Solar wrote:I define "classical physics" as 'physics resulting from and/or leading to the full fruition of "the scientific process" i.e the systematic use of controlled experiments to "prove" and/or "disprove" a hypothesis'.
Your question is most salient and an issue that has been repeatedly put forth by Thornhill and Talbott in terms of getting back to basic science stemming from lab work. That point, in relation to results from the labs of Plasma Science - and I'll gladly generalize here - is; and should be, one of the most prominant factors cited with regard to 'How' the Electric Universe hypothesis developed. The supporting history of work from individuals like Anthony Peratt, Ralph Jergens, Hannes Alfven, Charles Bruce, Bostick, Birkeland etc speak to a 'divide' that has occured between the 'theoretical' aspect of science and the vetting of the scientific process.
It is the integrity of the 'scientific process' itself that has betrayed. In this regard it is analgolous to doctors who all but ignore the Hypocratic Oath resulting in a cadre of highly intelligent people blind-sided into 'pseudo-intellectualism'. The psychosis being clearly evident, in my opinion, when watching ANY History/ Discovery Channel program dealing with astrophysics and cosmology. The number of scientist in lock-step with the "dominant gravitation only paradygm" turns any 'new' such televised expose' into a mere reitteration of former versions. They become merely a showcase for advancements in graphical presentation.
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... t=15#p5162
Thank you Solar, for clearing that up for me. The dealing with experiments is what I like very much about Thunderbolts et al.
The idea and fact maybe of an experiment falsifying part or whole of a model seems to me of some great importance.
[quote="Solar/Alfven""]Many of these scientist had never visited a laboratory or looked through a telescope, and even if tehy had, it was below their dignity to get their hand dirty. They accepted Plato's advice to "concentrate on the theoretical side of their subject and not spend endless trouble over physical measurements". They looked down on observers and experimental physicists whose only job was to confirm their high-brow conclusions. Those who were not able to confirm them were thought to be imcompetent. Observing astronomers came under heavy preassure from prestigious theoreticians.
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... t=15#p5162
[/quote]
I find this an intriguing qoute you give here. Does anyone know where exactly Plato made such advise?
What I find difficult is in what way the conclusion from Quantum Mechanics about the observer/observation influencing the experiment is related to this. Does anyone know more about that?
Also I found the book of Pico della Mirandola, "On Being and the One", quite interesting. He states, and I quote shortly from the proem dedicated to Angelo Polizanio :"And since those who think that Aristotle disagrees with Plato disagree with me, who make a concordant philosophy of both, you asked both how Aristotle might be defended in this matter and also how he might agree with his master, Plato.
....
Although I am to write at greater lenght on these topics in the Concord of Plato and Aristotle, which I am now bringing forth, you entreated me to collect in a brief compendium what I said about this question in your presence."
Could it be that the whole disagreement is a matter of prickles and goo, as stated by Alan Watts in the Matter/Waves-thread?