Expelled: If you don't believe in holy physics dogma ; you're fired!
Benj
over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
promoting the dogma of establishment science. This is a subject near
and dear to my heart upon which I have been known to post here
repeatedly, but it always bears bringing the subject up one more
time.
Although this film is on the subject of publishing papers on
"intelligent design" and the attacks upon one career that occur if
such transgressions against establishment dogma are even suggested let
alone advocated, the same actions can be equally seen if one chooses
to discuss a whole host of "anti-establishment" topics. I leave it as
an exercise for the interested student to make a list of topics upon
which any attempt to publish credible research will be a fast track to
the unemployment line.
The attacks always take the same form. The author is accused of
"pseudoscience". The authors find that grants and support dry up.
Papers are rejected. Jobs suddenly become unavailable. You get fired.
You get denied tenure and not for the normal reasons like being a
woman or not willing to grovel before the tenured faculty. Attacks
often extend to being accused of mental illness or incompetence.
So what is going on? I'll tell you. The problem, dear reader, is YOU!
You are simply too smart and too perceptive to be allowed free reign
in a world ruled by mass politics. You can too easily see through the
myriad political scams designed to keep those who rule, in power and
rich! Hence, a way had to be found to control you and keep you in
line! And what is that way? It's the "university" system that has been
developed along with "peer review" and government and other
"controlled" funding of research that makes sure that certain topics
and certain ideas are never given free and open discussion. You ALL
know this is true. But most of you can't say a thing though because
unlike me, you still have a career in science that can be lost.
This documentary is especially interesting to me in that it pulls very
few punches. It makes the connection between communist doctrine and
establishment dogma. It makes the connection, for example between
Hitler's death camps for the disabled and other "defectives" and the
American "Eugenics" research at Cold Harbor (which by the way, changed
its name but still exists) that Hitler was so taken with. It points
out the connection between atheism (the state religion of leftist
regimes) and Darwinism. And best of all it shows the draconian
punishment awaiting any research who steps even a little bit out of
line! Yes, Virginia they WILL "make an example of you" if you drift
even a little bit into a "forbidden zone"!
All of you out there, listen to me. If you are just the least bit
interested in REAL science, this documentary is required viewing. It
should soon be out on DVD so go steal a copy from a friend or if you
must, rent it from Blockbuster. Your first lesson in science boys and
girls is that science is NOT the pure exercise of intellect and free
inquiry you thought it was. It is about making sure that aspects of
knowledge that threaten the power of the elite stay tightly
"controlled". There is POLITICS right down at the core of modern
science and sorry to say, politics operates best with lies. And it's
high time you all learned how this politics works whether you choose
to join in the lies or work to eliminate them.
Ok. Now all you with the GS rating can start posting the suggestion
that I go look for my "tinfoil hat". Of course you haven't viewed this
movie and never will, but I'm sure you are nevertheless convinced that
it's all "pseudoscience", lies and right wing Christian tripe. [All
perpetrated by the well-known right wing Christian evangelist Ben
Stein! :-) ]
Our profession is in dire need of a good housecleaning! I say this
documentary is one good step in the right direction.
Uncle Al
>
> I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed"
> over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
> promoting the dogma of establishment science. This is a subject near
> and dear to my heart upon which I have been known to post here
> repeatedly, but it always bears bringing the subject up one more
> time.
1) Name one empirical failure of physical science.
2) Idiot.
(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith
Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be
denied. Test of faith! What can be asserted without evidence can
also be dismissed without evidence.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Tom M
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4859B335...@hate.spam.net...
>
> 1) Name one empirical failure of physical science.
NASA?
Jim Black
> It makes the connection, for example between
> Hitler's death camps for the disabled and other "defectives" and the
> American "Eugenics" research at Cold Harbor (which by the way, changed
> its name but still exists) that Hitler was so taken with.
Well, that didn't take long.
--
Jim E. Black (domain in headers)
How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog:
!markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>"
[X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads
Greg Neill
news:B8SdnYrvefB0IcTV...@comcast.com
He said _science_. NASA is a marketing organization.
oriel36
> The attacks always take the same form. The author is accused of
> "pseudoscience". The authors find that grants and support dry up.
> Papers are rejected. Jobs suddenly become unavailable. You get fired.
> You get denied tenure and not for the normal reasons like being a
> woman or not willing to grovel before the tenured faculty. Attacks
> often extend to being accused of mental illness or incompetence.
>
I don't know why everyone is surprised,it is not a new development and
is a natural part of the empirical defences ,the old commie manifestos
were full of this breathless stuff and no wonder Americans intutively
hate the pseudo-pomp of empiricists,apart from the last approach to an
objector,the following excerpt from the 1930's just about covers it
all -
"When his allegiance is attacked, the psychopolitical operative should
explain his connection with Vienna on the grounds that Vienna is the
place of study for all important matters of the mind.
More importantly, he should rule into scorn, by reason of his
authority, the sanity of the person attacking him, and if the
psychopolitical archives of the country are adequate many defamatory
data can be unearthed and presented as a rebuttal.
Should anyone attempt to expose psychotherapy as a psychopolitical
activity, the best defense is calling into question the sanity of the
attacker. The next best defense is authority. The next best defense is
a validation of psychiatric practices in terms of long and impressive
figures. The next best defense is the actual removal of the attacker
by giving him, or them, treatment sufficient to bring about a period
of insanity for the duration of the trial. This, more than anything
else, would discredit them, but it is dangerous to practice this, in
the extreme." Chapter X
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics-pt2.html#anchor10
An ideology succeeds so long as it does not admit 'failure' and Uncle
Al is more or less affirming the party line even though the core
empirical framework which supports conceptual views of the
cosmological arena are astrological in content and character.
When an ideology moves to a phase of all stick and no carrot then it
becomes interesting and so it should.Wile many think that the problem
can be restricted to biological evolutionary material,the real problem
is with structural and timekeeping astronomy.
Vince Morgan
news:4859c571$0$31951$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Truer words have not been spoken.
Damaeus
18 Jun 2008 20:13:33 -0700 (PDT):
> I don't know why everyone is surprised,it is not a new development and
> is a natural part of the empirical defences ,the old commie manifestos
> were full of this breathless stuff and no wonder Americans intutively
> hate the pseudo-pomp of empiricists,apart from the last approach to an
> objector,the following excerpt from the 1930's just about covers it
> all -
And this exhibits the same problem. People would rather find
something someone else has said that they agree with rather than
coming up with something new on their own.
Damaeus
Benj
> Benj wrote:
> [snip 68 lines of crap]
Al, you forgot to mention "tinfoil hat"!
> 1) Name one empirical failure of physical science.
Physical science is FILLED with "empircal failures"! And the problem
is not failure, but refusal to OPENLY DISCUSS those failures! The so-
called "theory of evolution" is FILLED with questions, but you high
priests do NOT permit any discussion of them. You bear false witness
by asserting that the theory is infallible. Clearly this is some kind
of religious dogma and NOT a scientific attitude!
How many "empirical failures" of physical science have there been? How
much time do you have? Heavier than air craft can't fly! You can't
build a motor without a commutator. Disease is caused by "bad humours"
that must be drained out. The geological "theory of uniformity", sun
goes around the earth .... and on and on.
But the whole point here is NOT "wrong" theories, but a POLITICAL
effort to eliminate any and all open discussion of theories not
considered open to questioning by the establishment. Are we talking
about SCIENCE here or the "infallibility" of the pope?
> 2) Idiot.
>
> (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith
(Empirical reality) - (free and open discussion of it) = religious
dogma
Moron.
> Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be
> denied. Test of faith! What can be asserted without evidence can
> also be dismissed without evidence.
Dear most ignorant uncle Al. We are NOT talking here about replacing
empirical evidence with faith! Come on admit it! Like all "debunkers"
you are arguing against the documentary and you haven't even seen it,
have you? We are talking about so-called "establishment science"
DEMANDING that various conclusions be accepted as "faith" while any
discussion of empiricism that creates doubt is systematically
suppressed by political means! Remind you of any organizations? Maybe
a little taste of the stake will give you a reminder!
Oddly enough uncle Al, it is YOU who is arguing FOR faith-based
science here and tis I (and Ben Stein) who are arguing for
empiricism!
Come on Al. I KNOW you are NOT this Stupid! Therefore this can only
mean you must have some kind of political agenda!
Fess up! You are really just one more closet leftist, right?
Richard Henry
> On Jun 18, 9:15 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > Benj wrote:
> > [snip 68 lines of crap]
>
> Al, you forgot to mention "tinfoil hat"!
>
> > 1) Name one empirical failure of physical science.
>
> Physical science is FILLED with "empircal failures"! And the problem
> is not failure, but refusal to OPENLY DISCUSS those failures! The so-
> called "theory of evolution" is FILLED with questions, but you high
> priests do NOT permit any discussion of them. You bear false witness
> by asserting that the theory is infallible. Clearly this is some kind
> of religious dogma and NOT a scientific attitude!
>
> How many "empirical failures" of physical science have there been? How
> much time do you have? Heavier than air craft can't fly! You can't
> build a motor without a commutator. Disease is caused by "bad humours"
> that must be drained out. The geological "theory of uniformity", sun
> goes around the earth .... and on and on.
Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion
of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list
several theories that were formerly orthodox and were abandoned when
they were shown to be defective.
Jim Black
Hail Xenu! Yes, L. Ron Hubbard was really bad at writing this sort of
propaganda; it's so over-the-top and so focused on demonstrating how
evil psychiatrists are that even a complete idiot can tell he wrote it
himself. By the way, he didn't write it in the 1930's; I'd have to
look up the exact date, but Hubbard's title references "brainwashing,"
which means it can be no earlier than the Korean War.
--
Jim E. Black
Igor
What's this "our" shit, Kimosabe?
Bill Miller
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:a5dc0c3f-d3af-4585...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed"
> over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
> promoting the dogma of establishment science.
<snip brilliant exposition>
> Ok. Now all you with the GS rating can start posting the suggestion
> that I go look for my "tinfoil hat". Of course you haven't viewed this
> movie and never will, but I'm sure you are nevertheless convinced that
> it's all "pseudoscience", lies and right wing Christian tripe. [All
> perpetrated by the well-known right wing Christian evangelist Ben
> Stein! :-) ]
Benj... You left out the "other" Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian Bible
Thumping Evangelist -- Rush Limbaugh. He was born and raised in the Jewish
Faith.
May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws"
<Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.>
The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E *causes*
H and H *causes* E,
F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions.
Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum.
For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT!
Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r --> zero.
Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.)
I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the
spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead.
Bill Miller
"Richard Henry" <pome...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d195d13f-92b2-4769...@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion
of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list
several theories that were formerly orthodox and were abandoned when
they were shown to be defective.
Yes. And that is the point. HOW MUCH FARTHER ALONG MIGHT MANKIND BE if these
dogmatic "laws" had not been jammed down the throats of the "thinking
classes?" It took people of intelligence, personal courage and incredibly
high character to FINALLY shake these defective concepts off of the tree of
dogma.
Bill
Benj
What you mean "Kimosabe", white man? I'm the one here with the red
man genes! :-)
Phil Holman
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:sIU6k.118703$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Hmm, I'm not sure that these things were ever a significant pacing item.
As for "how much farther along might mankind be?" Well, if you subscribe
to the notion that there would have been rapid technological
development, how about...... closer to extinction!
Phil H
Vince Morgan
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:a5dc0c3f-d3af-4585...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
> promoting the dogma of establishment science. This is a subject near
> and dear to my heart upon which I have been known to post here
> repeatedly, but it always bears bringing the subject up one more
> time.
this and that in order to attract a potential mate. He does this because he
worries endlessly that he may not pass on his genes, and therefore will have
no one to inherit his estate, the worlds oceans. He ponders the
implications endlessly as his tiny non existent brain hasn't the ability to
develop worthless distractions that might otherwise give him some respite."
Most evolutionary biology reads as though many biologists are in fact
reincarnated "photomunglingmiopticaliosis", or know someone who is. How
else is it that they "know" the minds and motives of these things? And,
what is truly bizarre is that having elucidated us all on the inner
thoughts, motives and desires of single celled animals, things that are
somewhat less sophisticated than jellyfish, they lambaste those who don't
accept that they have such extraordinary extrasensory zoopsychiatric
abilities.
Some time ago it was realized that if evolutionary biology did not
arbitrarily ascribe motive people would continue to ask "why?" and that was
going to be a real problem. Someone in the discipline evidently had read
the story of the emperor's new clothes and recognized a means to an end. If
only there had been an agent of the emperor's magic tailors in the crowd,
they could have lambasted the child immediately and the crowd would follow.
There is science and there is that which pretends to be.
Vince
Timo A. Nieminen
> May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws"
>
> <Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.>
>
> The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E *causes*
> H and H *causes* E,
Common enough as a just-so story in introductory textbooks. A natural
interpretation of Faraday's experiments, yes?
Hardly near-universal, as it isn't hard to find books (on
electromagnetics) where such claims are not made. Historically, it's been
clear ever since Lorenz's 1867 paper. Also clear in any modern formulation
of electromagnetics as a 4D relativistic field theory (given the Lorenz
gauge, what else would one expect?).
Would publishing (or attempting to) a paper opposing this interpetation
result in attack on one's scientific career?
> F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions.
Such as? A "law" doesn't need to be universally applicable. For example,
consider Snell's law: can you use Snell's law when one of the media cannot
be characterised by a refractive index?
> Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum.
>
> For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT!
???
> Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r --> zero.
One of the well-know deep problems in classical and quantum
electrodynamics. However, as far as we can tell, Coulomb's law
_works_. The real problem is the implications of this, such as infinite
self-energy, and infinite inertia of point charges.
> Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.)
Given that statistical mechanics is widely taught to undergrads, making
this point, is this really dogma?
> I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the
> spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead.
Do keep in mind that the original post was equating resistance from within
"establishment science" to the enforced introduction of teaching of
religious dogma in science classrooms with a supposed enforcement of
establishment dogma in science. How is defensive anti-dogmatism meant to
be the same as enforcement of dogma?
Would trying to publish on _any_ of the topics you listed endanger a
scientific career?
The research-end of science is full of dispute and controversy. Many of
the participants in disputes over who is correct are wrong (usually at
least somebody must be, and sometimes everybody is wrong).
The textbook-end of science is rather ossified, and simplified severely at
the introductory level. Witness the usual pattern of teaching classical
mechanics as True, to be followed later by teaching special relativity as
True ("What we have taught you before is wrong!" - an attitude which can
disturb students), when neither is a complete (or we might say, "correct
in a strict sense") theory. OTOH, both are very good theories when applied
appropriately. Given that you can hardly start out by teaching general
relativity (to get the GR -> SR -> classical mechanics progression) or
quantum field theory (to get a QFT -> non-relativistic quantum mechanics
-> classical mechanics progression), what can one do? Well, the
transition from CM -> SR should emphasise just how little change is
required in the core of CM, and certainly shouldn't be along the lines of
"what we taught you before is wrong". Especially because most of what had
been taught before is _not_ wrong.
Textbooks are a teaching tool, not expositions on current scientific
opinion. That said, they can have lasting influence on students.
In particular, scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, and the
presentation of textbook content as absolute fact is in opposition to
this, encouraging scientism or confusion when scientific dispute is
encountered; not good preparation for modern life. Thus the movements to
include understanding/history/nature/philosophy of science in science
education in the schools.
Given that significant, and politically influential, elements of the
"establishment" are actively working towards education of the public
including the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, where is the
dogmatism of the establishment?
Inferior teachers who adopt "textbook fundamentalism" to avoid questioning
are _not_ members of the scientific establishment.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Bill Miller
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:Q8adnfb7fsb0o8HV...@comcast.com...
I'm afraid I do not share your nihilistic viewpoint. Free men, through free
enterprise and free expression have accomplished more FOR humanity in the
last century than was accomplished by all the dogma-restricted centuries
after the Roman Empire collapsed.
I'm personally sorry for anyone that looks at the glass of human
accomplishment and sees it 20% empty rather than 80% full.
Bill
> Phil H
>
Spaceman
> I'm personally sorry for anyone that looks at the glass of human
> accomplishment and sees it 20% empty rather than 80% full.
I feel most sorry for those that do not know it would have
to be 20% empty and 80% full simulataneously.
:)
It can not be one or the other alone.
It has to be both.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Bill Miller
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
Timo... you make a number of fine points and my reply to any of them might
be considered as a "quibble."
Taken overall, the ossifiaction in textbooks has benn compounded by
generations of engineers and scientist -- many at th PhD level -- that did
not pay attention to the "tweaks" that you point out in your post.
From personal experience, I have been vilified personally by PhD level folks
for suggesting that Maxwell's Equations are descriptive rather than causal.
BTW a Law, in my NTBHO is always universally applicable. Anything else is a
theory or a hypothesis (or occasionally wild-ass guess!)
For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" category. Not
anymore.
Bill
Spaceman
> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law"
> category. Not anymore.
Sorry to quibble Bill,
What law of newtons became not a law anymore?
Perpetual motion designers all over the world would like to know
so they can "break" all of his laws by simply jumping over one.
Bill Miller
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:MtGdnScK_upVu8DV...@comcast.com...
>pace with reality. Here goes:
One of the fundamental laws of mechanics is Newton's law of action and
reaction, usually stated as : "Whenever a body exerts a force (action) on a
second body, the second body exerts an equal and opposite force (reaction)
on the first body."
Suppose that a stationary mass is located in the gravitational field of
another, distant stationary mass.The two masses exert equal and opposite
forces on each other. (Action and reaction) Let us now allow one mass to
move under the action of the field of the other mass. ut the second mass,
being far away, does not yet "know
that the first mass has moved. (gravity -- like light -- cannot propagate
instantaneously.) The second body continues to experience the same force as
before.
In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction and
Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this situation also
is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation of momentum.
For a detailed analysis of this, and other Newtonian flaws, please see
Jefimenko's "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" OR
"Gravitation and Cogravitation."
BTW, Timo questioned my assertion that F = MA was also "leaky." I THOUGHT
that the above also affected this equation. After further review... Timo's
right... so far!
I hope this helps!
BTW, yes, a glass is simultaneously 20% empty and 80% full, but entirely too
many people (IMNTBHO) ignore the fullness and concentrate only on the
empitiness. And that's kinda sad!
Bill
Timo A. Nieminen
> Taken overall, the ossifiaction in textbooks has benn compounded by
> generations of engineers and scientist -- many at th PhD level -- that did
> not pay attention to the "tweaks" that you point out in your post.
>
> From personal experience, I have been vilified personally by PhD level folks
> for suggesting that Maxwell's Equations are descriptive rather than causal.
Do tell more! Scientists or engineers? Were you a student or a colleague?
It sounds like a defensive reaction to avoid thought, or to preserve the
perceived worth of one's piece of paper on the wall (if only they knew
just how little they really learned in that time!).
I have no doubt that it's easy to find PhD graduates who believe the usual
mythology. They'd be lucky to learn otherwise as undergrads, and they're
too busy as graduate students. Unless they teach during that time, and
teach competently (i.e., not as textbook fundamentalists).
The fresh PhD graduate who goes into science/engineering research is
hardly the Establishment (more like grist for the mill). The fresh PhD
graduate who doesn't is even less so.
> BTW a Law, in my NTBHO is always universally applicable. Anything else is a
> theory or a hypothesis (or occasionally wild-ass guess!)
"Currently believed to be universally applicable"? Otherwise we'd never
know whether we have any Laws at all. Does this leave us with anything
other than a handful of conservation laws?
Whatever a good definition of Law might be, anything that's been called a
law in the past, or is a single equation or soundbite distillation of an
oldish theory, tends to be called a "law" now. I think there's less of a
tendency to call new results in physics "laws".
> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" category. Not
> anymore.
Which "Newton's Law"?
Spaceman
Bill, I am sorry you have been fooled by the described situation
Newtons force theory has to include every object in between
also.
When every action-reaction of the object is considered, it has never been
wrong.
The example given is "ignoring" action-reaction of all in between
the two objects.
> In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction
> and Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this
> situation also is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation
> of momentum.
Every action/re-action in between have balanced.
Forces have caused "objects that would transfer the force
to transfer to a different direction, and not enough force
was transmitted all the way to cause the re-action you were hoping for.
Newton still holds true if each and every action-reaction is considered
in between.
> For a detailed analysis of this, and other Newtonian flaws, please see
> Jefimenko's "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" OR
> "Gravitation and Cogravitation."
Again,
This is not a newton flaw, it is a flaw of the understanding of the newton
law.
Each and every single object in between must be considered.
You can not ignore the action-reactions that take place in between
the two objects like such is being done to come up with
the supposed violation.
Try this one in a much simpler form but almost like the gravity
problem...
Lets use air.
Air between two objects on the ground.
Would the air transfer all the motion of an object
that is 5 ft away from another object?
No, simply because all the force of the action-reactions
are diverted by the air but all action re-action of the air
follows Newton's law very well.
the same holds true for gravity.
:)
> BTW, Timo questioned my assertion that F = MA was also "leaky." I
> THOUGHT that the above also affected this equation. After further
> review... Timo's right... so far!
Action-reaction of Newton law still holds true if
all such action-reactions in between are considered.
> I hope this helps!
I hope what I babbled probably too many times just now,
helps you understand that Newton still holds fine and no
problem has occured that Newton has been proven wrong
in such.
(Missing forces is the only way he is ever proven wrong)
and missing forces only proves that someone is not following
Newton the way they really should.
After all any force at all, is a force and not only the ones
Newton haters want to pick are the only forces.
:)
> BTW, yes, a glass is simultaneously 20% empty and 80% full, but
> entirely too many people (IMNTBHO) ignore the fullness and
> concentrate only on the empitiness. And that's kinda sad!
Yes, it is sad..
I always try to think of both sides of the story.
It is much safer to do so also.
:)
I am sorry for babbling but I have never seen Newton's
Laws to be wrong.
and that is why I always follow him and think about each
and every force (action-reaction) that could occur.,,
also if I don't follow such being mechanically minded... I could be killed.
Newton has saved my life a few times.
I am sure he probably has saved a lot of peoples lives by coming
up with such beautiful laws that have not actually been broken ever.
Don Kelly
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:tu97k.122628$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
----------------
You shouldn't have been vilified as you are right. Any set of equations or
"laws" tries to describe, mathematically, what has been observed.
-------
>
> BTW a Law, in my NTBHO is always universally applicable. Anything else is
> a theory or a hypothesis (or occasionally wild-ass guess!)
----------
Part of the problem is that back in the 1800's the term "Law" was applied to
many expressions based on observations- without consideration of (unknown
at the time) exceptions. This strict interpretation has hung on. It's the
law, don't question it. They are theories and are acceptable until proven
wrong, and are often acceptable within limits, even then. The problem with
"Laws" is that they are made to be broken.
However, until proven otherwise, and many have tried to do so, conservation
of energy, appears to be holding up pretty well :).
Just an opinion on a lazy afternoon.
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
>
> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" category. >
Timo A. Nieminen
> One of the fundamental laws of mechanics is Newton's law of action and
> reaction, usually stated as : "Whenever a body exerts a force (action) on a
> second body, the second body exerts an equal and opposite force (reaction)
> on the first body."
>
> Suppose that a stationary mass is located in the gravitational field of
> another, distant stationary mass.The two masses exert equal and opposite
> forces on each other. (Action and reaction) Let us now allow one mass to
> move under the action of the field of the other mass. ut the second mass,
> being far away, does not yet "know
> that the first mass has moved. (gravity -- like light -- cannot propagate
> instantaneously.) The second body continues to experience the same force as
> before.
>
> In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction and
> Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this situation also
> is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation of momentum.
Hmm. Newton's 3rd law of motion (along with Newton 2, to relate force and
transfer of momentum) is basically a statement that momentum is conserved.
Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be
interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out.
Does this mean Newton 3 is wrong? Does this mean momentum is not
conserved? I would say that it means that we simply don't have a situation
where there are two objects interacting at a distance, but two objects
each interacting with a field. Perhaps the interaction really is as
described by field theory, a local interaction between field and body, and
we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a
distance rather than Newton 3.
We know that a force is exerted on each mass. We know that in a static
case, the force is symmetric. We don't know that it is the other body that
is actually exerting the force. The example you give strongly suggests
that it isn't.
It wasn't that long ago that I wrote a lot more about this, so I won't
repeat it here.
But for an example of a "law" by Newton that we know is only an
approximation: Newton's law of universal gravitation.
--
Timo
Phil Holman
That was more to do with many, many series of technological innovations
from the industrial revolution rather than your so-called lifting of
restrictions. "HOW MUCH FARTHER ALONG MIGHT MANKIND
BE?"..........you tell us.
>
> I'm personally sorry for anyone that looks at the glass of human
> accomplishment and sees it 20% empty rather than 80% full.
>
Where do you get that? I'm not the one dissatisfied with the rate at
which science and technology have progressed. I'm happy with a glass
that is 80% full. You on the other hand appear to be disappointed
because it isn't 90% full.
Phil H
kl31n
> Suppose that a stationary mass is located in the gravitational field of
> another, distant stationary mass.The two masses exert equal and opposite
> forces on each other. (Action and reaction) Let us now allow one mass to
> move under the action of the field of the other mass. ut the second mass,
> being far away, does not yet "know
> that the first mass has moved. (gravity -- like light -- cannot propagate
> instantaneously.) The second body continues to experience the same force as
> before.
> In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction and
> Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this situation also
> is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation of momentum.
Either you forgot to say something that I can't reverse engineer at the
moment, or, in the case you described, the forces are still always equal
instant per instant.
The fields are time and space continous and both of the masses move with
trajectories that are of class Cinf and with speeds below those of the
fields. How can the forces possibly be unequal? I assume you know what
you're talking about, so please tell me more, because I don't get it.
Regards,
kl31n
Bill Miller
"Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
nothing in between the two masses but vacuum. Are you postulating some
special property of vacuum that instantaneously transmits force vector
information from a perturbed mass to a mass in the same field? If so, I'd
like to learn more about that!
If not, then there will be a delay between when a mass is perturbed and when
the perturbation is sensed..And that delay is not explicit in any of
Newton's laws.
Spaceman
No instantly transfering anything is needed.
If it is truly "vacuum" there should no transfer of energy possible
at all.
That is one reason I allow people to say there is an aether.
and I listen.
My glass is both half empty and half full simultaneously.
but when relativists start pulling crap that "math" is the cause
of energy transference, you jumped me into the half empty mode.
Without physical force, physical force can not be transmitted.
and we all know light waves do have a physical force.
or they would not burn our skin when we fall asleep
in the sun.
so I do think the supposed vacuum is full of stuff
that can transfer the "mass in motion" (energy).
:)
> If not, then there will be a delay between when a mass is perturbed
> and when the perturbation is sensed..And that delay is not explicit
> in any of Newton's laws.
The problem is simple sorta,
The larger the mass, the more delay for it to move if it moves at all
( larger force needed to move larger mass of course).
the smaller the mass, the less delay could be detected.
It really is all newtonian.
(but only when you look and find every single bit of
newtonian factors of course.)
It (The universe) truly all does all act like a Dirac sea.
All very fluid in motion.
of course it might not be "stuff we can even detect yet"
No proof of things we can not see can be made
of course, but again, no disproof can either.
:)
If anything the only thing Newton was off on,
is the "instant motion".
We know it can't be instant.
but all his other stuff falls right into place once we
add the "non instant" delays of motion in.
Bill Miller
>
>> One of the fundamental laws of mechanics is Newton's law of action and
>> reaction, usually stated as : "Whenever a body exerts a force (action) on
>> a
>> second body, the second body exerts an equal and opposite force
>> (reaction)
>> on the first body."
>>
>> Suppose that a stationary mass is located in the gravitational field of
>> another, distant stationary mass.The two masses exert equal and opposite
>> forces on each other. (Action and reaction) Let us now allow one mass to
>> move under the action of the field of the other mass. ut the second mass,
>> being far away, does not yet "know
>> that the first mass has moved. (gravity -- like light -- cannot propagate
>> instantaneously.) The second body continues to experience the same force
>> as
>> before.
>>
>> In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction and
>> Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this situation
>> also
>> is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation of momentum.
>
> Hmm. Newton's 3rd law of motion (along with Newton 2, to relate force and
> transfer of momentum) is basically a statement that momentum is conserved.
Correct. And as long as the interaction is of a contact nature, then
eveything is OK. But when there is a delay between the action and the
reaction, then *for that delay period* momentum is not conserved. But we
know that momentum MUST be conserved, so we must look at Newton with an eye
to modifying it to deal with what amounts to a time dependency.
This is not a new idea. We have long recognized, for EM that electrostaic
representations break down when time dependency is present.
Heaviside suggested this in 1893 but never took it all the way to its
logical conclusion.
>
> Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be
> interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out.
>
> Does this mean Newton 3 is wrong? Does this mean momentum is not
> conserved? I would say that it means that we simply don't have a situation
> where there are two objects interacting at a distance, but two objects
> each interacting with a field. Perhaps the interaction really is as
> described by field theory, a local interaction between field and body, and
> we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a
> distance rather than Newton 3.
That's one way of dealing with it. I believe that a better way would be to
recognize that Newton's work is not applicable to time dependency. That's no
different, conceptually, from Maxwell's expansion of Ampere's Law to include
The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in a
time-dependent environment.
Please note that Amoere's Law was not WRONG. It was simply not totally
applicable to a time dependent environment. Same situation with Newton and
gravity.
>
> We know that a force is exerted on each mass. We know that in a static
> case, the force is symmetric. We don't know that it is the other body that
> is actually exerting the force. The example you give strongly suggests
> that it isn't.
Nope. It suggests (to me) that -- just like Maxwell's adaptation of Ampere's
Law -- we need an adaptation of Newton.
>
> It wasn't that long ago that I wrote a lot more about this, so I won't
> repeat it here.
>
> But for an example of a "law" by Newton that we know is only an
> approximation: Newton's law of universal gravitation.
>
> --
> Timo
Bill
Bill Miller
"kl31n" <kl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:raqtz2fpj9nb$.nv1eiob1wigp$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:15 GMT, Bill Miller wrote:
>
>> Suppose that a stationary mass is located in the gravitational field of
>> another, distant stationary mass.The two masses exert equal and opposite
>> forces on each other. (Action and reaction) Let us now allow one mass to
>> move under the action of the field of the other mass. ut the second mass,
>> being far away, does not yet "know
>> that the first mass has moved. (gravity -- like light -- cannot
>> propagate
>> instantaneously.) The second body continues to experience the same force
>> as
>> before.
>
>> In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction and
>> Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this situation
>> also
>> is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation of momentum.
>
> Either you forgot to say something that I can't reverse engineer at the
> moment, or, in the case you described, the forces are still always equal
> instant per instant
>
> The fields are time and space continous and both of the masses move with
> trajectories that are of class Cinf and with speeds below those of the
> fields. How can the forces possibly be unequal? I assume you know what
> you're talking about, so please tell me more, because I don't get it.
Imagine two mass, M1 and M2. separated by a distance D. A change *of any
sort* in, say, M1 will not be detected by M2 until time t = D/Cg where Cg =
speed of gravitation (assumed to be equal to the speed of light.) During
that time, the forces will be out of balance. Further, if the change is
continuous, then the forces will continually be out of balance.
73
Bill .
> Regards,
>
> kl31n
Timo A. Nieminen
Heaviside's Maxwellian gravitation? There is no modification of Newton's
laws of motion in it. Newton's law of universal gravitation, describing
gravitational forces as interactions between distant bodies, is replaced
by a field theory, wherein all interactions are local - body interacts
with local field, not body with distant body.
As for Newton's laws of motion, Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just
definititions of inertial motion and force, while Newton 3 is (as above)
conservation of momentum. How can these be modified sensibly?
>> Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be
>> interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out.
>>
>> Does this mean Newton 3 is wrong? Does this mean momentum is not
>> conserved? I would say that it means that we simply don't have a situation
>> where there are two objects interacting at a distance, but two objects
>> each interacting with a field. Perhaps the interaction really is as
>> described by field theory, a local interaction between field and body, and
>> we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a
>> distance rather than Newton 3.
>
> That's one way of dealing with it. I believe that a better way would be to
> recognize that Newton's work is not applicable to time dependency. That's no
> different, conceptually, from Maxwell's expansion of Ampere's Law to include
> The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in a
> time-dependent environment.
I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the
other describes a limited set of experimental observations. If the limited
set of observations are static, then modifications for time-dependent
cases shouldn't be surprising. But conservation of momentum works for
time-dependent cases too - consider a bunch of colliding particles in a
box. Consider a collision between two elastic bodies - the collision
itself is time dependent, and Newton's laws work well. How can we modify
conservation of momentum to become time-dependent? Momentum is only
conserved in an average sense? Momentum is not conserved?
Yes, Newton's laws of motions describe observations too, but not in an
obvious or straightforward way (which is why students often have
difficulty).
Damaeus
Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:41:44 -0700:
> Where do you get that? I'm not the one dissatisfied with the rate at
> which science and technology have progressed. I'm happy with a glass
> that is 80% full. You on the other hand appear to be disappointed
> because it isn't 90% full.
Oh, please. Whether the glass of water is 20% empty, 80% full, 90%
full...none of that crap matters. All that matters is: do you want
any of the water? Yes? Drink it. No? Leave it.
Damaeus
Benj
wrote:
> Imagine two mass, M1 and M2. separated by a distance D. A change *of any
> sort* in, say, M1 will not be detected by M2 until time t = D/Cg where Cg =
> speed of gravitation (assumed to be equal to the speed of light.) During
> that time, the forces will be out of balance. Further, if the change is
> continuous, then the forces will continually be out of balance.
Absolutely. Causality is one of the things that physics tends to sweep
under the rug even though everybody knows it's there. And it's worse
than that. As one can often see here physicists are often so proud of
their mathematical abilities and their skill with understanding the
most complex maths. But is it physics? In my observation todays
physics is still VERY simplistic and elementary in spite of the
developed complexity. There are a couple of reasons for this lack of
advancement to the next level. The ignoring of causality is one. And
related to this is the implicit assumption in science that laws are
all fixed and never changing. In fact ALL phenomena is assumed to be
fixed and never changing! Transient effects no matter how throughly
demonstrated are all lumped into the realm of "pseudoscience". And it
gets even worse. Today's scientists have next to NO understanding of
the nature of feedback systems. For example, the human body is
probably the most salient feedback system on the planet. Yet look at
medicine! "feedback" is NEVER taken into account. You give medicine A
to treat disease B and the body's reaction to A is NEVER taken into
the equation. Yes people know about "side effects" and the way the
body will adjust itself to drugs, but it's never regarded as the
feedback system it is. Physicists find it impossible to imagine a case
where when you are performing an experiment, the experiment is
ACTIVELY trying to keep you from performing it! Hint. In many other
non-science fields, politics for example, this is ALWAYS the case and
widely accepted! Scientists have all developed this idea that the
universe is basically passive and just sits there as we operate upon
it. There is plenty of evidence this idea is dead wrong!
And to get back onto the topic of this thread, the problem with all
this in not only a simplistic view that fails to advance scientific
thought, but that when people bring the subject up, the
"establishment" attacks and starts using "faith" to assert that the
old primitive linear and non-varying system viewpoints are the ONLY
"valid" viewpoints and if you disagree, you can expect to find the
unemployment line! Notice how Jefimenko who made a big point of
including causality has been vilified here as a "kook" a "quack" and a
"tenured professor gone bad".
These people who are so proud of their mathematical "intellectual"
achievements really should be ashamed of how they have stunted and
stultified their own fields! As usual, hubris is followed inexorably
and inevitably by nemesis.
Don Kelly
Put a bunch of ball bearings in contact with each other in a row. Tap the
first one and not that the last one does not instantaneously react. At each
contact point, assuming the bearings are incompressible there is a local
action/reaction equivalence but the time for this to be transferred to the
end is dependent on the speed of sound in the bearings. Essentially a
travelling wave. No need to go to deep space to see a delay. Does this make
Newtons 3rd law invalid?
In the vacuum, we really do not know the propagation method and there are
various proposed mechanisms including aether and virtual phonons and the
delay depends on the velocity of light.
These all appear to be attempts to cope with mechanical forces at distances
by some essentially fully mechanical coupling. Why?
Do the delays make Newton's law of action/reaction invalid? After all, this
was developed without consideration of delays. Timo points out the Heaviside
view-all reactions are local. -
Vince Morgan
And then you see things in the 'establishment' press such as the following.
Journal of Plasma Physics (2000), 63: 115-128 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © 2000 Cambridge University Press
<quote>
"This paper reports the first experimental results in which the kinetic
energy of cold fog, generated in a water arc plasma, exceeds the electrical
energy supplied to form and maintain the arc."
</unquote>
Not having an account I can't say that I know any more about this than the
above. And as it's impossible anyway, I would be wasting my time too ;)
Regards,
Vince
Bill Miller
"Don Kelly" <dh...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rqU7k.26648$Jx.4753@pd7urf1no...
GREAT example. Let's think about this.
We hit the first ball. Some time later, the last ball moves.
Newton says: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." If
this means "instantly," then clearly there is a flaw. Does this mean that
Newton is wrong, or merely incomplete?
Since we routinely use Newton to chart the heavens, launch satellites etc.
etc., it is clear that Newton isn't WRONG. I believe the answer is
"incomplete."
Let's take your line of balls idea a step farther. First, let's assume that
the second ball is slightly out of line with all the others. When we strike
the first ball, it passes the impact on to the second ball slightly off
center. This acts to transfer some of the impact in a straight line, but
also causes it to rotate. This imparts angular momentum to the second
ball -- and subsequent balls. The reaction is not the same as the action!
Now let's assume that it has been a while since we have played with our
balls. (Sorry! I couldn't resist!) A thick coating of dust covers all the
balls.
We strike the first ball, and as the traveling wave progresses, it shakes
the dust off of all the other balls. This reduces the mass of each ball.
Again, the reaction is not the same as the action.
So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to modify the
rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate retardation, deal with
changes in angular momentum, and handle situations where the starting and
ending masses are not the same!
These issues are important in planetary systems. There, we have distances
that are large WRT the speed of gravity, we have bodies that possess angular
momentum, and (like a comet whose mass changes as it travels by) bodies
whose mass is not constant with time.
A gravitostatic model does not work in a gravitodynamic environment.
> In the vacuum, we really do not know the propagation method
True
>and there are various proposed mechanisms including aether and virtual
>phonons and the delay depends on the velocity of light. (or gravity -- they
>are not necessarily the same, although they SEEM to be)
> These all appear to be attempts to cope with mechanical forces at
> distances by some essentially fully mechanical coupling. Why?
Because we seem to be worshiping at the shrine of St, Isaac rather than
looking -- as Heaviside did in 1893 (!) -- at the facts.
> Do the delays make Newton's law of action/reaction invalid?
Not invalid. Just incomplete.
..After all, this
> was developed without consideration of delays. Timo points out the
> Heaviside view-all reactions are local. -
True! But all actions are not!
Bill
Spaceman
> GREAT example. Let's think about this.
>
> We hit the first ball. Some time later, the last ball moves.
>
> Newton says: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite
> reaction." If this means "instantly," then clearly there is a flaw.
> Does this mean that Newton is wrong, or merely incomplete?
>
> Since we routinely use Newton to chart the heavens, launch satellites
> etc. etc., it is clear that Newton isn't WRONG. I believe the answer
> is "incomplete."
>
> Let's take your line of balls idea a step farther. First, let's
> assume that the second ball is slightly out of line with all the
> others. When we strike the first ball, it passes the impact on to the
> second ball slightly off center. This acts to transfer some of the
> impact in a straight line, but also causes it to rotate. This imparts
> angular momentum to the second
> ball -- and subsequent balls. The reaction is not the same as the
> action!
Hmm,
wait a bit.
It will be an action that creates the equal "opposite" reaction.
spin one way hits and produces spin the other way.
Newton is still correct about that part.
(he is still incomplete with the instantaneousness though)
:)
> Now let's assume that it has been a while since we have played with
> our balls. (Sorry! I couldn't resist!) A thick coating of dust covers
> all the balls.
That is so disgusting and true it is kinda funny.
:)
> We strike the first ball, and as the traveling wave progresses, it
> shakes the dust off of all the other balls. This reduces the mass of
> each ball. Again, the reaction is not the same as the action.
but again,
you need to include all the actions and reactions.
the shaking off is a reaction.
> So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to
> modify the rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate
> retardation, deal with changes in angular momentum, and handle
> situations where the starting and ending masses are not the same!
Angular momentum is covered (gearing)
and starting and ending mass is also covered
the "dust" was part of the reaction.
The only thing really still missing is the
reaction "speed"
We do know it is not instant.
:)
So,
Incomplete by only the timing factor of the motion.
Szczepan Białek
"Bill Miller"
>
> So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to modify
> the rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate retardation, deal
> with changes in angular momentum, and handle situations where the starting
> and ending masses are not the same!
Who are WE. Must exist the two knowledge. One for students and the second
for adults. The first must be extremely simply and for this reason adults do
not use it. Afer study people (in industry) learn for 40 years and they do
not use textbooks for students. Authors of textbooks need modify the rules
but in direction to make them more simply. Which who launch satellites etc.
have them modified properly.
S*
>
Don Kelly
----------------------------
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:_s78k.136843$SV4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
-----------------
But, at the point of contact the forces are the same whether or not the
impact is dead on. You give some direct force but you also have some spin-on
both balls. You still have conservation of angular momentum. No problem with
Newton there -just consider the forces as vectors. Newton obviously did .
---------
>
> Now let's assume that it has been a while since we have played with our
> balls. (Sorry! I couldn't resist!) A thick coating of dust covers all the
> balls.
>
> We strike the first ball, and as the traveling wave progresses, it shakes
> the dust off of all the other balls. This reduces the mass of each ball.
> Again, the reaction is not the same as the action.
>
> So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to modify
> the rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate retardation, deal
> with changes in angular momentum, and handle situations where the starting
> and ending masses are not the same!
>
> These issues are important in planetary systems. There, we have distances
> that are large WRT the speed of gravity, we have bodies that possess
> angular momentum, and (like a comet whose mass changes as it travels by)
> bodies whose mass is not constant with time.
------
But then considering only the first dusty ball, the problem becomes not a
two body problem but a multibody problem. Considering all the balls, this is
compounded. The failure is not Newton but in our ability to actually solve
the resultant multibody problem. We don't know the masses or velocities of
the dust particles but they aren't being converted to energy so there is
no change in the total system mass. You can still assume total momentum,
angular and linear is unchanged- even if the final interaction occurs some
time later than the first collision.
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
------------
Bill Miller
Don's ball exercise was an excellent ANALOGY but it does not represent an
EXAMPLE of the issues that I raised. I will cheerfully concede that the
dynamics of balls clicking together represents known (almost high-school
level) interactions between materials whose proprties are (or can be) well
known..
What is of interest to me is what happens when these "balls" are in space
and their only interaction is via gravity. In this case, we have to resort
to the concept of force fields.
(Please! let us not re-open the silly discussion about the "reality" of
fields.)
In my example, we have two masses separated by a distance. We wiggle one
mass. MUCH later the effect is felt by the other mass. During that time
perid, the law of action and reaction does not hold.
There are other examples:
If one calculates the forces between a charged particle moving on the x axis
and a particle moving along the z axis, we find the forces are unequal. (
Breitenburger "Magnetic Interaction betwen Charged Particles" A J Ph. 36,
505-515 1968 & Scanio, "Conservation of Momentum in electrodynamics... " A J
Ph. 43, 258-260, 1975)
Also, if a charge moves past a magnetic dipole, the forces are unequal.
(Portis, "Electromagnetic Fields, Sources and Media" John Wiley & Sons
1978, pp 390-392)
There are others. See Ch 4 of Jefimenko's "Causality..." book for some more.
This is not surprising. Newton's theory of gravitation is based on the
Gravitational Force Law, F = G(M1M2)/r sq.
This is a STATICS law. There is no provision for time dependency, whether it
be location, velocity (linear or otherwise) nor of mass. Also, like Coulomb,
it has an obvious flaw in that it "blows up" as
r --> 0. Or do we just "normalize" this away as some would have us do with
Coulomb?
We do not (slavishly) attempt to apply Coulomb's Law to Electrodynamic
situations. Why should we do so with Newton?
Let's douse the candles and incense at Isaac's shrine and recognize that his
is a great theory, or "law" if you wish..
It is incomplete.
Bill
Spaceman
> Don & Spaceman
>
> Don's ball exercise was an excellent ANALOGY but it does not
> represent an EXAMPLE of the issues that I raised. I will cheerfully
> concede that the dynamics of balls clicking together represents known
> (almost high-school level) interactions between materials whose
> proprties are (or can be) well known..
>
> What is of interest to me is what happens when these "balls" are in
> space and their only interaction is via gravity. In this case, we
> have to resort to the concept of force fields.
>
> (Please! let us not re-open the silly discussion about the "reality"
> of fields.)
>
> In my example, we have two masses separated by a distance. We wiggle
> one mass. MUCH later the effect is felt by the other mass. During
> that time perid, the law of action and reaction does not hold.
Actually it does, but like I said,
to think Newtonian, you would have to have an aether of some sort
"a medium of the transference of the force".
I do agree there will not be an instant reaction between any two object
and a newtonian force would need that to be "complete".
But still, the basic of the newton equation still hold
(barring the instant motion thing)
Each and every " ball" be it so tiny would account
for the motion occuring.
It also is of course an immense amount of math of each and every
action/re-action.
> There are other examples:
>
> If one calculates the forces between a charged particle moving on the
> x axis and a particle moving along the z axis, we find the forces are
> unequal. ( Breitenburger "Magnetic Interaction betwen Charged
> Particles" A J Ph. 36, 505-515 1968 & Scanio, "Conservation of
> Momentum in electrodynamics... " A J Ph. 43, 258-260, 1975)
Such non balance of the forces is simply "a missing a force"
that is ignored and thrown into the "anti-newton evidence" folder.
:)
> Also, if a charge moves past a magnetic dipole, the forces are
> unequal. (Portis, "Electromagnetic Fields, Sources and Media" John
> Wiley & Sons 1978, pp 390-392)
Ditto again.
If they looked for the force instead of just dismissing the missing force
as a newton fault, they may actually find it instead of using "math"
as a cause instead.
math is not a cause.
At least not in the Universe I know.
:)
> There are others. See Ch 4 of Jefimenko's "Causality..." book for
> some more.
>
> This is not surprising. Newton's theory of gravitation is based on the
> Gravitational Force Law, F = G(M1M2)/r sq.
>
> This is a STATICS law. There is no provision for time dependency,
> whether it be location, velocity (linear or otherwise) nor of mass.
> Also, like Coulomb, it has an obvious flaw in that it "blows up" as
> r --> 0. Or do we just "normalize" this away as some would have us
> do with Coulomb?
>
> We do not (slavishly) attempt to apply Coulomb's Law to Electrodynamic
> situations. Why should we do so with Newton?
>
> Let's douse the candles and incense at Isaac's shrine and recognize
> that his is a great theory, or "law" if you wish..
>
> It is incomplete.
I agree, but it is only incomplete in the "timing" of the action/reaction.
With proper timing and newtonian force laws and the actual finding
of each and every force,
Newtons force laws hold fine but are missing the timing equation
of such force transference.
:)
And the biggest factor of timing with a newtonian/eculidian world,
would be to use "absolute" timing.
nothing relative at all.
Relative timing is non standard, if you read my post about that.
"The standard of time and identical clocks"
I am sure you would agree.
Greg Neill
>> Don & Spaceman
>>
>> Don's ball exercise was an excellent ANALOGY but it does not
>> represent an EXAMPLE of the issues that I raised. I will cheerfully
>> concede that the dynamics of balls clicking together represents known
>> (almost high-school level) interactions between materials whose
>> proprties are (or can be) well known..
>>
>> What is of interest to me is what happens when these "balls" are in
>> space and their only interaction is via gravity. In this case, we
>> have to resort to the concept of force fields.
>>
>> (Please! let us not re-open the silly discussion about the "reality"
>> of fields.)
>>
>> In my example, we have two masses separated by a distance. We wiggle
>> one mass. MUCH later the effect is felt by the other mass. During
>> that time perid, the law of action and reaction does not hold.
>
> Actually it does, but like I said,
> to think Newtonian, you would have to have an aether of some sort
> "a medium of the transference of the force".
Give us the required stiffness (bulk modulus) of this
medium in order for the speed of interaction to be as
high as it is measured to be -- the speed of light.
Then tell us how anything material could ever move
through such a medium, let alone frictionlessly. After
that you can explain how such a medium would not be
dispersive for light.
Spaceman
> Give us the required stiffness (bulk modulus) of this
> medium in order for the speed of interaction to be as
> high as it is measured to be -- the speed of light.
> Then tell us how anything material could ever move
> through such a medium, let alone frictionlessly. After
> that you can explain how such a medium would not be
> dispersive for light.
Hmm?
It would seem that it all would match a photons everything.
so it must just be full of photons or even smaller stuff.
Of course, you would only have to find a true "mass"
and size of such photons or even smaller stuff to finish
the aether theory correctly.
But of course,
such is beyond what a rubber ruler person could even think of
being so brainwashed about a 0 mass photon to begin with.
Greg Neill
>> Give us the required stiffness (bulk modulus) of this
>> medium in order for the speed of interaction to be as
>> high as it is measured to be -- the speed of light.
>> Then tell us how anything material could ever move
>> through such a medium, let alone frictionlessly. After
>> that you can explain how such a medium would not be
>> dispersive for light.
>
> Hmm?
> It would seem that it all would match a photons everything.
> so it must just be full of photons or even smaller stuff.
If that were true then gravity could be shielded by the
simple expedient of interposing a blind (shades of
cavorite!), and planets would slow in their orbits due to
frictional effects (a photon bath provides a form of
friction to bodies moving in it).
> Of course, you would only have to find a true "mass"
> and size of such photons or even smaller stuff to finish
> the aether theory correctly.
Oh is that all? Suppose you take a stab at specifying the
material properties of the bulk aether then, being
careful that they correspond to the physical requirements.
I'm not saying specify the particles it's made of (you can
if you want though) but rather the measurable bulk
qualities of the aether.
> But of course,
> such is beyond what a rubber ruler person could even think of
> being so brainwashed about a 0 mass photon to begin with.
Forget Relativity in this case. The aether was a failure
of classical physics (which you would know if you had
read any science history).
There are no consistent set of properties that can be
assigned to an aether that will not be self contradictory
or empirically impossible.
Spaceman
> If that were true then gravity could be shielded by the
> simple expedient of interposing a blind (shades of
> cavorite!), and planets would slow in their orbits due to
> frictional effects (a photon bath provides a form of
> friction to bodies moving in it).
You must be forgetting the smaller stuff.
Figures.
Only gigantic swelled brains can ignore the tiny stuff.
LOL
Bill Miller
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
<snip>
>> Correct. And as long as the interaction is of a contact nature, then
>> eveything is OK. But when there is a delay between the action and the
>> reaction, then *for that delay period* momentum is not conserved. But we
>> know that momentum MUST be conserved, so we must look at Newton with an
>> eye
>> to modifying it to deal with what amounts to a time dependency.
>>
>> This is not a new idea. We have long recognized, for EM that electrostaic
>> representations break down when time dependency is present.
>>
>> Heaviside suggested this in 1893 but never took it all the way to its
>> logical conclusion.
>
> Heaviside's Maxwellian gravitation? There is no modification of Newton's
> laws of motion in it. Newton's law of universal gravitation, describing
> gravitational forces as interactions between distant bodies, is replaced
> by a field theory, wherein all interactions are local - body interacts
> with local field, not body with distant body.
You must be looking at a different copy of Heaviside's 1893 article. In it,
he clearly (to me at least) understood concepts of time-dependancy, the
gravitational equivalent of the Poynting Vector (that he claimed partial
credit for) and others. I agree that he did NOT deal with retardation.
Neither did/does Maxwell!
This "action at a distance" has always been an Achilles Heel.
It is resolved, I believe by understanding and applying Causality. We need
to understand that if two events occur at the same time, neither can cause
the other. Instead, at least one must be caused by some other (hidden)
event.
Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped
generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H and
H causes E. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical
physicists from publishing articles in peer-reviewed publications that
"proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped
generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours and
dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the
plates of capacitors.
If I have understood your position on this, Timo, it is that the teaching of
this is expeditious & that once one gets to the PG leve, the "true facts"
are revealed and everything is fine.
That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And it
begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say
*something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but that
they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors
don't know it!
Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the relationship
between E and H? Even ONE?
<Bill takes a deep breath, steps down from the soap box, and shuffles away
from the small crowd of mostly disinterested onlookers. A nondescript brown
dog sniffs the box suspiciously, turns sidewise and lifts its leg.>
>Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just definititions of inertial motion and
>force, while Newton 3 is (as above) conservation of momentum. How can these
>be modified sensibly?
I'd say that looking at Causality and incorporating what we learn into new
expressions that include factors tor time variation of position and for
timevariation of mass would get the job done. Naturally, any such additions
must obey conservation of momentum AND must reduce to the original form when
time dependancy is absent.
>>> Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be
>>> interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out.
>>>
>>> Does this mean Newton 3 is wrong? Does this mean momentum is not
>>> conserved? I would say that it means that we simply don't have a
>>> situation
>>> where there are two objects interacting at a distance, but two objects
>>> each interacting with a field. Perhaps the interaction really is as
>>> described by field theory, a local interaction between field and body,
>>> and
>>> we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a
>>> distance rather than Newton 3.
>> That's one way of dealing with it. I believe that a better way would be
>> to
>> recognize that Newton's work is not applicable to time dependency. That's
>> no
>> different, conceptually, from Maxwell's expansion of Ampere's Law to
>> include
>> The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in a
>> time-dependent environment.
>
> I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the
> other describes a limited set of experimental observations.
It is true that gravity is a whole bunch of orders of magnitude more
difficult to deal with experimentally than EM. Building planetary objects,
setting them rotating, and zapping them past one another is way beyond our
experimental capability.
BUT, we have a handy set of "toys" in our own night sky. And there we have
an interesting set of pre-made experiments already in process. Like, maybe,
does our model explain why the rotational speed of the Sun at the equator is
different from the speed at the poles? Or does it provide some insights into
Mercury's (supposedly) residual precession? Does it support or deny the
existence of black holes? Does it provide some insight into the "missing
mass of the universe" question? What might it say about gravitational waves?
Does it provide a definitive explanation of the process wherein potential
energy is converted into kinetic energy by a falling body? Does it explain
why EM beams are deflected by gravity?
But that's a lotta work. Doing it wrong is a lot easier!
Cheers, Bill
Androcles
You mean this magnet turns on only when the operator throws a switch
because it is a simultaneous but independent event?
http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50090267/Electromagnet.jpg
I must say that is a very simple concept - from an extremely simple mind,
fuckhead.
*plonk*
Vince Morgan
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:Uqw8k.52521$GF6....@newsfe27.ams2...
Because?
So, what is happening? The switch is thrown and low and behold, Both an H
field and a Current appear simultaneously?
Throwing the switch puts the circuit into direct communication with a
sustained electric potential. As it's an electric potential electrons begin
to flow, and as there are now moving electrons these cause a corresponding H
field?
Ok, so now we move to magnetic induction and we end up concluding that the B
field is now causing the electrons to flow?
If Albert can combine time/space (you can't have one without the other) why
not current and H?
Doesn't sound silly to me at all. Can they actually be separated? Can one
exist without the other?
Vince
John C. Polasek
<billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:Pine.WNT.4.64.08...@serene.st...
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>
>That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And it
>begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say
>*something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but that
>they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors
>don't know it!
I fervently hope you're not teaching anyone. You're too ignorant to be
in the business of physics which is that of discerning cause and
effect. Instead of denying cause and effect, you should be analyzing
for the underlying science.
>
>Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the relationship
>between E and H? Even ONE?
Tell us, omniscient one, what exactly what is this precious
relationship, of which you are evidently the exclusive franchisee?
Here's how I think it works: Volts applied to a coil build up H
ampturns/meter which when multiplied by mu store momentum B in
webers/m^2. Upon opening the circuit, momentum B divided by mu
generates a sizeable voltage back at the original terminals. The field
B is successively the sink and the source. Yes V causes B and B causes
V.
>Cheers, Bill
John Polasek
Benj
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:32:46 GMT, "Bill Miller"
> >That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And it
> >begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say
> >*something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but that
> >they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors
> >don't know it!
>
> I fervently hope you're not teaching anyone. You're too ignorant to be
> in the business of physics which is that of discerning cause and
> effect. Instead of denying cause and effect, you should be analyzing
> for the underlying science.
And I, John, fervently hope that YOU are not teaching "faith-based"
physics anywhere. There is already enough "dumbing down" in science!
> >Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the relationship
> >between E and H? Even ONE?
>
> Tell us, omniscient one, what exactly what is this precious
> relationship, of which you are evidently the exclusive franchisee?
Here's the dogma: We start with Maxwell's equations and note that the
curl of E is given by the time rate of change of B and then we also
observe that the curl of H is given by J plus the time rate of change
of D. Well that's simple enough isn't it? Clearly E causes H and H
causes E! Hence we all are fat and happy imagining EM waves plunging
through space with E creating the H vectors and H creating the E
vectors as it goes along! Everybody knows this is how it works! It's
right there in the equations!
Too bad it's all wrong. The form of Maxwell's equations we are using
here are NOT "causal"! That means that one side "equals" the other but
one side does NOT "cause" the other! The truth that Bill Miller finds
so seldom among those who pretend to be the ultimate source of EM
knowledge to others, is that E doesn't cause H and H doesn't cause E.
BOTH are cause by a THIRD source, namely charge! This is where
"retarded" potentials come from. But this is exactly why "modern"
physics is so primitive and so wrong. Physicists are too lazy to
bother with the actual situation and always try to use models that are
linear, without any feedback (which nobody understands anyway) and do
not consider retarded causality. Hey that kind of math is just too big
of a pain in the ass anyway, so why bother. You can get useful answers
the other way (most of the time). And where your faith-based physics
fails, just sweep that under the rug. If anyone complains, fire them.
> Here's how I think it works: Volts applied to a coil build up H
> ampturns/meter which when multiplied by mu store momentum B in
> webers/m^2. Upon opening the circuit, momentum B divided by mu
> generates a sizeable voltage back at the original terminals. The field
> B is successively the sink and the source. Yes V causes B and B causes
> V.
Lookee here. THIS is EXACTLY the problem. We have thought with total
disregard of causality! You've constructed a model that appears to
make sense, but is in fact explaining nothing. A 'true" explanation
would involve a careful delineation of each "retarded" effect. True
causality leads to true retardation. The problem here is that you are
not considering retarded effects which makes you retarded!
:)
maxwell
> I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed"
> over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
> and dear to my heart upon which I have been known to post here
> repeatedly, but it always bears bringing the subject up one more
> time.
>
> Although this film is on the subject of publishing papers on
> "intelligent design" and the attacks upon one career that occur if
> such transgressions against establishment dogma are even suggested let
> alone advocated, the same actions can be equally seen if one chooses
> to discuss a whole host of "anti-establishment" topics. I leave it as
> an exercise for the interested student to make a list of topics upon
> which any attempt to publish credible research will be a fast track to
> the unemployment line.
>
> The attacks always take the same form. The author is accused of
> "pseudoscience". The authors find that grants and support dry up.
> Papers are rejected. Jobs suddenly become unavailable. You get fired.
> You get denied tenure and not for the normal reasons like being a
> woman or not willing to grovel before the tenured faculty. Attacks
> often extend to being accused of mental illness or incompetence.
>
> So what is going on? I'll tell you. The problem, dear reader, is YOU!
> You are simply too smart and too perceptive to be allowed free reign
> in a world ruled by mass politics. You can too easily see through the
> myriad political scams designed to keep those who rule, in power and
> rich! Hence, a way had to be found to control you and keep you in
> line! And what is that way? It's the "university" system that has been
> developed along with "peer review" and government and other
> "controlled" funding of research that makes sure that certain topics
> and certain ideas are never given free and open discussion. You ALL
> know this is true. But most of you can't say a thing though because
> unlike me, you still have a career in science that can be lost.
>
> This documentary is especially interesting to me in that it pulls very
> few punches. It makes the connection between communist doctrine and
> establishment dogma. It makes the connection, for example between
> Hitler's death camps for the disabled and other "defectives" and the
> American "Eugenics" research at Cold Harbor (which by the way, changed
> its name but still exists) that Hitler was so taken with. It points
> out the connection between atheism (the state religion of leftist
> regimes) and Darwinism. And best of all it shows the draconian
> punishment awaiting any research who steps even a little bit out of
> line! Yes, Virginia they WILL "make an example of you" if you drift
> even a little bit into a "forbidden zone"!
>
> All of you out there, listen to me. If you are just the least bit
> interested in REAL science, this documentary is required viewing. It
> should soon be out on DVD so go steal a copy from a friend or if you
> must, rent it from Blockbuster. Your first lesson in science boys and
> girls is that science is NOT the pure exercise of intellect and free
> inquiry you thought it was. It is about making sure that aspects of
> knowledge that threaten the power of the elite stay tightly
> "controlled". There is POLITICS right down at the core of modern
> science and sorry to say, politics operates best with lies. And it's
> high time you all learned how this politics works whether you choose
> to join in the lies or work to eliminate them.
>
> Ok. Now all you with the GS rating can start posting the suggestion
> that I go look for my "tinfoil hat". Of course you haven't viewed this
> movie and never will, but I'm sure you are nevertheless convinced that
> it's all "pseudoscience", lies and right wing Christian tripe. [All
> perpetrated by the well-known right wing Christian evangelist Ben
> Stein! :-) ]
>
> documentary is one good step in the right direction.
How did you guys pass your exams? Almost all of this discussion is
off topic. This seems to be the fate of too many of these general
questions.
Bill Miller
You said it better than I could!
And the thread that has occurred as a result of my examples demonstrates the
dogmatic nature of many physicists better than anything that I could
possibly SAY!
Bill
Timo A. Nieminen
Of course he looks at time-dependent situations - otherwise his
finite-speed Maxwellian model of gravitation just reduces to Newton's law
of universal gravitation. But the whole essence of his approach is to
replace Newton's law of action at a distance with a local field theory,
starting firmly on this path right at equation (1).
> I agree that he did NOT deal with retardation.
> Neither did/does Maxwell!
Heaviside deals with retardation, but not so transparently. He introduces
a finite (constant, i.e., frequency independent) speed v of gravitation,
and goes from there.
Maxwell knew that his theory could be described in terms of retardation -
he recognises the mathematical equivalence between his theory and Lorenz's
in a footnote in his Treatise. I don't know when he realised this, or that
he had a retardation compatible theory. Perhaps when he gets the wave
equation with a constant speed?
Which brings me to a related, but not-so-related, point. Maxwell was, IMO,
a good enough mathematician so that he could have done the Hertz-Heaviside
simplification of his equations himself. Why didn't he? Since he
identifies the field quantities in his version as physically meaningful
(e.g., vector potential as momentum of the ether), there isn't any point
in getting rid of them. He's not just trying to describe forces on charged
bodies or currents (which Hertz and Heaviside seemed to be content with),
but wanted to know what the ether was up to. If you want an instantaneous
snapshot of the ether, you don't want a retarded formulation of the
theory. I don't know, but perhaps this influenced him.
> This "action at a distance" has always been an Achilles Heel.
>
> It is resolved, I believe by understanding and applying Causality. We need
> to understand that if two events occur at the same time, neither can cause
> the other. Instead, at least one must be caused by some other (hidden)
> event.
Shades of Aristotle.
> Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped
> generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H and
> H causes E. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical
> physicists from publishing articles in peer-reviewed publications that
> "proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped
> generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours and
> dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the
> plates of capacitors.
Not so many papers, hours, or dollars. The existence of electromagnetic
waves, transverse (i.e., div(E) = 0, div(H) = 0) solutions of the vector
Helmholtz equation, is pretty good evidence that the dD/dt term really
belongs in the Maxwell equations, so perhaps a more direct "proof" isn't
seen as essential.
> If I have understood your position on this, Timo, it is that the teaching of
> this is expeditious & that once one gets to the PG leve, the "true facts"
> are revealed and everything is fine.
Well, for better or for worse, what is taught is necessarily simplified.
Alas, while a small number of misconceptions might be corrected in later
undergrad or postgrad education, many are not. With limited time, and
limited initial knowledge, there are limits to what can be taught. I
woulnd't say that everything is fine, just that it isn't easy to do
much better. One particular problem is that many (most?) courses lead to
just cramming for an exam, followed by forgetting. Emphasis on techniques
and proofs over any real understanding. One problem is that understanding
comes with experience, and a 1 semester course allows very little time for
that.
I don't think that the current issue (E, H, and causality) is such a big
deal. It's mostly harmless as far as beliefs go, and only one of very many
various misconceptions that students pick up. They learn far worse ones
along the way. It also isn't enough to just tell them in lectures -
students don't learn from lectures, they learn from assessment and
preparing for assessment. It's hard to assess understanding, so
understanding tends to not be assessed strongly, so students don't get
really motivated to understand.
> That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And it
> begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say
> *something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but that
> they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors
> don't know it!
Likely enough.
> Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the relationship
> between E and H? Even ONE?
Probably. Very likely. But specialised EM texts are the stuff of advanced
(or at least intermediate) undergrad courses. Those who do just 1 or 2
physics courses ay uni, or only do high school physics never get to see
them. There might well even be generic introductory textbooks that don't
get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near
future, I will look.
>> Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just definititions of inertial motion and
>> force, while Newton 3 is (as above) conservation of momentum. How can these
>> be modified sensibly?
>
> I'd say that looking at Causality and incorporating what we learn into new
> expressions that include factors tor time variation of position and for
> timevariation of mass would get the job done.
New expressions for what? My point is that it's easy enough to modify,
e.g., a force law (as Heaviside did Newton's law of universal
gravitation), or Coulomb's law (as per Maxwell), but a very different
thing to try to modify Newton's laws of motion, which are of a very
different fundamental nature.
> Naturally, any such additions
> must obey conservation of momentum AND must reduce to the original form when
> time dependancy is absent.
Well, if you want conservation of momentum, then you're _not_ going to be
modifying Newton 3. Also, if you want retarded interaction at a distance
along with conservation of momentum, then you're going to need fields that
can carry the momentum from point A to point B (or some other "thing" to
have the momentum when the "interacting" objects don't have it).
Or we change our ideas about what conservation of momentum means.
Apart from the rotational speed of the sun, which at first glance is more
a matter of fluid dynamics and plasma physics rather than gravitation, and
perhaps the missing mass stuff, yes, our best models of gravity do answer
these questions. Alas, they don't reduce to Heaviside's model in the
appropriate limit, There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE
(or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s
about the weak-field limit of GR.
blackhead
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:32:46 GMT, "Bill Miller"
>
>
> >"Timo A. Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
A charge is the source of E and H which are orthogonal and propagate
independently from it as given by the Lienard-Wiechert field
equations. I think that's all Bill is saying which isn't wrong, is it?
Benj
> A charge is the source of E and H which are orthogonal and propagate
> independently from it as given by the Lienard-Wiechert field
> equations. I think that's all Bill is saying which isn't wrong, is it?
No, Bill isn't wrong.
And I also differ with "Maxwell's" assertion that we've drifted off-
topic. The original topic was the Ben Stein "Expelled" documentary
which probed the issue of "faith-based" physics dogma being protected
by political means. That is still the topic here even though we are
using examples different from the "intelligent design" one of the
film.
What gets me is that when someone "questions authority" the dogma crew
usually first name-calls using the "tinfoil hat ploy" which implies
that if the person with the "new" idea is insane, then what they say
isn't worth even considering, which is often followed by suggestion to
"go read some Freshman textbooks on the subject". The latter assumes
that somehow "freshman textbooks" are the ultimate authority on what
is true and what is not! Obviously that is a lie. EXPERIMENT is the
ultimate authority!
Any of you guys ever talk to authors of freshmen textbooks? First off,
they all admit that copying older books is a way of life, so that the
perpetuation of error becomes an automatic factor built into the
process. And furthermore, being "introductory" guides these books all
have to use a "lowest common denominator" approach. Therefore that
they are bibles of dogma should be no surprise. But given this, many
such texts are still careful to word statements in ways such that when
exactly and correctly read they do NOT present doubt as dogma.
However, most of those reading these books do not take time to examine
such wording with an exacting eye. They simply see what they already
believe and see it all as affirmation of the dogma that they believe
in their hearts.
And the problem is that all this combines to lead students AWAY from
true authority (experiment) and toward a blind acceptance (which is
further reinforced by the necessity of repeating all dogma correctly
at will on exams) of so-called "laws" which are in fact mere
approximations to reality. Finally having lost sight of of the true
science philosophy, the students who eventually advance in position
and power, eventually comes to a point where they can enforce dogma by
political means. It's a standard thing and it is not good for the
advancement of science. It's good that Ben Stein has blown the whistle
on it.
maxwell
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>
> >news:Pine.WNT.4.64.08...@serene.st...
> >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>
Excellent response, Timo. It's thoughtful posts like this that make
trawling these groups worthwhile.
John C. Polasek
You are right; retardation is adequately represented by the
Lienard-Wiechert field, which I also see referenced in my 1962
Panofsky Philips. They are much cleaner and simpler than Jefimenko's
which can be seen in Wiki.
For Lienard, yes, if you postulate a moving charge it will have
complex field effects. But in free space the only current J would be
Ddot and there is no overt charge density to put in Jefimenko's
equation.
This topic is of little practical effect, retardation being a very
slippery item, and there is enough other disinformation going around
to bother with these sophomoric maunderings.
For example, it is unconscionable that there are physicists today
still embedded in cgs, a legacy from their professors with these
consequences:
1. They have given up the coulomb in favor of the esu.
2. It is not possible to assign units to equations e.g.:
D = E please, assign units
3. they gave up capacitance which should be coulomb/volt (or
farads) in favor of
4. capacitance in centimeters, a clue to the naive "peas on a
knife" view of electrostatics.
5. It is not possible in cgs to intelligently discuss a vacuum
capacitor.
Enough. More dismal is the idea that most students do not even know
the difference between cgs and rmks or SI which have assigned the
properties of eps0 and mu0 to the vacuum.
The main idea is that there are forces that can store energy in the
vacuum which energy then turns around and becomes a source itself in a
completely reciprocal fashion. And this, without the intervention of
charges.
John Polasek
Bill Miller
"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.WNT.4.64.08...@serene.st...
>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
>
>> generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H
>> and
>> H causes E. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical
>> physicists from publishing articles in peer-reviewed publications that
>> "proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped
>> generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours and
>> dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the
>> plates of capacitors
>
> Not so many papers, hours, or dollars.
I concur with most of what you said -- until here!
Two examples: One experiment used a superconductor based setup to try and
measure H "caused" by Displacement Current. Not an inexpensive exercise.
Worse still is a set of patents issued for a variety of Crossed Field
Antennas (CFA). The patent holder is a professor in Scotland. The basic
"operating principle" is the formation of separate E and H fields
using capacitor plates and inductors that are phased at 90 degrees to form
an EM wave. The claim is that the device is as efficient as a full-sized
antenna, but an order of magnitude smaller than conventional 1/4 wave
monopoles against ground.
Numerous antennas were sold. None worked. The most salient was on the Isle
Of Man where an entire multi-million dollar radio transmitter project was
scrapped -- with substantial losses to the investors since it was physically
impossible to substitute a conventional antenna.
So, Timo, the E causes H error is not just an academic exercise gone bad. It
has cost time and money.
>The existence of electromagnetic waves, transverse (i.e., div(E) = 0,
>div(H) = 0) solutions of the vector Helmholtz equation, is pretty good
>evidence that the dD/dt term really belongs in the Maxwell equations, so
>perhaps a more direct "proof" isn't seen as essential.
>
>> If I have understood your position on this, Timo, it is that the teaching
>> of
>> this is expeditious & that once one gets to the PG leve, the "true facts"
>> are revealed and everything is fine.
>
> Well, for better or for worse, what is taught is necessarily simplified.
> Alas, while a small number of misconceptions might be corrected in later
> undergrad or postgrad education, many are not. With limited time, and
> limited initial knowledge, there are limits to what can be taught. I
> woulnd't say that everything is fine, just that it isn't easy to do much
> better. One particular problem is that many (most?) courses lead to just
> cramming for an exam, followed by forgetting. Emphasis on techniques and
> proofs over any real understanding. One problem is that understanding
> comes with experience, and a 1 semester course allows very little time for
> that.
>
> I don't think that the current issue (E, H, and causality) is such a big
> deal. It's mostly harmless as far as beliefs go,
If you consider millions of dollars wasted in craossed field antennas as
"harmless." There are others "using" similar techniques. They do not work
"as advertised" either.
and only one of very many
> various misconceptions that students pick up.
Herein is the proble: Students are not "pickibg up" misconceptions. They are
being TAUGHT them.
The participants on this lis are not dumb. But look at some of the replies
in this thread. More than a few folks still harbor the misconception that H
causes E and vice versa.
They learn far worse ones
> along the way. It also isn't enough to just tell them in lectures -
> students don't learn from lectures, they learn from assessment and
> preparing for assessment. It's hard to assess understanding, so
> understanding tends to not be assessed strongly, so students don't get
> really motivated to understand.
>
>> That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And
>> it
>> begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say
>> *something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but
>> that
>> they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors
>> don't know it!
>
> Likely enough.
Strong agreement here!
>> Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the
>> relationship
>> between E and H? Even ONE?
>
> Probably. Very likely. But specialised EM texts are the stuff of advanced
> (or at least intermediate) undergrad courses. Those who do just 1 or 2
> physics courses ay uni, or only do high school physics never get to see
> them. There might well even be generic introductory textbooks that don't
> get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near
> future, I will look.
Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say
something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship
between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes erroneously
interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful
analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges and
the movement of charges.""
Not too hard.
>>> Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just definititions of inertial motion and
>>> force, while Newton 3 is (as above) conservation of momentum. How can
>>> these
>>> be modified sensibly?
>>
>> I'd say that looking at Causality and incorporating what we learn into
>> new
>> expressions that include factors tor time variation of position and for
>> timevariation of mass would get the job done.
>
> New expressions for what? My point is that it's easy enough to modify,
> e.g., a force law (as Heaviside did Newton's law of universal
> gravitation), or Coulomb's law (as per Maxwell), but a very different
> thing to try to modify Newton's laws of motion, which are of a very
> different fundamental nature.
>
>> Naturally, any such additions
>> must obey conservation of momentum AND must reduce to the original form
>> when
>> time dependancy is absent.
>
> Well, if you want conservation of momentum, then you're _not_ going to be
> modifying Newton 3. Also, if you want retarded interaction at a distance
> along with conservation of momentum, then you're going to need fields that
> can carry the momentum from point A to point B (or some other "thing" to
> have the momentum when the "interacting" objects don't have it).
Yep. Gravitational fields do that.
>
> Or we change our ideas about what conservation of momentum means.
No need to do that.
Try a second glance.
and
> perhaps the missing mass stuff, yes, our best models of gravity do answer
> these questions. Alas, they don't reduce to Heaviside's model in the
> appropriate limit,
As I mentioned earlier, Heaviside didn't take it all the way. And that may
be because he was stuck in the "action at a distance" mode and did not seem
to thoroughy grasp Causality. Or perhaps he resolved this in his V4 of
"Electromagnetic Theory" (unfinished) that was destroyed by thieves and
vandals in 1925?
>There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE
> (or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s
Is this the one in his "Guidelines to Antigravity"?
Bill
> about the weak-field limit of GR.
>
> Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
blackhead
> John Polasek- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
maxwell
> ...
> >A charge is the source of E and H which are orthogonal and propagate
> >independently from it as given by the Lienard-Wiechert field
> >equations. I think that's all Bill is saying which isn't wrong, is it?
>
> You are right; retardation is adequately represented by the
> Lienard-Wiechert field, which I also see referenced in my 1962
>
> This topic is of little practical effect, retardation being a very
> slippery item, and there is enough other disinformation going around
> to bother with these sophomoric maunderings.
>
> For example, it is unconscionable that there are physicists today
> still embedded in cgs, a legacy from their professors with these
> consequences:
> 5. It is not possible in cgs to intelligently discuss a vacuum capacitor.
>
> Enough. More dismal is the idea that most students do not even know
> the difference between cgs and rmks or SI which have assigned the
> properties of eps0 and mu0 to the vacuum.
>
> The main idea is that there are forces that can store energy in the
> vacuum which energy then turns around and becomes a source itself in a
> completely reciprocal fashion. And this, without the intervention of
> charges.
>
(not field) is a calculation of the retarded possible EM effects
generated by a POINT charge as might be experienced by another point
charge at another distant point (needed for the approximation used in
the derivation). It is simpler than Jefimenko's approach as Jefimenko
consistently uses electric charge density throughout and rejects the
phony limit approximation of subsequent point charges (the Dirac delta
'function').
Retardation is not a 'frill' added onto Maxwell's Equations - it is
the fundamental feature of EM that distinguishes EM from Newtonian
mechanics. Unlike Lorenz, Clerk-Maxwell could NOT handle retardation
as he was introducing a field theory that is only definined at ONE
point in space AND time - all the retardation effects from the source
charges are hidden (lost?) in the calculation of the point field
variables.
Your dismissal of cgs is typical of the 'modern' approach which throws
away the physics & concentrates only on the math; even Clerk-Maxwell
screwed up in 1865 by omitting important factors of c in his most
important EM paper. But then setting c = 1 is sooo elegant, right?
It's only a (physical) constant!
Your SI approach is truly magical. Simply by changing the units you
are able to conjure real effects out of nothing; in other words, the
vacuum is truly NO thing, it is not an invisible 'spring mattress'
that can absorb energy (another ontological fallacy of modernism) and
release it when required. Any attempt to develop a theory of EM
without acknowledging the reality of the point electron and its finite
electric charge is worthy of a life-time's free admission to the
Magicians' Hall of Fame or the awarding of the next Fields Medal
(delicious irony here).
John C. Polasek
wrote:
snip
SI has it right with the right units and cgs has it wrong with no
units. Cgs cannot assign units because they have been frittered away
for convenience.
Forget the Maxwell equations. Look at the constitutive equations.
cgs has
D = E Try to assign units or give names to D or E; they have
to be different and they have to be the same.
In cgs it is impossible even to talk coherently about what either one
of those two terms mean.
Note that cgs gave away the coulomb for the bogus emu or esu or
whatever, and the volt for the statvolt which is not even volts. Then
in trying to account for electrostatic force they insert the bogus
"Coulombs' constant". Who authorized another constant-certainly not
Coulomb!
E is naturally volts/meter as is surely determined by the hardware:
two plates, a battery and long division. In SI or rmks we have
D = eps0*E where eps0 is 8.8e-12 coulombs/volt*meter
(farads/meter) and E is volts per meter, so D is coulombs/meter^2.
I can assert E as the cause when I connect the battery, and D the
displacement charge density as the effect.
Notice that after the capacitor is charged, and the battery removed, D
takes its place as producing the same battery voltage at the two
wires, only now D is the source: D/eps0 generates E.
The situation is no better for B and H in cgs.
In cgs B = H
What nonsense! Here again the cgs protagonist must remain mute or make
a fool of himself if he tries to explain to anyone what the equation
means.
Vacuum has the impedance Z = 377 ohms in SI units.
It is true that
H = E/Z or HZ = E in SI units
H ampturns/meter x Z ohms = HZ = E volts/meter.
H and E are coupled by vacuum's Z = sqrt(mu0/eps0)
>Your SI approach is truly magical. Simply by changing the units you
>are able to conjure real effects out of nothing;
No not change units, introduce units. I would be pleased if you would
list as many of cgs units with their numerical values. I haven't found
any.
All this is assumed in a void vacuum using conventional fields. But I
have already confronted and solved this problem of how to store energy
in a vacuum and it's in my permittivity paper at
http://www.dualspace.net.
It shows a pairspace that must lie "under" our space to make this
possible.
>in other words, the
>vacuum is truly NO thing, it is not an invisible 'spring mattress'
>that can absorb energy (another ontological fallacy of modernism) and
>release it when required. Any attempt to develop a theory of EM
>without acknowledging the reality of the point electron and its finite
>electric charge is worthy of a life-time's free admission to the
>Magicians' Hall of Fame or the awarding of the next Fields Medal
>(delicious irony here).
Your attempts at biting irony are so pathetic.
John Polasek
John C. Polasek
<billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>> news:Pine.WNT.4.64.08...@serene.st...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Timo A. Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0...@serene.st...
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped
>>> generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H
>>> and
>>> H causes E. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical
>>> physicists from publishing articles in peer-reviewed publications that
>>> "proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped
>>> generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours and
>>> dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the
>>> plates of capacitors
>
>>
>
>Herein is the proble: Students are not "pickibg up" misconceptions. They are
>being TAUGHT them.
>
>The participants on this lis are not dumb. But look at some of the replies
>in this thread. More than a few folks still harbor the misconception that H
>causes E and vice versa.
>
snip
>Strong agreement here!
>
>>> Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the
>>> relationship
>>> between E and H? Even ONE?
>>
>> Probably. Very likely. But specialised EM texts are the stuff of advanced
>> (or at least intermediate) undergrad courses. Those who do just 1 or 2
>> physics courses ay uni, or only do high school physics never get to see
>> them. There might well even be generic introductory textbooks that don't
>> get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near
>> future, I will look.
>
>Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say
>something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship
>between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes erroneously
>interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful
>analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges and
>the movement of charges.""
>
>Not too hard.
You are full of beans. As soon as the currents pulse up and down in
the antenna, a good portion of the energy exits as EM waves that take
off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt
charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization
of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as
they go along.
Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
the dark matter problem.
By the way which do you prefer:
D = E and B = H
or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ?
>>>>> The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in
>>>>> a
>>>>> time-dependent environment.
Whoever wrote the above is unaware that it should be Change of D field
to affect magnetic fields. Unless D = E.
>>>> I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the
>>>> other describes a limited set of experimental observations.
>>>
snip
maxwell
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell <s...@shaw.ca>
> It shows a pairspace that must lie "under" our space to make this
> possible.>in other words, the
> >vacuum is truly NO thing, it is not an invisible 'spring mattress'
> >that can absorb energy (another ontological fallacy of modernism) and
> >release it when required. Any attempt to develop a theory of EM
> >without acknowledging the reality of the point electron and its finite
> >electric charge is worthy of a life-time's free admission to the
> >Magicians' Hall of Fame or the awarding of the next Fields Medal
> >(delicious irony here).
>
> Your attempts at biting irony are so pathetic.
> John Polasek
Irony is a matter of taste. I will refrain from ad hominem as it is
too undergraduate.
Your attempt to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
Current will run into the same problems that Clerk-Maxwell did - there
is no such thing in the nothingness of the empty space between two
electrons. This was all an analogy with polarizable real material
consisting of real positive & negatively charged matter.
John C. Polasek
wrote:
>On Jun 29, 8:55 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell <s...@shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 27, 9:21 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> ...
snip
>>
>> John Polasek
>
>Your attempt to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
>Current will run into the same problems that Clerk-Maxwell did - there
>is no such thing in the nothingness of the empty space between two
>electrons. This was all an analogy with polarizable real material
>consisting of real positive & negatively charged matter.
I am not trying to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
Current on the fly. I have analyzed for a mechanism to explain
vacuum's permittivity which you can see in excruciating detail as the
permittivity paper at http://www.dualspace.net.
The pairspace described has coefficients that define permittivity as
eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 (sec^4*Amp^2/kg*m^3) which
translates to Coulomb/volt*meter = farad/m (mathcad translates this)
where L is the cell size = Compton WL x alpha= 3.54e-14m
or as
eps0 = rho*e/K
where K = 2.6e14N/m and rho = e/L^3
The compliance of permittivityis proportional to electron charge,
electron density and inverse to its spring coefficient K.
This pairspace is a dual space to our empty universe. It's where
gravity resides also.
John Polasek
Bill Miller
"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:olsi64dpq3djae7k2...@4ax.com...
Yep... Had some last night.
As soon as the currents pulse up and down in
> the antenna, a good portion of the energy exits as EM waves that take
> off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt
> charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization
> of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as
> they go along.
Your case would be stronger if E and H (in an EM wave) were out of phase.
Then we would have a situation analagous to -- say -- a spring or water
waves, wherein kinetic energy gets swapped for potential energy, etc.
BUT E and H are in phase! How in the world can anyone imagine that two in
phase and contiguaous signals are *swapping* energy? If you can do so, I
believe we would all love to hear how it works.
THEN stand by your phone for the Stockholm call!
> Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
> just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
> the dark matter problem.
Currents and charges are essential to LAUNCH the wave(s). Afterwards, the
separate E and H signals are in lock step and isolated.
> By the way which do you prefer:
> D = E and B = H
> or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ?
I pick....
Let's see...
Door number... Ummm...Well...
Oh gosh, I just can't decide!
Bill
maxwell
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:26:05 -0700 (PDT), maxwell <s...@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 29, 8:55 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:28:07 -0700 (PDT), maxwell <s...@shaw.ca>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jun 27, 9:21 am, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >> ...
> snip
>
> >> John Polasek
>
> >Your attempt to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
> >Current will run into the same problems that Clerk-Maxwell did - there
> >is no such thing in the nothingness of the empty space between two
> >electrons. This was all an analogy with polarizable real material
> >consisting of real positive & negatively charged matter.
>
> I am not trying to build an EM theory around Maxwell's Displacement
> Current on the fly. I have analyzed for a mechanism to explain
> vacuum's permittivity which you can see in excruciating detail as the
> The pairspace described has coefficients that define permittivity as
> eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 = 8.8e-12 (sec^4*Amp^2/kg*m^3) which
> translates to Coulomb/volt*meter = farad/m (mathcad translates this)
> where L is the cell size = Compton WL x alpha= 3.54e-14m
> or as
> eps0 = rho*e/K
> where K = 2.6e14N/m and rho = e/L^3
> The compliance of permittivityis proportional to electron charge,
> electron density and inverse to its spring coefficient K.
> This pairspace is a dual space to our empty universe. It's where
> gravity resides also.
> John Polasek
OK, John. Good luck. I find understanding our one universe enough of
a challenge, without doubling the problem.
John C. Polasek
<billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"John C. Polasek" <jpol...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:olsi64dpq3djae7k2...@4ax.com...
ruthless snip
>>>
>>>Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say
>>>something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship
>>>between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes erroneously
>>>interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful
>>>analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges and
>>>the movement of charges.""
>>>
>>>Not too hard.
>> You are full of beans.
>
>Yep... Had some last night.
>
>As soon as the currents pulse up and down in
>> the antenna, a good portion of the energy exits as EM waves that take
>> off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt
>> charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization
>> of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as
>> they go along.
>
>Your case would be stronger if E and H (in an EM wave) were out of phase.
>Then we would have a situation analagous to -- say -- a spring or water
>waves, wherein kinetic energy gets swapped for potential energy, etc.
>
>BUT E and H are in phase! How in the world can anyone imagine that two in
>phase and contiguaous signals are *swapping* energy? If you can do so, I
>believe we would all love to hear how it works.
OK, here's how they swap energy, (and remember, you promised to love
to hear this).
Using spring mass for simplicity and recognizing that the wave will be
sinusoidal, the force on the spring is proportional to displacement
Fk = F0 sin wt (say)
The force on the mass is proportional to acceleration, two derivatives
removed, so it's 180 degrees out of phase.
Fm = - w^2F0 sin wt
The energies likewise peak 180 degrees apart.
So you were approximately correct, that they are in phase, yes, in a
larger sense. After all, what's a minus sign? Well, shucks, let's just
admit that they are out of phase, as you were opining, making my case
stronger as you point out. I'm gratified.
>THEN stand by your phone for the Stockholm call!
>
>> Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
>> just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
>> the dark matter problem.
>
>Currents and charges are essential to LAUNCH the wave(s). Afterwards, the
>separate E and H signals are in lock step and isolated.
>
>> By the way which do you prefer:
>> D = E and B = H
>> or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ?
>
>I pick....
>
>Let's see...
>
>Door number... Ummm...Well...
>
>Oh gosh, I just can't decide!
You dodged the D=E bullet. That's a sure sign of a benighted cgs'er
who at least has the decency to feel a little guilty.
>>>Bill
>>>> Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
>>>> E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
>>>> Shrine to Spirits:
>>>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
John Polasek
Bill Miller
I just dropped everything, rushed outside and looked at my antennas. No
matter how hard I looked, I couldn't find a spring.
>and recognizing that the wave will be
> sinusoidal, the force on the spring is proportional to displacement
> Fk = F0 sin wt (say)
> The force on the mass is proportional to acceleration, two derivatives
> removed, so it's 180 degrees out of phase.
> Fm = - w^2F0 sin wt
> The energies likewise peak 180 degrees apart.
>
I'm sorry, John. I still don' see no spring!
And while Saint Albert (and the bomb) taught us that Energy and Mass have
equivalency, I do not see where mass enters into this situation.
Are you perhaps suggesting that the free space epsilon exhibits the same
type of spring-like latency that we see in the epsilon of many solid
dielectrics? If so, then, yes, we see a phase shift.
But I am not aware of any such phase shift that has bee measured in free
space. If this is your suggestion, then show us the free space experimental
evidence, please.
> So you were approximately correct, that they are in phase, yes, in a
> larger sense. After all, what's a minus sign? Well, shucks, let's just
> admit that they are out of phase, as you were opining, making my case
> stronger as you point out. I'm gratified.
>
>>THEN stand by your phone for the Stockholm call!
>>
>>> Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
>>> just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
>>> the dark matter problem.
>>
>>Currents and charges are essential to LAUNCH the wave(s). Afterwards, the
>>separate E and H signals are in lock step and isolated.
>>
>>> By the way which do you prefer:
>>> D = E and B = H
>>> or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ?
>>
>>I pick....
>>
>>Let's see...
>>
>>Door number... Ummm...Well...
>>
>>Oh gosh, I just can't decide!
>
> You dodged the D=E bullet. That's a sure sign of a benighted cgs'er
> who at least has the decency to feel a little guilty.
OK You caught me! I choose...
British Thermal Units and Furlongs Per Fortnight
Bill
John C. Polasek
<billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
You have not looked at my model of the ether (pairspace) on my
website. The springs are right in front of your nose; capacitive
energy is stored in the extension of the springs: dx = E*e/K.
It is the only arrangement that will duplicate the action of eps0.
The spring/mass resonance for the bound charges in space is
w = sqrt(K/m) = 1.693e22 rad/sec.
The frequency response of any radiation frequency f or w, fits on a
Bode diagram, showing the mass has very little effect till we approach
resonance:
Kx = mW^2x
Fm/Fk = w^2/W^2
>And while Saint Albert (and the bomb) taught us that Energy and Mass have
>equivalency, I do not see where mass enters into this situation.
>
>Are you perhaps suggesting that the free space epsilon exhibits the same
>type of spring-like latency that we see in the epsilon of many solid
>dielectrics? If so, then, yes, we see a phase shift.
Of course I am. See the website. It all works.
>But I am not aware of any such phase shift that has bee measured in free
>space. If this is your suggestion, then show us the free space experimental
>evidence, please.
>
>> So you were approximately correct, that they are in phase, yes, in a
>> larger sense. After all, what's a minus sign? Well, shucks, let's just
>> admit that they are out of phase, as you were opining, making my case
>> stronger as you point out. I'm gratified.
>>
>>>THEN stand by your phone for the Stockholm call!
>>>
>>>> Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is
>>>> just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain
>>>> the dark matter problem.
>>>
>>>Currents and charges are essential to LAUNCH the wave(s). Afterwards, the
>>>separate E and H signals are in lock step and isolated.
>>>
>>>> By the way which do you prefer:
>>>> D = E and B = H
>>>> or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ?
>>>
>>>I pick....
>>>
>>>Let's see...
>>>
Clearly it would be fruitless for me to go through a whole lot of
handsprings for someone who still thinks the vacuum is empty and D=E
and B=H, equations that are easy to memorize, but which, even with a
little more substance added, barely approach tautology.
Maxwell's Ddot lives!
>>>
>>>Oh gosh, I just can't decide!
>>
>> You dodged the D=E bullet. That's a sure sign of a benighted cgs'er
>> who at least has the decency to feel a little guilty.
>
>OK You caught me! I choose...
>
>British Thermal Units and Furlongs Per Fortnight
>
>Bill
>
>>
>>>>>Bill
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
Bill Miller
John... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
Although you may have forgotten, you and I swapped several private messages
after I visited your website a year or so a go. (This was about the time
that Benj asked about magnetism caused by D & I pointed him at Jefimenko.)
At that time, I told you that -- primarily due to the appearance of your
site and the quality of the writeup(s) -- I found your fascinating
propoition to dramatically lack credibility. I gave you some epecific
suggestions as to how you could improve both. I'm afraid I still have my
original opinion.
All the best,
Bill
blackhead
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:40:52 GMT, "Bill Miller"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"John C. Polasek" <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:4g0l64p0qplifdsjh...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:28:17 GMT, "Bill Miller"
>
> >>>"John C. Polasek" <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This mechanical model of yours describes how EM waves propagate
through the vacuum, so does that mean EM waves will propagate at
different speeds relative to a laboratory moving at varying speeds
relative to this "ether"?
John C. Polasek
>>
>
>This mechanical model of yours describes how EM waves propagate
>through the vacuum, so does that mean EM waves will propagate at
>different speeds relative to a laboratory moving at varying speeds
>relative to this "ether"?
you would see that my model first defines how electron pairs are bound
in place in "pairspace" by the equivalent of linear springs to exactly
account for the permittivity of space. It has an exact spring constant
K, which is a major improvement over the Nobel-winning "strong force"
that's just a good idea without any calibration that I know of.
PS is a solid with the Youngs modulus and density that convey EM
signals at the speed of light = sqrt(Y/rho) just as with
sqrt(eps/rho).
The signals travel absolutely in a rigid pairspace, and with c-v
relative to a receding laboratory which will detect a redshift. No one
actually measures the speed of light, much as you might think it's a
given.
This pairspace is a dual space to our space. Ancient methods tried to
find an ether that had these properties, but that you could also walk
through.
It's all in the book.
John Polasek