> On Nov 19, 6:16 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think you can drown somebody by launching torrent of words? You
> refuse to consider a case when it is flying north to south.
> Pilot will see that earth surface is moving south to north. So either
> the plane is moving north to south or the ground is moving south to
> north. Is this problem indeterminate?
So you have not considered the case *I* presented to *you*, where it is the earth that is sliding out from under a plane that is stationary with respect to the sun, and yet it was the plane that was accelerated.
According to you, your rule is that the one that accelerated is the one that is moving, and yet a simple example to the contrary seems to be one you cannot swallow.
> On Nov 19, 5:46 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 6:37 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/19/2012 6:23 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>> That philosophy says that the observations are illusions.
>>>>> You cannot argue with that. If that is what Kennaugh
>>>>> *chooses* as his philosophy, then there is nothing you
>>>>> can do.
>>>> And this is precisely the point where philosophy would run afoul of
>>>> science, because science does not dismiss observations -- especially
>>>> independently confirmed ones -- as illusions. If Alfonso wants to take
>>>> the stand that what philosophy regards as impossible (such as -- gasp!
>>>> -- more than three spatial dimensions) cannot be overridden by
>>>> observation, and that science MUST DISMISS observations that would be
>>>> compatible with alternatives (with more than three spatial dimensions,
>>>> for example), then this is no longer recognizable as science.
>>> ... and to be mistrusted as dangerous.
>> ....which is precisely why some of the goofballs that Alfonso likes to
>> quote as sympathizers to his position are considered outcasts and
>> unhirable. Alfonso thinks they are model scientists because they are
>> willing to try to get science to conform to some set of preconceptions.
>> Other scientists find them laughable for the same reason.
> This is the problem with you. Your message proves that you are an
> elitist. It is totally unimportant who made a statement. True pursuer
> of science will never search for the person and his qualifications to
> decide merit of the statement. It stands alone, like Maxwell s
> equation.
The problem is not with who said it, but with the statement. It is the *statement* that any observation that is counter to a philosophy should be taken as an illusion that is the poison, and anyone who says it is a fool and not a scientist. It has nothing to do with qualifications. It has to with foolishness.
> Big Dog wrote:
>> Be careful about this. Again, you rely on superficial statements you
>> read on usenet or perhaps in newspapers.
>> Extra spatial dimensions ARE testable.
> FWIW, they AREN'T testable. Science can only test measurements, and
> spatial dimension isn't a measurement (it's an interpretation of some
> collection of spatial measurements).
> It's certainly possible that incorporating an extra-dimensions feature
> in some scientific models could result in improved predictions, but
> those improved models could also be improved upon, at some point, by
> models that remove the extra dimensions, or don't incorporate a spatial
> dimensionality concept at all.
> Now it is out for observation to
>> determine whether they are there or not.
> On Nov 19, 6:50 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 7:40 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I don't follow your argument.
>> Your claim, as far as I can tell, is that every macroscopic object
>> you've ever seen has positive mass, and that therefore everything
>> whatsoever -- macroscopic or microscopic -- should also have positive
>> mass. And that if it is claimed that not all things have positive mass,
>> then you would require a macroscopic object with negative mass to be
>> shown to you.
>> Let me tell you what this would be analogous to. You might claim that
>> every single example of a mammal that you know gives live birth to its
>> young, including cows, dogs, cats, and sheep. If I were to claim that
>> there are mammals that do not give live birth to their young but instead
>> lay eggs, you would require that I show you a cow or a dog or a cat or a
>> sheep that lays eggs. Rather than just point to an echidna, which might
>> have lain outside your experience.
>> Why would you not consider the possibility that while all *macroscopic*
>> objects might have positive mass, this does not encompass all possibilities?
> Instead of acknowledging that truth lies outside of anybody s mind,
> you assume that it lies only in your mind, and then you spout
> ridiculous analogy as above. Get rid of this megalomania.
> Yes, I demand you to show me macroscopic negative mass.
What? You would like an egg-laying cow as well?
Why can you not look at negative-mass examples where negative mass examples lie?
> On Nov 19, 6:40 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have no problem with new ideas being formulated and proposed. What is
>> critical is that they are accompanied by suggestions on how to test
>> whether the new idea is right, and that usually involves a test that
>> distinguishes the new idea from the prevailing one. Then it is a simple
>> matter to find out which of these ideas is right -- through observation.
>> The problem is that people like you (or Alfonso) don't really have new
>> ideas. You just don't feel comfortable with the prevailing ideas and you
>> would like to encourage OTHER people to come up with new ideas that you
>> can be more comfortable with. This isn't really helpful.
> No Sir! You are completely off the track. If I object to something on
> logical grounds doesn’t mean that I am capable of producing a new
> alternate idea.
Well that's obvious. :)
> With the example I have given, I wish to stress that nothing should be
> anathema to physics. A model, howsoever counter intuitive cannot be
> rejected on the basis of logical opposition. But at the same time,
> such an opposition should not be brushed aside, in fact it should be
> welcomed, as this opposition, based on logic and reason is a pointer
> to something better, something unknown, and something for the bright
> minds to think about.
> Philosopher X (sorry for forgetting his name) arrived at the
> conclusion that earth rotates around the sun and day and night can be
> explained by assuming that earth revolves around its axis. I am sure
> this model must have been treated with contempt. Correct course would
> have been to accept the model and at the same time accept Aristotle’s
> objection.
At that time, the scientific method -- which used distinctive predictions of observable consequences -- hadn't been developed. If it had been in Aristotle's time, you're right -- his influence would have been short-lived. That didn't happen until the 17th century.
> If people were wise enough to do that, then who knows,
> Galileo would have been born within a century after Aristotle.
> We have abandoned one extreme position and gone to the other one.
> Alfonso wrote:
> > On 17/11/12 15:34, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> [I jump to the bottom line; other parts of this conversation are just
> >> re-hashes of this in various detail.]
> >> On 11/14/12 11/14/12 6:14 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> >>> One isn't right and the other wrong. It is simply that ones choice of
> >>> philosophy
> >>> changes how you view things.
> >> Your first sentence is not true. The "classical philosophy" you espouse
> >> is INCOMPATIBLE with zillions of observations of the world we inhabit.
> > This is the spin version fed to students. A philosophy cannot - *by
> > definition* - be displaced by experiment as the *chosen* philosophy
> > defines the very nature of what an experiment *is* and how it should be
> > interpreted. It defines the reason why one does experiments. It lays
> > down a framework of what is acceptable and what isn't.
> > The new philosophy does not constrain physicist with concepts of reason,
> > or the law of causality only the laws of mathematics. It says contrary
> > to reason, that a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time. There
> > is nothing in the laws of mathematics which prevent this only our
> > concepts of reality - it says reality is beyond the human mind and
> > should be ignored.
> > One can assume anything on wishes in terms of explanations subject to
> > the laws of mathematics. If to make a theory work you need to assume
> > that time can go backwards, that there are extra dimensions and negative
> > mass - there is nothing in the laws of maths which prevent this. One can
> > even assume infinite parallel universes if one wishes. The result of
> > this freedom is an expansion of physics which would not have happened
> > under classical philosophy. I fully accept that. The only criteria is
> > accurate prediction. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is a
> > matter of personal judgement as to whether what results is believable.
> > As a tenet of the new philosophy is that we can never really know what
> > nature is doing our belief about nature is deemed irrelevant. It assumes
> > from the onset that what will result from this philosophy will not
> > accord with our concepts of reality and is a self fulfilling prophesy.
> >> Only a fool would attempt to retain it.
> > Nearly all other science does. Are all scientists other than physicists
> > fools as well as me?
> Kennaugh's incessant repetition of the above nonsense is entirely
> attributable to his abject ignorance, shallow thinking, pie-in-the-sky
> naivety, and brick-wall incorrigibility - traits shared by seemingly
> all of SPR's many "retired engineer" posters.
When judiciary works for the lawyers, pedestrians point a finger at
it. When politicians make their job money making business, pedestrians
shout at them, when botanists invent terminator gene, illiterate
farmers raise their voice. Remember, it is always the outsiders.
> The new philosophy does not constrain physicist with concepts of reason, or the
> law of causality only the laws of mathematics.
This is just not true. We do not constrain NATURE with "concepts of reason" or "the law of causality" or the "laws of mathematics". For the simple reason that those are all HUMAN constructs, not aspects of nature.
There are non-causal aspects of the world around us. Wishing
there were a "law of causality" won't change that.
Bottom line: your complaints all boil down to: "I, Alfonso, do not understand modern physics." There is nothing more than that in your writings, though you expound at great length. Your claims about "philosophy" are merely red herrings, in an apparent attempt to hide your personal ignorance. There is only one way to fix that, and it must be done by YOU: studying actual physics, not the made-up nonsense you apparently think is "physics".
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 11:24:53 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
> This is just not true. We do not constrain NATURE with "concepts of
> reason" or "the law of causality" or the "laws of mathematics". For the
> simple reason that those are all HUMAN constructs, not aspects of
> nature.
The causality aspect does not care about humans or constructs.
The causality is just embedded in there. One can do nothing about it!
> There are non-causal aspects of the world around us.
Well, exactly such aspects must be human constructs, indeed (!)
> On Nov 19, 5:33 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/19/2012 5:28 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>>> On 17/11/12 15:34, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Only a fool would attempt to retain it.
>>> Nearly all other science does. Are all scientists other than physicists
>>> fools as well as me?
>> Other sciences embrace the classical sensibilities because their
>> experimental results do not probe the areas where they do not work. The
>> models, therefore, are operationally successful using classical
>> presumptions.
>> Note, however, that adopting other presumptions (such as more than three
>> spatial dimensions) does not hamper or compromise the models in other
>> sciences. And in fact, in some areas, those other sciences are enhanced
>> by nonclassical presumptions. Chemistry, for example.
> This is half truth. Let there be an observation for which we have no
> answer. Physicist has some idea to explain it and that idea is
> completely out of the box and counter intuitive.
> Problem is, should we blindly accept it or apply reason to it? If
> after applying reason and logic, if we find it non acceptable then
> there are two ways. We can continue with it in blind faith or we can
> keep searching for a correct one. At present first way is adopted and
> that is the problem with present philosophy.
No, I don't think you understand how this works.
1. Let there be an observation for which there is no answer.
2. Let a scientist propose a model which accounts for that observation.
3. Let that model also predict several other things which have yet to be compared to observation.
4. Let those observations be done and be discovered to be in alignment with the new model.
5. Then the new model gains provisional acceptance on the basis of explaining both the unaccounted-for observation and the successful new observations.
6. Meanwhile, other scientists continue to work on other models which might also account for that observation. But as long as the new model is successful, it is taught as being the most successful one to date.
Why do you find this distasteful?
There is no blind trust.
There is only *provisional* acceptance after additional validation.
There is pursuit of other models as well.
There is teaching of the presently most successful model, while at the same time teaching students how to develop other models.
> On Nov 19, 6:23 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You do not know elementary physics. Have you forgotten it?
> Capacitance of a single body, such as a sphere has capacitance. Is it
> possible?
Of course it is.
> It is a mathematical term. Can you tell me how you can
> charge a single conducting sphere?
Oh dear. Really? You haven't seen this in elementary textbooks?
> For the second part, I repeat, prove that there is electrostatic field
> around an ISOLATED charge. Don’t talk about multiple charges.
Why not? See the principle of superposition.
> Energy
> stored can be in field or it could be simply potential energy of
> charge assembly.
Idiot. What do you think the potential energy IS? It's the energy stored in the field. Good grief.
When you have a charge dipole and you let the poles of the dipole approach each other, the potential energy decreases, yes? That is PRECISELY the same as the change in the energy in the external field that is due to the reconfiguration of the poles. That's where the potential energy is stored!!!!
How badly were you taught? This is something that freshmen should know!!
> You cannot prove with certainty that the energy is
> stored in the field, as you do not have a single experiment that can
> prove this assumption.
It's a real pity that you, an electrical engineer, were taught so badly about the basics of electric and magnetic fields and what those fields are and where the energy associated with such systems is stored. It really is covered in most freshman courses.
>>>>> Steven Weinberg said that a field is stress and strain in a medium.
>>>>> BTW, no medium no stress or strin.
>>>> He did not say that. He said that a field is LIKE a stress in a medium.
>>>> Not the same.
>>> There is no stress or strain without a medium.
>> So?
>> A field is not stress or strain in a medium. It is LIKE stress or strain
>> in a medium.
> This is exactly the language spiritualist use. You have used only one
> sentence. They use paragraphs and not a single sentence conveys any
> meaning.
You'll note that Seto was quoting Weinberg. Weinberg wrote an entire book, called Dreams of a Final Theory. Seto misquoted Weinberg and claimed Weinberg said something he does NOT say. If you want to find out what Weinberg said in detail and why, you should do what I've done -- buy and read the book.
> On 11/19/12 11/19/12 - 5:28 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> The new philosophy does not constrain physicist with concepts of
>> reason, or the
>> law of causality only the laws of mathematics.
> This is just not true. We do not constrain NATURE with "concepts of
> reason" or "the law of causality" or the "laws of mathematics". For the
> simple reason that those are all HUMAN constructs, not aspects of nature.
> There are non-causal aspects of the world around us. Wishing
> there were a "law of causality" won't change that.
Alfonso would say that such aspects of the world should be ignored or presumed to be causal anyway. Alfonso would say that one has the freedom to interpret the results as non-causal or as causal but with unknown causes.
He also says that more than three spatial dimensions should not be considered, and that three and only three spatial dimensions should be presumed. He would also say that any experimental results should be interpretable as a three-spatial-dimensional effect, even if we don't know what it is.
This is Alfonso's "All pegs will fit into round holes" philosophy.
> Bottom line: your complaints all boil down to: "I, Alfonso, do not
> understand modern physics." There is nothing more than that in your
> writings, though you expound at great length. Your claims about
> "philosophy" are merely red herrings, in an apparent attempt to hide
> your personal ignorance. There is only one way to fix that, and it must
> be done by YOU: studying actual physics, not the made-up nonsense you
> apparently think is "physics".
On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:14:27 AM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> You do not know elementary physics. Have you forgotten it?
> Capacitance of a single body, such as a sphere has capacitance. Is it
> possible? It is a mathematical term. Can you tell me how you can
> charge a single conducting sphere?
Oh, good grief!
> For the second part, I repeat, prove that there is electrostatic field
> around an ISOLATED charge. Don’t talk about multiple charges. Energy
> stored can be in field or it could be simply potential energy of
> charge assembly. You cannot prove with certainty that the energy is
> stored in the field, as you do not have a single experiment that can
> prove this assumption.
Try developing a logically consistent theory of electromagnetism without such as being a necessary consequence. Maxwell's equations have been around for a century and a half.
> > On Nov 19, 5:33 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/19/2012 5:28 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> >>> On 17/11/12 15:34, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>>> Only a fool would attempt to retain it.
> >>> Nearly all other science does. Are all scientists other than physicists
> >>> fools as well as me?
> >> Other sciences embrace the classical sensibilities because their
> >> experimental results do not probe the areas where they do not work. The
> >> models, therefore, are operationally successful using classical
> >> presumptions.
> >> Note, however, that adopting other presumptions (such as more than three
> >> spatial dimensions) does not hamper or compromise the models in other
> >> sciences. And in fact, in some areas, those other sciences are enhanced
> >> by nonclassical presumptions. Chemistry, for example.
> > This is half truth. Let there be an observation for which we have no
> > answer. Physicist has some idea to explain it and that idea is
> > completely out of the box and counter intuitive.
> > Problem is, should we blindly accept it or apply reason to it? If
> > after applying reason and logic, if we find it non acceptable then
> > there are two ways. We can continue with it in blind faith or we can
> > keep searching for a correct one. At present first way is adopted and
> > that is the problem with present philosophy.
> No, I don't think you understand how this works.
> 1. Let there be an observation for which there is no answer.
> 2. Let a scientist propose a model which accounts for that observation.
> 3. Let that model also predict several other things which have yet to be
> compared to observation.
> 4. Let those observations be done and be discovered to be in alignment
> with the new model.
> 5. Then the new model gains provisional acceptance on the basis of
> explaining both the unaccounted-for observation and the successful new
> observations.
> 6. Meanwhile, other scientists continue to work on other models which
> might also account for that observation. But as long as the new model is
> successful, it is taught as being the most successful one to date.
> Why do you find this distasteful?
> There is no blind trust.
> There is only *provisional* acceptance after additional validation.
> There is pursuit of other models as well.
> There is teaching of the presently most successful model, while at the
> same time teaching students how to develop other models.
I accept everything except the last statement. Students are not taught
about the inconsistencies in the present model.
Examples:
1. There is a moderated newsgroup which bans without qualms, anybody
who says SR is wrong. This is their declared policy.
2. American Journal of Physics states their policy that any paper that
goes against established theories will not be published.
3. My interest in modern physics was aroused by a book on the subject
by an author Dr. Rajam. After every chapter there were some notes of
criticism. These are now deleted.
There are many such examples which point to the intolerance on the
part of higher ups who have usurped physics. They are not true
physicists who defend rather than discuss anomalies.
> > On Nov 19, 6:23 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You do not know elementary physics. Have you forgotten it?
> > Capacitance of a single body, such as a sphere has capacitance. Is it
> > possible?
> Of course it is.
> > It is a mathematical term. Can you tell me how you can
> > charge a single conducting sphere?
> Oh dear. Really? You haven't seen this in elementary textbooks?
> > For the second part, I repeat, prove that there is electrostatic field
> > around an ISOLATED charge. Don t talk about multiple charges.
> Why not? See the principle of superposition.
> > Energy
> > stored can be in field or it could be simply potential energy of
> > charge assembly.
> Idiot. What do you think the potential energy IS? It's the energy stored
> in the field. Good grief.
> When you have a charge dipole and you let the poles of the dipole
> approach each other, the potential energy decreases, yes? That is
> PRECISELY the same as the change in the energy in the external field
> that is due to the reconfiguration of the poles. That's where the
> potential energy is stored!!!!
> How badly were you taught? This is something that freshmen should know!!
> > You cannot prove with certainty that the energy is
> > stored in the field, as you do not have a single experiment that can
> > prove this assumption.
> It's a real pity that you, an electrical engineer, were taught so badly
> about the basics of electric and magnetic fields and what those fields
> are and where the energy associated with such systems is stored. It
> really is covered in most freshman courses.
In this post of yours you are exhibiting your criminal and sick mind.
You are a mentally disturbed person.
So far as my statements are concerned, these are correct, and we
didn’t even start the discussions. In case you believe that energy is
stored in the field then you need to read more books on the subject
which are not text books. Text books are written for the students in
such a way that they are made to follow a particular way of thinking.
Are you such a person that you cannot understand simple elementary
physics? In your post you talked about PE of at least two charges. Let
us agree for the moment that we do not know where this energy is
located. In case you believe that this energy is located in the field
then there are two immediate questions. (1) This PE is zero for a
single charge which would mean that there is no field around it. (2)
When two charges, one positive and the other negative are brought very
close, then there is negligible PE. This is true but this should also
reflect in the surrounding field. This is not possible, as, if we take
a Gaussian volume surrounding a single charge, then there must be
electrostatic flux emanating through the surface that is equivalent to
a single charge.
> > On 11/19/12 11/19/12 - 5:28 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> >> The new philosophy does not constrain physicist with concepts of
> >> reason, or the
> >> law of causality only the laws of mathematics.
> > This is just not true. We do not constrain NATURE with "concepts of
> > reason" or "the law of causality" or the "laws of mathematics". For the
> > simple reason that those are all HUMAN constructs, not aspects of nature.
> > There are non-causal aspects of the world around us. Wishing
> > there were a "law of causality" won't change that.
> Alfonso would say that such aspects of the world should be ignored or
> presumed to be causal anyway. Alfonso would say that one has the freedom
> to interpret the results as non-causal or as causal but with unknown causes.
> He also says that more than three spatial dimensions should not be
> considered, and that three and only three spatial dimensions should be
> presumed. He would also say that any experimental results should be
> interpretable as a three-spatial-dimensional effect, even if we don't
> know what it is.
> This is Alfonso's "All pegs will fit into round holes" philosophy.
> > Bottom line: your complaints all boil down to: "I, Alfonso, do not
> > understand modern physics." There is nothing more than that in your
> > writings, though you expound at great length. Your claims about
> > "philosophy" are merely red herrings, in an apparent attempt to hide
> > your personal ignorance. There is only one way to fix that, and it must
> > be done by YOU: studying actual physics, not the made-up nonsense you
> > apparently think is "physics".
> > Tom Roberts
Space is defined by three dimensional objects. These are minimum and
maximum dimensions of space. If space has more than three dimensions,
say four, then to define such a space we need to prove that there are
four dimensional objects. We will not be able to see such an object
but we would be able to see its projection in our 3-D space. If we
happen to watch such an object, then it will provide a weird
spectacle. Its projection in 3-D will not have constant 3-D dimensions.
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:14:27 AM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> > You do not know elementary physics. Have you forgotten it?
> > Capacitance of a single body, such as a sphere has capacitance. Is it
> > possible? It is a mathematical term. Can you tell me how you can
> > charge a single conducting sphere?
> Oh, good grief!
> > For the second part, I repeat, prove that there is electrostatic field
> > around an ISOLATED charge. Don’t talk about multiple charges. Energy
> > stored can be in field or it could be simply potential energy of
> > charge assembly. You cannot prove with certainty that the energy is
> > stored in the field, as you do not have a single experiment that can
> > prove this assumption.
> Try developing a logically consistent theory of electromagnetism without such as being a necessary consequence. Maxwell's equations have been around for a century and a half.
> Yosemite Samuelson
Don’t grieve! Discuss and reply.
How do you charge a single conductor?
So far as Maxwell’s theory is concerned, remember that at his time
present scientific theory adopted by monkey men of modern physics was
absent. Have you read his treaties? At least in part? He was a true
and great physicist. He never worked on anything without concepts.
His electromagnetic fields were stress and strain in ether.
On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:08 PM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Don’t grieve! Discuss and reply.
> How do you charge a single conductor?
How can you NOT charge a single conductor?
Consider a 55.8 gram sphere of iron isolated in space. Do you believe that the laws of physics insist that every single last one of the 1.57x10^25 protons in that sphere must be exactly matched by an electron? That there can never be the slightest imbalance, counting down to the last electron?
On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:08 PM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Don t grieve! Discuss and reply.
> How do you charge a single conductor?
How can you NOT charge a single conductor?
Consider a 55.8 gram sphere of iron isolated in space. Do you believe that the laws of physics insist that every single last one of the 1.57x10^25 protons in that sphere must be exactly matched by an electron? That there can never be the slightest imbalance, counting down to the last electron?
Yosemite Samuelson
=======================================================
That's pretty much it. Equilibrium being the normal state, the balance is exact. Pepper the sphere with ionizing radiation to knock out some electrons, it is then positively charged but surrounded by a cloud of electrons which fall back when the radiation ceases. Relative to a second iron sphere, the first and its electron cloud has net zero charge. You can now argue that the second sphere will capture some stray electrons from the first so we now have one +ve and one -ve sphere, but that is not a single conductor, it is not even the plates of a capacitor, it is the anode and cathode of a CRT without the glass.
The laws of physics insist that every single last one of the 1.57x10^25 protons in that sphere must be exactly matched by an electron. How do you charge a single conductor?
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
>> Thank you John. You have backed up my theory very neatly. Photons must
>> have
>> an effective length and cross section and must interact to some extent
>> when
>> in close contact, whilst still retaining the basic information they carry.
>> We can only speculate on how they interact without total annihilation due
>> to
>> addition of randomly distributed phase relationships. (Or maybe they
>> eventually do...and that explains the darkness of space).
>> If a radio signal is created out of photons radiated by accelerating
>> electrons in the antenna, those photons would possess a wide range of
>> random
>> wavelengths, totally unrelated to the radio wavelength. My guess is that
>> the
>> modulation of radio waves involves photon density variations and is not
>> related to the properties of individual photons at all. How could it be?
>> If a river is created out of raindrops accelerating out of a shower
>> head...
>> Listen up, Wilson.
>> Raindrops are made of water.
>> Rivers are made of water.
>> Rivers are not raindrops, but are made of the same stuff.
>> Rivers are guided water, they are not raindrops.
>> Photons are made of alternating magnetic and electric fields.
>> Radio waves are made of alternating magnetic and electric fields.
>> Radio waves are not photons, but are made of the same stuff.
> What do you mean by a "field"?
> ====================================================
> Under classical philosophy a field mapped
> the altered state in the aether.
> ====================================================
> What do you mean by a classical philosophical aether?
I did not refer to a classical philosophical aether.
Under classical philosophy - as introduced by Galileo and as still accepted by most other branches of science a LAW was an accepted mathematical relationship - as in Boyle's Law and Newton's LAW's of motion. A theory OTOH was an attempt at explaining in terms of causality and physical process what was happening. One can state the LAW which relates the force between charges (Coulomb's) but the THEORY as to what is happening involved the aether. There is a physical substance filling all of space which is affected/distorted/stressed by a charge and the interaction of those stress patterns results in a force.
Maxwell had the impact he did because (with the help of Oersted and Faraday) the 3 branches of physics had been unified and a single aether would suffice for action at a distance force and propagation of light. Maxwells equations, because of their form, suggest a medium for propagation. That medium was assumed to be the aether and the constants worked out by Faraday to be properties of the aether. A field mapped the altered state in the aether. The aether according to this theory had to be some sort of physical entity as it was requires to propagate light which transfers real physical energy so the waves which transfer it must be physical waves which must be waves in something not in nothing.
> Under today's philosophy a "field" is
> "what the maths is describing" in other words the maths requires
> something which does something and it is named a "field".
> ====================================================
> That's ok, fields do something.
> What do you mean by a classical philosophical aether?
> Whether it
> corresponds to reality is assumed to be beyond the human mind - it is
> simply part of a mathematical model which gives accurate prediction.
> ========================================================
> That's ok too, why the apple falls DOWN is beyond the human mind but reality
> says it does.
> What do you mean by a classical philosophical aether?
> "Photons are made of alternating magnetic and electric fields" is simply
> a description of the maths.
> ============================================================
> Why the changing magnetic field produces an electric field is beyond the
> human mind but reality says it does.
Does it? See footnote#.
Even if it does a mathematical model is not a "theory" in the classical sense and its ability to predict an outcome is not an "explanation".
All I am trying to do is to point out that the philosophical basis of physics changed - which it did. That is how the aether disappeared - that because that change does not appear in the time line of physics and is not made clear to those who study physics you end up with loads of arguments between people applying different standards and not even applying them consistently.
In literature on Maxwell's equations a minus sign is taken to imply some sort of causality. Catt shows this to be ridiculous.
"It is worth repeating here from ref. 7 that the following two source equations, from which Maxwell’s Equations are derived, have never been mentioned in the literature:
dE/dx = - Zoe0 dE/dt
[So the E field causes the E field! I Catt apr02]
dH/dx = - m0/Zo dH/dt
[So the H field causes the H field! So much for the minus sign implying causality! I Catt apr02]"
"So we find that Maxwell’s Equations (9) and (10) are only true if at every point in space E is proportional to H, and also if the velocity of electromagnetism has a fixed value c. So the only information about electromagnetism contained in the apparently sophisticated equations (9) and (10) is about the two constants in electromagnetism: the fixed velocity c, and that E, H at every point are in fixed proportion Zo (377 ohms). The remaining content of Maxwell’s Equations is hogwash."
According to Maxwell's equations the ratio of the magnetic and electric fields is constant, i.e. they are a maximum at the same time and a minimum at the same time. How can one "produce" the other?
There is also the point made by Murray. How can light be an electromagnetic phenomena when neither magnetic nor electrostatic fields have any effect on it while in transit.
I also question your statement:
"Photons are made of alternating magnetic and electric fields".
I quote Murrey "In certain circumstances, chief among which is that the physical medium in which they travel must be dispersive, a group of water waves will propagate together across a pond and will remain concentrated together in the form of a package. The energy represented by the wave system travels at the speed of the group, which is not the same as the speed of the individual waves. (The mathematics of this situation is quite elegant). Hence it was suggested that the quantum, the particle-like concentration of light energy which was deduced from the experiments, might be merely a wave-packet of dispersive electromagnetic waves. That was the view which Planck himself took of the matter and maintained with some vehemence.
The main trouble with this idea is that although a suitable wavepacket could remain stable indefinitely in the longitudinal direction, no configuration of linear (Maxwell) waves can be devised which would prevent a wave packet from dissipating across the direction of the propagation. Now a beam of light will dissipate laterally, exactly like a wave system, but the individual quanta of which it to be composed do
not dissipate. The wave-packet concept was a non-starter, disproved by the evidence, but it is still offered to physics students today as though it were valid and relevant."
On Nov 20, 1:55 pm, Yosemite Samuelson <yosemite.samuel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:08 PM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> > Don’t grieve! Discuss and reply.
> > How do you charge a single conductor?
> How can you NOT charge a single conductor?
> Consider a 55.8 gram sphere of iron isolated in space. Do you believe that the laws of physics insist that every single last one of the 1.57x10^25 protons in that sphere must be exactly matched by an electron? That there can never be the slightest imbalance, counting down to the last electron?
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:29:19 AM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Nov 20, 1:55 pm, Yosemite Samuelson <yosemite.samuel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:24:08 PM UTC-6, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> > > Don’t grieve! Discuss and reply.
> > > How do you charge a single conductor?
> > How can you NOT charge a single conductor?
> > Consider a 55.8 gram sphere of iron isolated in space. Do you believe that the laws of physics insist that every single last one of the 1.57x10^25 protons in that sphere must be exactly matched by an electron? That there can never be the slightest imbalance, counting down to the last electron?
> Are you school going student?
That is not answering the question.
Consider a 55.8 gram sphere of iron isolated in space. Do you believe that the laws of physics insist that every single last one of the 1.57x10^25 protons in that sphere must be exactly matched by an electron? That there can never be the slightest imbalance, counting down to the last electron?
