On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 3:02:27 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Oct 2018, at 17:41, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 3:20:23 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> *> the concept of a plane wave, one of the solutions of Maxwell's >>> equations. It certainly doesn't exist in THIS universe* >> >> >> I agree with the general point you're trying to make, just because >> something can be consistently described mathematically doesn't prove it >> must exist physically. However if you're interested in the waves that enter >> your radio telescope and consider them to be plane waves the error in doing >> so can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the distance from the point >> source or by decreasing the size of the antenna. As a practical matter >> because the things astronomers study are so distant and their antennas are >> so small they can treat the waves they're interested in as plane waves and >> produce no measurable error by doing so. But a designer of optical >> microscopes would not have that luxury because the lens of a microscope is >> large compared to the distance from the sample, so he could not treat them >> as plane waves. >> >> John K Clark >> > > *A spherical wave asymptotically approaches a plane wave as it progresses > in space and time, but it never becomes a plane wave. This where the rubber > hits the road for the MUH; we have a mathematical construct that doesn't > exist in physical reality. * > > > > Assuming there is a physical reality. Personally I assume only one Turing > universal machinery. I use it to define all the others, and to study the > map of their interfering sharable dreams, hopefully with measure one ([]p & > <>t). > > Assuming a physical reality, by default, is not a big deal when doing > physics, but is a very strong assumption when doing metaphysics or > theology. It is a strong ontological commitment, and it is inconsistent > with the mechanist assumption in the cognitive science. > > Doing “theology” with the scientific attitude consist in making clear the > minimal ontological assumption, and building from there. Not coming up with > a “solution” and imposing it like a dogma. > > > > > > *Moreover, since the amplitude along the wave front is a plane, the wave > changes instantaneously in every direction along the plane for every > increment of time however small, which I refer to as "instantaneous with a > vengeance". So, as far as I am concerned the MUH is easily falsified, and > why it continues to interest people is baffling. AG* > > > It seems to me that you are the one coming up with extraordinary > assumptions, and tar like if we have succeeded to solve baffling problem > with our best theories (marrying GR and QM), the mind-body problem, etc. >
*I have no idea what you're referring to. I simply stated the properties of a plane wave. Check for yourself. AG* > > Bruno > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
