[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
Physics is physics; if the math that makes
transistors work makes space seethe with energy of
the vacuum, then transistors operating as they do is
evidence that space seethes.

It is no evidence at all. Quantities of apples and oranges obey similar
the same arithmentic relations. Is that evidence that apples are
oranges?

The two subjects are
not in the least divorced.

Similar mathematics does not imply similar physical structure.

Much of what we know about
astronomy was discovered here on earth in the realm
of condensed matter.

There is every reason to think that the stuff of stellar matter is the
same as the stuff of earth matter. That is quite a different thing.

[Mod. note: you appear to be under the impression that I'm talking
about what is physics and what isn't: I'm actually talking about the
charter of this newsgroup, which requires clear relevance to the
sub-discipline of astrophysics -- mjh]

I am not in the slightest bit interested in
arguing about transistors!

I've noticed in the past, online and in email, how
prompt you are to reject any evidence that rebuts
your theories. This is just another case in point.

It is another case where you are doing that which you accuse. I have
presented evidence which you are trying to reject. You have presented no
evidence.

There is absolutely no analogy between solid state
physics, in which qft may be correctly applied as
an approximation and works extremely well, and the
vast reaches of empty space between the stars
which we study in astrophysics.

Well, you are perfectly free to argue by special
pleading that physics works differently where we
cannot do direct local measurements than it does
where we can do direct local measurements, but the
scientific community is quite free to choose to
ignore arguments by special pleading, and routinely
does so.

Actually the arguments are fundamental to quantum theory. Of course if
you want to throw away the foundations of one of the main achievements
of science in the C20th, and mathematical reason and empirical evidence
along with it that is up to you. Ultimately I don't think the scientific
community will agree with you.

A set of laws of physics which have only local
coverage isn't of much use studying a universe the
size of the one we inhabit,

Oh dear. Almost all our laws of physics are local laws. The principle of
general relativity is about local laws. Even the Friedmann equation is
derived from local laws. See what Ted Bunn has recently said in s.p.r.
in the thread on Energy Conservation in an Expanding Universe.

and once you grant that
the laws of physics can change from locale to
locale, you have abosolutely no way to pretend to
limit physics over the vast universe to having only
two sets of laws, or only three, or only any finite
number, and instead are left to entertain the
likelihood that nothing we know about anywhere,
including here, is true anywhere else.

Your version of reality would require for example,
because the laws governing transisters _do_ hold
sway, for sure, where solid matter exists,

As transistors are solid matter, that is something of a tautology.

that
every passing dust speck in the reaches of empty
space would carry its own separate set of laws of
physics with it through the passive vacuum where a
quite different set of laws of physics pertained.

Ahem, every speck of passing dust is also solid matter.


Were your version of reality correct, space would
_twinkle_ so.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

I have just presented fairly weighty evidence.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email