Found this on physicsforum and thought it pertinent:
The Fundamental Concepts of Physics Are All Based Upon Metaphysics:
The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics. The paradigms only "work" within contrived parameters.
The lack of a general understanding that the fundamental principals of physics are entirely dependent upon faith . . . that is: Metaphysics (that which requires much faith to understand the logic of its postulates) . . . is largely because:
The certainty of applied scientific method, concerning said fundamental principles, is strongly implied by academia . . . rather than, academia clearly stating that: The fundamental principles of physics result from theory that is derived from mysterious phenomena that is not currently understandable by any member of post-modern academia
Usually, these fundamental principles involve orthogonal space; cyclic and linear time; and four forces, sometimes fewer forces, sometimes more, depending upon which authority is being consulted . . . also, the Inverse Square Law should be included; and, unbelievably, often forgotten, the entire discipline of mathematics is also a fundamental principle of physics.
The fundamental forces that are most usually considered are: gravity, light, the strong atomic force, and the weak atomic force; occasionally, several of these forces are considered as one by some physicists; and, others sometimes include inertia; or, as it's often known: the cosmological constant, or more recently, either Cosmic inertia; or even, enigmatic "dark" energy that emanates from the void.
Thus, generally, the considered forces are between three and five; however, the general consensus is that there are four fundamental forces.
The cosmological constant is often considered as a force because of its inertia-like opposition to gravity. Because of recent observations of galactic recession and other cosmic motions, the cosmological constant has been resurrected from a long discarded conceptual contrivance of Einstein's. However, for post-modern observation and application, Einstein was wrong about the cosmological constant being constant; and, he, also, misplaced the source and direction of its action. Astronomers often refer to a form of this force as the mysterious, observed "Great Attractor."
The fundamental etiology and nature of all these concepts of orthogonal space, time, The Inverse Square Law, mathematics, and forces are little understood . . . if at all. Thus, an understanding of the "Why?" of these concepts, as professed by academia, requires much faith . . . a prerequisite for metaphysics.
The fundamental concepts of physics have been invented/contrived to explain observed, natural happenings. And, thus, their proof is often mistaken because the natural happenings, happen to happen. This proof is circular, at best; these fundamental concepts are not presently provable with any currently acceptable theory. In fact all fundamental physics is "theory" because none of it is provable . . . a prerequisite for metaphysics.
The current theories are little more than a form of symbolism that is useful for representing inexplicable, natural phenomena; and are thus, similar to the gods which were invented during early history to explain the stars, sun, thunder, lightning, life, consciousness, death, and so on. Quite likely, the ancients had a better natural understanding of god than the designing, anthropomorphic representations that modern religions now provide.
An ancient person of learning was a combination scientist, theologian, and philosopher; a combination seldom seen in the modern "scientific" era; these disciplines, Science, Theology, and Philosophy, have gone their separate ways in search of the same goal: understanding and explaining our natural environment so that we can, by design, better live our lives. Today, rhe argot so obfuscates, that their is little interdiscipline dialogue.
Space and time have been linked by Einstein's concept that has been labeled: space-time. Though there is much justification for such a linkage, it is still similar to linking the words "light-gravity" and their enigmatic connotations. The linkage of space and time, each a poorly understood concept, in itself, only creates confusion. Particularly, when space is no more than a relative illusion of our senses. And, time, two distinct concepts, is, both, confusingly, and often, circularly defined.
Space, more appropriately time, is not only a function of speed, but it does not actually exist as usually envisaged . . . it is relative; and an illusion. There is no such thing as "space" where "something" such as light waves can not be found. In fact, all matter, no matter how dense, is composed entirely of wave phenomena. It is our senses that are not sensitive enough to perceive certain "dark" matter, "particles," rays, and waves, which completely fill all "space." Our senses, thus, create the illusion of matter from the motion of energy and resonance such that the energy (light) is contained; and, subsequently, the illusion of voids, or "space," between matter, which consists of various wave phenomena.
Reality is without voids. Reality is causal and local; everything is in resonant contact with something . . . and everything . . . without concern for "time" . . . at some relative speed. The apparitions of Reality's non-local phenomena; such as tunneling, quantum teleportation, photon entanglement, universal gravitational and inertial action-at-a-distance, et cetera; are associated with Triquametric motion and speeds beyond that of light.
Time, fundamentally, is a mystery to physicists. The label "time" refers to several phenomena, which are usually, deceptively commingled. There is cyclical time, linear time, electromagnetic time, et cetera; as well as, directional and reversible time that must be considered. No one has been able to clearly define whether time is directional; nor, differentiate, clearly, the differing concepts of time; nor, explain the generative origins of these "times." Time as a function of, or a form of, speed is the most fundamental, and thus mysterious, of concepts which underlie Reality. Time, currently, certainly qualifies as being metaphysical.
No one can explain the "Why?" of gravity; only the "How?" is explainable. No one knows the speed of gravity, which must be near infinite otherwise the Cosmos would forsake "clockwork" for the action of billiard balls. However, infinite speed is not allowed by most interpretations of the theory of Special Relativity. But, then, if gravity's speed were as allowed by the usual interpretation of the theory of Special Relativity, gravitons and gravity "waves" should have been found by now. They have not been found; and, won't be; nor, has any other physical manifestation of the cause (Why?) of gravity's action-at-a-distance been observed or rationalized.
Gravity's attraction, or "action-at-a-distance," is an inexplicable mystery that has defied any interpretation.
(Newton)...hinted that Gravity was direct, divine action, as were all forces.... Thus, (for Newton) gravity was spiritual. --Anna Marie Roos, Ph.D. History.
Einstein considered action-at-a-distance as . . . "spooky."
Richard Feynman, also a renowned physicist, stated: "Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of other phenomena."
And, also: "The possibility exists...that gravity itself is a pseudo force." Feynman muses, "Is it not possible that perhaps gravitation is due simply to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system?”
Gravity, as currently understood, can easily be said to belong to the realm of metaphysics. Actually, it will be found that the phenomenon of gravitational "attraction" is a form of both relative, hierarchic compression and confluent congruence. Confluent congruence is a universal phenomenon that effects all events and occurs near Infinity, well beyond the speed of light; but, not quite within the realm of metaphysics.
Light is understood even less than gravity, if that is possible. Sometimes, the phenomenon of light is explained as acting like a wave; and, at other times, light appears to act as a particle. The concepts of particle and wave are two concepts that cannot be more physically, or diametrically, opposed to one another; nor, when combined, as with the theory of light, more inexplicable without resorting to metaphysics.
Light as a force seems to defy one of aeveral definitions of force as mass times acceleration. Generally, Light is considered as without mass and moving at a constant speed. Possible reconciliation is that the definition of force is inadequate and Light is also improperly understood. I suggest there is even more at fault with the fundamental, Natural, physical definitions that are provided by the pomo (thsnk you E. M.) elite.
Also, of metaphysical interest, concerning light, is the current explanation of the speed of light as being relatively constant. This constant is unlike anything else known and defies all known logic. Again, a strong metaphysical faith is a requirement for understanding both light and its constant speed.
The atomic strong and weak forces have been fabricated, admittedly, by physicists to explain observed subatomic phenomena. No one has ever been able to explain "Why?" these subatomic forces "work." Or, for that matter, there are no answers to the related questions of: How did such a tremendous amount of energy, as is observed, get into an atom?; and, What is holding this energy within the atom? There is much metaphysical faith required concerning an understanding of atomic theory, and particularly, the atomic strong and weak forces.
And then, concerning inertia: there are very few physicists that will even acknowledge that there is an inertial force . . . despite many recent cosmic observations to the contrary. Newton incorrectly defined inertia as being straight and uniform. Inertia appears to act from the infinite, as opposed to gravity which appears to act from the infinitesimal. Thus, the source of inertia, being so far from the anthropic scale, appears to be without curvature or acceleration. Inertia's small force is quite apparent when applied to large cosmic bodies.
Inertia's close relative, the cosmological constant, can hardly qualify as a force until it is acknowledged that it is not a constant. By definition, a mechanical force cannot be constant; it must entail acceleration. Einstein resorted to the cosmological constant because of structural necessity; but, he soon realized it was a mistake; as he had interpreted it. Though, Einstein can hardly be faulted; as an understanding of the source and etiology of both gravity and inertia is still quite erroneous . . . if interpreted at all.
A form of a cosmological force that opposes gravity, and is, thus, structurally necessary, must be explainable if our environment is to be understood . . . and, most importantly, an inertial force, if it exists, and it does, can replace the considered necessity of the misleading Big Bang theory, and all of its absurdities, as the structural force, which opposes gravity. Such an inertial force is referred to as Cosmic Inertia, which together with gravity, its alter ego, is referred to as: Infinite Dynamics.
Gravity, inertia, and the atomic forces are all very closely related to the enigmatic and ubiquitous phenomenon which has been described as exotic "dark" matter. It is this unknown, and unfound, "dark" matter that is generally considered to constitute almost all of the mass of the Universe. The etiology and internal geometry of this "dark" matter can rationalize Reality.
The fantasy of science fiction pales when compared to modern theories of gravity and light.
The thoughtful, imaginative dialogue of alternative concepts are a mark of great minds.
What does that mean? That light doesn't travel from one place to another?
Found this on physicsforum and thought it pertinent: The Fundamental Concepts of Physics Are All Based Upon Metaphysics: The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics. The paradigms only "work" within contrived parameters. The lack of a general understanding that the fundamental principals of physics are entirely dependent upon faith . . . that is: Metaphysics (that which requires much faith to understand the logic of its postulates) . . . is largely because: The certainty of applied scientific method, concerning said fundamental principles, ............... None of this is a surpise to scientists. The elements of metaphysics and faith do not alter the requirements I have recently enumerated for a thing to be a science. It is also unsurprising to hear that all natural science theories are in a state of temporary acceptance, until better theories that explain more come along. This also does not alter the requirement for vigorously vetted, positive forensic evidence of a thing, for it to be a well-accepted natural science theory. As I pointed out to you earlier, many things get SOME scientific consideration, like SETI, and cold fusion, and in that sense, origins problems do get a bit of a lick and a promise from time to time. To get star billing in, say, your introductiory high school biology class, such fancies do not make the grade, only wide acceptance, and plentiful refereed publication, leading to rigorous and plentiful concrete attempts to dis-confirm. So to answer your long-running question: yes, origins questions, like UFO questions and Cold Fusion questions, can be a subject of scientific inquiry, but that and a dime (well, a a buck and a half) will only buy you a cup of coffee--it won't put the thumbscrews to Darwinian theory.