a
variable speed of light, that is measured incorrectly due to distortions of length.

Quoted message said:

JE:- All you did was refute your view that an absolute assumption need not exist. You simply
replaced one absolute assumption with another!

KA:- Nonsense. I replaced one assumption with another assumption. End of story.

JE:- Then you DIDN'T write: "It is based on an ABOLUTE [my capitals] space assumption (non
relative motion)" which replaced c as absolutely, the fastest speed of light, possible...

It is utterly pointless continuing discussion because KA simply denies what he writes, after he
has written it, when it suits him to do so, i.e. KA is behaving like an intellectual thug.

ROTHLMAO. Again, you are simply clueless.

Its pointless because you do not understand simple English and basic physics.

The statement "It is based on an absolute space assumption" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with the *other* use of the word "absolute" being debated in this discussion.

This particular postulate just happens to have the word "absolute" in it, in the *physics* sense of
there being postulated an 'absolute' space. That is, a space that is a fixed, immovable reference
frame to which all laws of physics must be referred. It is not taken to be an "an ABOLUTE absolute
space", or rephrased, it is not "an ABOLUTE fixed reference frame", where the second 'absolute' has
been replaced with an equivalent physics term 'reference frame'.

The point of discussion of the word "ABOLUTE" here is the notion that science makes declarations
that is absolutely believed and accepted, that certain assumptions are the true truth. This is a
different use of the word absolute from that noted above, and is decidedly false. As I noted,

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
determined by the external world." - Einstein

That is, science never claims absolute assumptions.

It is simply unfortunate that two uses of the word arose in this discussion, the confusion clearly
being due to your lack of basic physics knowledge as to standard terminology.

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> KA:- There are no absolute assumptions in science.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Hint: Special relativity pointed the way to the way the rest of the universe worked.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- So the speed of light is not absolutely maximised at c, so WE CAN go faster than c?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

KA:- Not at issue. It is an assumption of a model that makes correct predictions. It is also
possible to dispense with this assumption, in addition to the assumption of relative motion and
produce a theory that also makes correct predictions. This theory is named the Lorentz Ether
Theory (LET). It is mathematically identical to Special Relativity, and can not be experimentally
distinguished from it. It is based on an absolute space assumption (non relative motion) and a
variable speed of light, that is measured incorrectly due to distortions of length.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- All you did was refute your view that an absolute assumption need not exist. You simply
replaced one absolute assumption with another!

Quoted message said:

KA:- Nonsense. I replaced one assumption with another assumption. End of story.

Quoted message said:

JE:- Then you DIDN'T write: "It is based on an ABOLUTE [my capitals] space assumption (non
relative motion)" which replaced c as absolutely, the fastest speed of light, possible... It is
utterly pointless continuing discussion because KA simply denies what he writes, after he has
written it, when it suits him to do so, i.e. KA is behaving like an intellectual thug.

KA:- The statement "It is based on an absolute space assumption" has absolutely nothing whatsoever
to do with the *other* use of the word "absolute" being debated in this discussion.

JE:- What on earth do you think you are babbling on about? If "an absolute space assumption" is NOT
an absolute space assumption"(!@#) then it can only be "a relative space assumption". IF it is
NEITHER "a relative space assumption" OR an "an absolute space assumption" then it is just an
absolute self contradiction, i.e. it MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL.

KA:- This particular postulate just happens to have the word "absolute" in it, in the *physics*
sense of there being postulated an 'absolute' space. That is, a space that is a fixed, immovable
reference frame to which all laws of physics must be referred. It is not taken to be an "an ABOLUTE
absolute space", or rephrased, it is not "an ABOLUTE fixed reference frame", where the second
'absolute' has been replaced with an equivalent physics term 'reference frame'.

JE:- "It is not taken to be an "an ABOLUTE absolute space.."

Dear oh dear, how does an "absolute absolute" differ to an "absolute, absolute absolute"?!? It does
not matter how many "absolutes" you string together it remains an "absolute" this is why people with
normal intelligence just employ the word "absolute", ONCE. If it is absolute then IT IS ABSOLUTE, no
exceptions.

Any "space that is a fixed, immovable reference frame to which all laws of physics must be referred"
IS AN ABOLUTE ASSUMPTION OF A FIXED SPACE You can ASSUME the above OR a maximum speed for the speed
of light; that is all. Both are absolute ASSUMPTIONS which are self exclusive. I will let you into
an epistemological secret: all absolute assumptions that are different, are self exclusive.

KA:- The point of discussion of the word "ABOLUTE" here is the notion that science makes
declarations that is absolutely believed and accepted, that certain assumptions are the true truth.

Quoted message said:

snip<

JE:- The words above simply illustrate the critical difference between absolutes and assumed
absolutes.

_________________________________________________
KA refuses to admit that any difference exists between "absolutes" and "assumed absolutes" and then
entirely contradicts himself by assuming this difference in order to make his argument that no
difference exists! Such an "argument" is not just nonsense it is an absolute self contradiction.
Once again KA is mugging the process of a rational discourse using Epimenides Paradox to construct
an argument. He should apologise to sbe reader's for insulting their intelligence and correct this
gross error.

__________________________________________________

Best Wishes,

John Edser Independent Researcher

PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2105 Australia

[email hidden]

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> KA:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Then you DIDN'T write: "It is based on an ABOLUTE [my capitals] space assumption (non
relative motion)" which replaced c as absolutely, the fastest speed of light, possible... It is
utterly pointless continuing discussion because KA simply denies what he writes, after he has
written it, when it suits him to do so, i.e. KA is behaving like an intellectual thug.

KA:- The statement "It is based on an absolute space assumption" has absolutely nothing whatsoever
to do with the *other* use of the word "absolute" being debated in this discussion.

JE:- What on earth do you think you are babbling on about? If "an absolute space assumption" is
NOT an absolute space assumption"(!@#) then it can only be "a relative space assumption".

Look, nitwit. I told you below that the word 'absolute' is being used to describe a 'fixed reference
frame', not an 'absolute' notion. Its obviously too subtle a point for you to grasp.

Quoted message said:

KA:- This particular postulate just happens to have the word "absolute" in it, in the *physics*
sense of there being postulated an 'absolute' space. That is, a space that is a fixed, immovable
reference frame to which all laws of physics must be referred. It is not taken to be an "an
ABOLUTE absolute space", or rephrased, it is not "an ABOLUTE fixed reference frame", where the
second 'absolute' has been replaced with an equivalent physics term 'reference frame'.

JE:- "It is not taken to be an "an ABOLUTE absolute space.."

Dear oh dear, how does an "absolute absolute" differ to an "absolute, absolute absolute"?!? It
does not matter how many "absolutes" you string together it remains an "absolute" this is why
people with normal intelligence just employ the word "absolute", ONCE. If it is absolute then IT
IS ABSOLUTE, no exceptions.

Read my lips sonny boy. The use of the phrase 'absolute reference frame' means 'a fixed reference
frame to which all must be referred'. 'absolute' is being used in a *different* context. I am not
debating this point anymore. Go and learn some English.

Quoted message said:

KA:- The point of discussion of the word "ABOLUTE" here is the notion that science makes
declarations that is absolutely believed and accepted, that certain assumptions are the
true truth.

Quoted message said:

snip<

JE:- The words above simply illustrate the critical difference between absolutes and assumed
absolutes.

_________________________________________________
KA refuses to admit that any difference exists between "absolutes" and "assumed absolutes"

Oh...So, *now* you introduce 'assumed absolutes', claiming that that is what you were meaning this
all alone. That is, you are now claiming that there are 'assumed absolute assumptions'. Right on
dude. Some spin doctor you are.

Yes indeed, and that is what I claimed all along. We pretend that some statement is true (an
assumption) irrespective of whether it is really true. That is, there are no absolute assumptions.
'assumed absolute assumptions' is simply replaced with 'assumptions'.

Your a right bloody joke mate.

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Then you DIDN'T write: "It is based on an ABOLUTE [my capitals] space assumption (non
relative motion)" which replaced c as absolutely, the fastest speed of light, possible... It is
utterly pointless continuing discussion because KA simply denies what he writes, after he has
written it, when it suits him to do so, i.e. KA is behaving like an intellectual thug.

Quoted message said:

KA:- The statement "It is based on an absolute space assumption" has absolutely nothing whatsoever
to do with the *other* use of the word "absolute" being debated in this discussion.

Quoted message said:

JE:- What on earth do you think you are babbling on about? If "an absolute space assumption" is
NOT an absolute space assumption"(!@#) then it can only be "a relative space assumption".

KA:- Look, nitwit. I told you below that the word 'absolute' is being used to describe a 'fixed
reference frame', not an 'absolute' notion. Its obviously too subtle a point for you to grasp.

JE:- A "fixed reference frame" is "an absolute notion" you idiot BECAUSE IT WAS FIXED. The only
question that remains here is: was it just an absolute assumption or a known absolute.

KA is desperate to deny that if an absolute has to be an "absolute absolute" (dear of dear..) just
to remain absolute, then a single "absolute" is only a RELATIVE assumption. KA wants his assumption
of a "fixed reference frame" to be NEITHER an "absolute" or a "relative" assumption because within
his epistemology, only "assumptions" exist, i.e. no distinction exists within KA's epistemology
between a relative or absolute assumption! Thus he is forced to invent his absurd notion of an
"absolute absolute" to mean "absolute" and "absolute" to mean relative OR an absolute, assumption!

Welcome to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. At last the white rabbit seems to be enjoying himself, he is
in good company... at last....

Quoted message said:

snip garbage<

Kindest Regards,

John Edser Independent Researcher PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW 2104

[email hidden]

John Edser said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JE:- Then you DIDN'T write: "It is based on an ABOLUTE [my capitals] space assumption (non
relative motion)" which replaced c as absolutely, the fastest speed of light, possible... It is
utterly pointless continuing discussion because KA simply denies what he writes, after he has
written it, when it suits him to do so, i.e. KA is behaving like an intellectual thug.

Quoted message said:

KA:- The statement "It is based on an absolute space assumption" has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with the *other* use of the word "absolute" being debated in this discussion.

Quoted message said:

JE:- What on earth do you think you are babbling on about? If "an absolute space assumption" is
NOT an absolute space assumption"(!@#) then it can only be "a relative space assumption".

KA:- Look, nitwit. I told you below that the word 'absolute' is being used to describe a 'fixed
reference frame', not an 'absolute' notion. Its obviously too subtle a point for you to grasp.

JE:- A "fixed reference frame" is "an absolute notion" you idiot BECAUSE IT WAS FIXED. The only
question that remains here is: was it just an absolute assumption or a known absolute.

Simple clueless again. As I said, its way too subtle for you to grasp.

Why can't you understand simple English. The word 'absolute' in 'absolute space' does not refer
to the notion that the 'absolute space' is an absolute *truth* to the universe, although I agree
that when it was *first* proposed, naive scientists did hold that view. Modern science no longer
says this, even if SR was were wrong. Modern science has no concept of absolute truth whasoever.
For example:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely
determined by the external world." - Einstein

Or see:

home.earthlink.netpagandef.htmOpen ↗ James Burke writes, in the 1985 PBS
series, The Day The Universe Changed [p 337]

"The search for the truth, the 'discovery of nature's secrets,’ as Descartes put it, is an
idiosyncratic search for temporary truth. One truth is replaced by another. The knowledge acquired
through the use of any structure is selective. There are no standards or beliefs guiding the search
for knowledge which are not dependent on the structure. Discovery is invention. Knowledge is man-
made. If this is so, then all views at all times are equally valid. There is no metaphysical, super-
ordinary, final, absolute reality. There is no special direction to events. The universe is what we
say it is. When theories change the universe changes. The truth is relative."

Kevin:

Science simply makes up arbitrary models, with arbitrary assumptions and sees if they predict the
results of experiments. That is why there are no absolute assumptions.

Best Regards,

Kevin Aylward

anasoft.co.ukanasoft.co.ukOpen ↗ SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic
Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most"
anasoft.co.ukindex.htmlOpen ↗

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.