EPH Opposition Backed by What?

The only problem with gravitational force (as opposed to gravitational potential) being associated with EM is that EM phenomena are known to propagate at the speed of light.

If you use that propagation speed to calculate orbits, the predicted future locations do not work. The object is observed to be somewhere else on the date/time in question.

LB

Still it matters not what theory you prefer-none of them are real thing. Things are so polarized in science it seems nothing can be accomplished at this moment in time. Maybe next century will be better.

You are correct Jim - theories (models, ideas, guesses, etc.) are not the real world, nor are they the same as the real world.

But they are not intended to be. (I imagine that some experts will argue this point. Yawn.)

They are deliberate simplifications of a thing (the real world) that is much too large and complicated to talk about all at once. So we break off a small piece and start making guesses about how that smaller piece works.

We even have some theories that say if you do that for all the small pieces of the real world, and then put all the models together you will have a complete model of the real world. I'm not entirely convinced, but it is a neat idea.

***

Almost every theory we have ever had has been improved upon by a new version at one time or another. Most have also been completely replaced by a new theory at one time or another.

And that process will continue for a long time. Usually the new version or new theory is an improvement over its predecessor. I see two possible end games.

It will end if we become extinct.

It will end if we become God. Hmm, am I being redundant?

LB, Yes, redundant is an apt word. Believe as you wish. I only object to the dogma because to twists the real observed events into whatever the dogma requires no matter who's dogma is worshiped. Calling dogma "science" doesn't make it better.

We aren't God so we don't know everything. The parts of the Everything that we do know, we know imperfectly. The only reason we know even this much is because we observe, collect data about our observations, and think about that data. To help us think we sometimes rearrange the data and look at it from many different directions.

Sometimes we make rules for arranging the data in certain ways. Some of us prefer this set of rules, some that set. And we often use the word theory to mean a certain set of rules.

Sometimes a theory is thought to be so good at describing some part of the Everything that a lot of us go overboard and forget that the 'map is not the territory'. That theory then often becomes dogma.

But this is not a problem with the theory.

It is a problem with the theorizers.

***

So it does, or at least it can, matter what theory you prefer. If you choose to reject all theories including the ones not currently Dogmatized by a certain group, then you limit your ability to think about what is really going on.

it is possible to contemplate several theories, several sets of rules for arranging the data, side by side and use them as a group to think about stuff rather than try to decide which one is "right".

It is also possible to prefer one or more theories over all others, without picking any one of them as the best. I prefer Newton's rules over Einstein's when I'm thinking about gravitational force fields. But I prefer Einstein when I'm thinking about gravitational potential fields. And when I'm thinking about speed-of-propagation issues I switch to Le Sage's rules as modified by DRP.

(Your mileage may vary.)

None of these models is 'the real thing'. In fact, it is very likely that none of them are even "right". But the rules they give us make it possible to generate numeric predictions of how some part of the Everything will change under certain circumstances. And when we compare the predictions of some of them with the observed data, the difference is close to zero. That seems pretty cool to me.

These theories may not be "right", but they are obviously useful.

***

Like you I wish that certain groups of explorers would not Dogmatize certain theories. But they do. I grumble a bit (or a lot, when I feel that way) but for the most part I ignore them and go about the business of trying to understand as much of the Everything as I can. And sometimes that means I even make use of one of the Dogmatized theories because it happens to work well for the problem I'm looking at.

I'm also intrigued by your theory ("gravitational force is not related to anything that we can know"). It seems to offer no possibility for explanation or prediction or even description. If you are serious about this, I guess I can begin to understand why you are as frustrated as you are.

LB

Well said, LB; very elegant - should be part of a philosophy text book IMHO.