Starting Out in Physics
notten_einstein
mathematical analysis) but enthusiastic physics/chemistry
amateurist and wonder if someone out there would mind helping me to
understand a couple of things I keep wondering about basic physics but
can't seem to find adequately explained in any of the several texts
I've looked them up in; the point of my first questions being that
wave propagation & atomic vibration both seem to me, from what I can
understand of the explanations I've seen/been given, like instances of
some kind of "perpetual motion," infinitely renewable energy---
1) What exactly is the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves
'propagate' from place to place in the universe? I just don't get
this; are they supposed to be 'self-propelled' somehow? What keeps
them 'going' after they've set out on their 'infinite' journey at such
a constant speed (or is it velocity?)? Where does the energy come from
to apparently 'rejuventate' the lightwave for its subsequent
oscillation? Inside the thing?
2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why??? What keeps them going?
I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to never
sit
still, but what does that mean exactly in terms of an 'internal'
mechanism; and does it extend to every subatomic 'particle' (whatever
the hell ~those~ are!) as well? Or is it an 'external' influence; or
some type of reciprocal give-n-take? Does this then mean that the
'Uncertainty Principle' is then some kind of energy
budgeting/distribution device? I just don't get this, the books seem
to take the vibrations of atoms/particles for granted without ever
saying what 'winds' them back up once/if they've started to 'run
down.'
3) Okay, magnetism is supposedly, and unsatisfactorily in ~my~ book,
lol, defined, as I understand it, as a 'force' which occurs between
two (or
more? Does this happen?) electric currents. Then what is 'charge'
supposed to be? Has anyone yet successfully related the nature of
'charge' to gravitation, whether relativistically or in some quantum
formulation of gravitation? The definitions/explanations I've found so
far all seem as perplexingly taken-for-granted as are all those
mystifying accounts of 'intertia' one finds about.
I know that it is due to the presence or absence of electrons; but has
some mechanism been proposed as yet for 'what' charge is ~apart- from
an electron?
4) How would one set about learning the math necessary to not only
comprehend all this superquantumrelativistic'x'pialadocious
gobbledy-gook but even to play around with the ideas for fun/personal
investigation? I mean what are the areas of mathematics one really
~need~ possess facility with in order to make measurable, 'objective'
progress? Calculus, topology, linear algebra, this 'tensor' stuff,
geometry (what kinds, besides that Riemanian stuff, I guess?),
'twistors', eigenvalues, & to explore superstrings, membranes, tigers,
and bears, and how they all lived happily ever after?
I've read some articles by Roger Penrose which are the very best, and
to my knowledge, ~only~ sources for finding real world
~understandable~ explanations of things like gravitation in terms of
the math (eg the Einstein equation for general relativity) involved
(geometric curvature's relationship to time dilation for an
accelerating body, for instance); geez, he even explains what some of
the esoteric notation is really all about, why won't anyone else
'stoop' to do this? Anyone know where someone might find similar
treatments of the mathematics in order to gain expertise for physics
calculation?
Can someone provide a bit of guidance here for someone not in a
position financially to attend university? I would like to understand
what kinds of things are going on in these fields to the point where I
could at least ask intelligent, pertinent questions of those far more
knowledgable (wouldn't take much) than am I; I'm tired of nothing but
the innumerable 'lay' books to rely on and which do not seem to
explicate one damn thing for me in any really usefully perspicacious
way.
Thank you in advance. Sorry to be so ignorant, but I can assure you my
post is quite sincere and not a 'troll'; I would very much like to
begin really understanding these subjects independently, I am tired of
the frustration I feel when I try to come to terms with worm hole time
travel, twistors & spinors & superstrings etc, quantum this and
quantum that and why a quantum gravity is needed, and those equations
start popping up.
Tired of having to have it dumbed down,
James D.
Leo K
"notten_einstein" <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
> Hello, please help I'm a newish (in terms of my interest in rigorous
> mathematical analysis) but enthusiastic physics/chemistry
> amateurist and wonder if someone out there would mind helping me to
> understand a couple of things
>
>
> post is quite sincere and not a 'troll'; I would very much like to
> begin really understanding these subjects independently, I am tired of
> the frustration I feel when I try to come to terms with worm hole time
> travel, twistors & spinors & superstrings etc, quantum this and
> quantum that and why a quantum gravity is needed, and those equations
> start popping up.
>
> Tired of having to have it dumbed down,
> James D.
Hi
Thinking you are asking relevant questions - good, fine.
Anyone else having any comments?
LeoK
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.AT
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/rel3htm.htm
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"notten_einstein" <dumbl...@hotmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
Dirk Van de moortel
"notten_einstein" <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
[snip, just addressing one point, leaving some for others]
> 2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why???
> What keeps them going?
Nobody knows why.
> I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to
> never sit still,
The uncertainty principle does not "require them to" but rather
"describes how they" never sit still.
> but what does that mean exactly in terms of an 'internal'
> mechanism; and does it extend to every subatomic 'particle' (whatever
> the hell ~those~ are!) as well? Or is it an 'external' influence; or
> some type of reciprocal give-n-take? Does this then mean that the
> 'Uncertainty Principle' is then some kind of energy
> budgeting/distribution device? I just don't get this, the books seem
> to take the vibrations of atoms/particles for granted without ever
> saying what 'winds' them back up once/if they've started to 'run
> down.'
That's because nobody knows :-)
Maybe someday we will know, but then there might be
a deeper unanswered why-question.
[snip]
Dirk Vdm
Gregory L. Hansen
notten_einstein <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hello, please help I'm a newish (in terms of my interest in rigorous
>mathematical analysis) but enthusiastic physics/chemistry
>amateurist and wonder if someone out there would mind helping me to
>understand a couple of things I keep wondering about basic physics but
>can't seem to find adequately explained in any of the several texts
>I've looked them up in; the point of my first questions being that
>wave propagation & atomic vibration both seem to me, from what I can
>understand of the explanations I've seen/been given, like instances of
>some kind of "perpetual motion," infinitely renewable energy---
A perpetual motion machine is a machine that useful work can be
indefinitely extracted from.
>
>1) What exactly is the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves
>'propagate' from place to place in the universe? I just don't get
>this; are they supposed to be 'self-propelled' somehow? What keeps
>them 'going' after they've set out on their 'infinite' journey at such
>a constant speed (or is it velocity?)? Where does the energy come from
>to apparently 'rejuventate' the lightwave for its subsequent
>oscillation? Inside the thing?
The waves keep going unless something stops them, same as a baseball.
They got their energy from the thing that threw them, same as a baseball.
Fields are a basic concept. Fields are related to other things like
charges, but we don't say fields are made of anything. They're just
fields. Eventually you'll always run into terms that are just defined
and accepted. You can't keep giving explanations forever, eventually
you'll just be making stuff up that can't be tested.
>
>2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why??? What keeps them going?
>I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to never
>sit
>still, but what does that mean exactly in terms of an 'internal'
>mechanism; and does it extend to every subatomic 'particle' (whatever
>the hell ~those~ are!) as well? Or is it an 'external' influence; or
>some type of reciprocal give-n-take? Does this then mean that the
>'Uncertainty Principle' is then some kind of energy
>budgeting/distribution device? I just don't get this, the books seem
>to take the vibrations of atoms/particles for granted without ever
>saying what 'winds' them back up once/if they've started to 'run
>down.'
An atom in its ground state has non-zero energy, but it's not really
vibrating in the sense of little things rattling around inside. It's not
analogous to a perpetual motion machine because you just can't extract
work from it without fundamentally changing it. E.g. if it absorbs a
neutron and becomes unstable to some sort of decay or fission.
Uncertainty principles appear in all wave mechanics. In acoustics,
electrical circuits, etc., if you look at pressure versus position or
field versus position of a wave, then decompose it into frequency (energy)
components, the two functions will have an uncertainty relation. Quantum
mechanics is another wave mechanics, and wave mechanics is wave mechanics,
so quantum mechanics has uncertainty relations.
>
>3) Okay, magnetism is supposedly, and unsatisfactorily in ~my~ book,
>lol, defined, as I understand it, as a 'force' which occurs between
>two (or
>more? Does this happen?) electric currents. Then what is 'charge'
>supposed to be? Has anyone yet successfully related the nature of
>'charge' to gravitation, whether relativistically or in some quantum
>formulation of gravitation? The definitions/explanations I've found so
>far all seem as perplexingly taken-for-granted as are all those
>mystifying accounts of 'intertia' one finds about.
>
>I know that it is due to the presence or absence of electrons; but has
>some mechanism been proposed as yet for 'what' charge is ~apart- from
>an electron?
Charge is another basic concept. Electrical charge is the propensity of a
thing to interact with electromagnetic fields. Color charge is the
propensity of a thing to interact with color fields, a nuclear force
mediated by gluons. Gravitational charge is mass. And I don't know what
it's called for the weak force.
Electrical fields, and therefore charges, are a contributor to gravity.
The membrane theorists think they have quantum gravity, but I don't know
what's unified.
>
>4) How would one set about learning the math necessary to not only
>comprehend all this superquantumrelativistic'x'pialadocious
>gobbledy-gook but even to play around with the ideas for fun/personal
>investigation? I mean what are the areas of mathematics one really
>~need~ possess facility with in order to make measurable, 'objective'
>progress? Calculus, topology, linear algebra, this 'tensor' stuff,
>geometry (what kinds, besides that Riemanian stuff, I guess?),
>'twistors', eigenvalues, & to explore superstrings, membranes, tigers,
>and bears, and how they all lived happily ever after?
College courses are one way. Or go through the textbooks used in college
courses. Sometimes you can make do with cheap Dover books, try asking for
specific recommendations. I liked Harley Flanders' book on complex
analysis, for instance.
Assuming you know something about algebra and trigonometry, it all begins
with calculus. Fundamental definitions in physics are in terms of
calculus, for instance velocity is v=dx/dt. Newton invented calculus
because the other math available was not sufficient for his physics.
If you stick to a two-year college sequence you'll also see vector
calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. That's a good
start. Eigenthings are part of linear algebra. By the time you need
things like tensors and topology and differential geometry, you'll know
where to find it. I've never used twistors, I'm not sure what they are.
As for superstrings and membranes and tigers and things, I'm not going to
make nice-nice about it. That's literally years away, years of hard work.
It's the sort of thing that most physicists can avoid for their entire
careers, and retire knowing very little about. I've been slowly heading
in that direction as leisure time permits, and I'd like to have some
understanding of the material, but I don't ever expect to make useful
contributions to it. I'm good at spinning wrenches and turning valves,
but for some reason things like field theories and differential geometry
just don't take hold very well in me.
You should also have a freshman physics book to go through. It sets down
the foundational concepts of energy, momentum, electromagnetism, and other
things that are used continuously afterwards.
>
>I've read some articles by Roger Penrose which are the very best, and
>to my knowledge, ~only~ sources for finding real world
>~understandable~ explanations of things like gravitation in terms of
>the math (eg the Einstein equation for general relativity) involved
>(geometric curvature's relationship to time dilation for an
>accelerating body, for instance); geez, he even explains what some of
>the esoteric notation is really all about, why won't anyone else
>'stoop' to do this? Anyone know where someone might find similar
>treatments of the mathematics in order to gain expertise for physics
>calculation?
_Exploring Black Holes_ by Taylor and Wheeler, $37.33 on amazon. They
cover a surprising amount of quantitative general relativity using mostly
algebra, although you should have some clue what a derivative and an
integral are when you read it. You should also have some understanding of
special relativity. I learned from French, but everyone else seems to use
_Spacetime Physics_ by Taylor and Wheeler.
--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
Old Man
> mathematical analysis) but enthusiastic physics/chemistry
> amateurist and wonder if someone out there would mind helping me to
> understand a couple of things I keep wondering about basic physics but
> can't seem to find adequately explained in any of the several texts
> I've looked them up in; the point of my first questions being that
> wave propagation & atomic vibration both seem to me, from what I can
> understand of the explanations I've seen/been given, like instances of
> some kind of "perpetual motion," infinitely renewable energy---
>
> 1) What exactly is the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves
> 'propagate' from place to place in the universe? I just don't get
> this; are they supposed to be 'self-propelled' somehow? What keeps
> them 'going' after they've set out on their 'infinite' journey at such
> a constant speed (or is it velocity?)? Where does the energy come from
> to apparently 'rejuventate' the lightwave for its subsequent
> oscillation? Inside the thing?
Conservation of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum.
Also, conservation of the quantities [E^2 - B^2] and [E x B].
> 2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why??? What keeps them going?
> I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to never
> sit
> still, but what does that mean exactly in terms of an 'internal'
> mechanism; and does it extend to every subatomic 'particle' (whatever
> the hell ~those~ are!) as well? Or is it an 'external' influence; or
> some type of reciprocal give-n-take? Does this then mean that the
> 'Uncertainty Principle' is then some kind of energy
> budgeting/distribution device? I just don't get this, the books seem
> to take the vibrations of atoms/particles for granted without ever
> saying what 'winds' them back up once/if they've started to 'run
> down.'
Why would they "run down"? Where would James expect the
(conserved) energy of vibration to go? The existance of bound
ground states is a unique and non-intuitive result of Quantum
Mechanics. Because ground states have zero energy width
(there are no states of lower energy for further decay), they cannot
be explained via the uncertainty principle.
> 3) Okay, magnetism is supposedly, and unsatisfactorily in ~my~ book,
> lol, defined, as I understand it, as a 'force' which occurs between
> two (or
> more? Does this happen?) electric currents. Then what is 'charge'
> supposed to be? Has anyone yet successfully related the nature of
> 'charge' to gravitation, whether relativistically or in some quantum
> formulation of gravitation? The definitions/explanations I've found so
> far all seem as perplexingly taken-for-granted as are all those
> mystifying accounts of 'intertia' one finds about.
Pottery cracks. Quack-Quack! It's much easier to crack a pot
than it is to make one, but cracked-pots aren't functional.
> I know that it is due to the presence or absence of electrons; but has
> some mechanism been proposed as yet for 'what' charge is ~apart- from
> an electron?
>
> 4) How would one set about learning the math necessary to not only
> comprehend all this superquantumrelativistic'x'pialadocious
> gobbledy-gook but even to play around with the ideas for fun/personal
> investigation? I mean what are the areas of mathematics one really
> ~need~ possess facility with in order to make measurable, 'objective'
> progress? Calculus, topology, linear algebra, this 'tensor' stuff,
> geometry (what kinds, besides that Riemanian stuff, I guess?),
> 'twistors', eigenvalues, & to explore superstrings, membranes, tigers,
> and bears, and how they all lived happily ever after?
>
> I've read some articles by Roger Penrose which are the very best, and
> to my knowledge, ~only~ sources for finding real world
> ~understandable~ explanations of things like gravitation in terms of
> the math (eg the Einstein equation for general relativity) involved
> (geometric curvature's relationship to time dilation for an
> accelerating body, for instance); geez, he even explains what some of
> the esoteric notation is really all about, why won't anyone else
> 'stoop' to do this? Anyone know where someone might find similar
> treatments of the mathematics in order to gain expertise for physics
> calculation?
Get out of the Penrose playpen, and do some serious work.
Start at the beginning and stick to it. Quit dismissing things
as garbage just because you don't understand them. Retrace
your steps to find what you missed. Get rid of your
pre-conceived crackpot notions. Get off your lazy butt, and
learn some physics. There is no easy route. [Old Man]
> James D.
Sam Wormley
A Physics Booklist: Recommendations from the Net
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html
kenseto
"notten_einstein" <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
Take a look at the following link:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
proposed experiment to detect physical space.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Also visit my website:
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
Ken Seto
xxein
xxein: Everything fundamental to/of this universe is a guess on our
part. We can nail down some and certain relationships, but cannot be
certain that these relationships are explained in an objective or true
fashion.
Read and learn what you can with the grain of salt added. Ways of
believing are plentiful, but what to believe is what you believe.
Nothing will change that.
Hopefully, a good logic will prevail over belief. Sadly, logic
succombs to belief.
It might help to consider that everything we see and measure is a
trick of nature. Now figure out the trick in the blind. That is all
we are able to do (claims of understanding not withstanding).
Belief will change. The laws of the universe (as primordially
defined/ordained) will not.
Look at measurements and consider the restraints, purposes and
explanations and you will have to throw almost all away because of
coruption of data recordance.
The universe doesn't lie to us: it just omits its context.
Have fun. I really mean that.
Bill Hobba
> 1) What exactly is the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves
> 'propagate' from place to place in the universe? I just don't get
> this; are they supposed to be 'self-propelled' somehow? What keeps
> them 'going' after they've set out on their 'infinite' journey at such
> a constant speed (or is it velocity?)? Where does the energy come from
> to apparently 'rejuventate' the lightwave for its subsequent
> oscillation? Inside the thing?
Answer - Maxwell's equations. If your math is not up to understanding them
then get that knowledge - you need it for an understanding.
notten_einstein wrote:
>
> 2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why??? What keeps them going?
> I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to never
> sit
> still, but what does that mean exactly in terms of an 'internal'
> mechanism; and does it extend to every subatomic 'particle' (whatever
> the hell ~those~ are!) as well? Or is it an 'external' influence; or
> some type of reciprocal give-n-take? Does this then mean that the
> 'Uncertainty Principle' is then some kind of energy
> budgeting/distribution device? I just don't get this, the books seem
> to take the vibrations of atoms/particles for granted without ever
> saying what 'winds' them back up once/if they've started to 'run
> down.'
Answer - Quantum Mechanics. Forget about thinking in terms of models like
'what keeps it going etc' think in terms of the math. Read Diracs -
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
notten_einstein wrote:
>
> 3) Okay, magnetism is supposedly, and unsatisfactorily in ~my~ book,
> lol, defined, as I understand it, as a 'force' which occurs between
> two (or
> more? Does this happen?) electric currents. Then what is 'charge'
> supposed to be? Has anyone yet successfully related the nature of
> 'charge' to gravitation, whether relativistically or in some quantum
> formulation of gravitation? The definitions/explanations I've found so
> far all seem as perplexingly taken-for-granted as are all those
> mystifying accounts of 'intertia' one finds about.
>
Answer - Magnetism is a relativistic effect of electric fields. In any
theory you need some primary assumed things. In electromagnetism electric
charge is an assumed thing. For a correct account of Electromagnetism there
ar plenty of good books. I like Landau - Classical Theory of Fields
although Julian Schwinger's book Classical Electrodynamics may even have the
edge. If your serious get both. You will not be disappointed. Oh did I
mention the math is reasonably advanced If you really want to understand
physics get a grasp oh advanced math. Sorry this is the only way.
> I know that it is due to the presence or absence of electrons; but has
> some mechanism been proposed as yet for 'what' charge is ~apart- from
> an electron?
>
Sure - we have Quantum electrodynamics and even more recently string theory,
Then there is Kaluza-Klein theory where it is a curled up extra dimension
but, except for Quantum Electrodynamics they are only theories at the
moment. BTW to get in these areas you need to increase you math even
further,
notten_einstein wrote:
> 4) How would one set about learning the math necessary to not only
> comprehend all this superquantumrelativistic'x'pialadocious
> gobbledy-gook but even to play around with the ideas for fun/personal
> investigation?
Good question to ask. See
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/reading.html. Have fun.
BTW before you do anything get Feynamans 3 volume Lectures on Physics.
While understanding this text increase your math knowledge. After that read
Landau - Mechanics and the Classical Theory of Fields, Rindler -
Introduction to Special Relativity, Dirac - Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
and Wald - General Relativity. After you have mastered all that (it will
take a few years) you will be pretty well placed.
Thanks
Bill
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:vf1tg89...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "notten_einstein" <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > Hello, please help I'm a newish
[snip]
>
> Take a look at the following link:
> A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available at the following
> link. It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the
> electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally. Also, it includes a new
> proposed experiment to detect physical space.
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
> Also visit my website:
> http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
And last but not least:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffSimul.html
and
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MMXVertical.html
and
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html
and many more...
Dirk Vdm
notten_einstein
See
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/reading.html. Have fun.
>
> BTW before you do anything get Feynamans 3 volume Lectures on Physics.
> While understanding this text increase your math knowledge. After that read
> Landau - Mechanics and the Classical Theory of Fields, Rindler -
> Introduction to Special Relativity, Dirac - Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
> and Wald - General Relativity. After you have mastered all that (it will
> take a few years) you will be pretty well placed.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Thank you everyone for your responses and recommendations, they have
been much, much appreciated and have shed a great deal of light
(exactly how much I should soon be able to calculate, lol). I can see
I have a bit of work to do---and can hardly wait!
James
notten_einstein
> "notten_einstein" <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
>
> [snip, just addressing one point, leaving some for others]
>
> > 2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why???
> > What keeps them going?
>
> Nobody knows why.
>
> > I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to
> > never sit still,
>
> The uncertainty principle does not "require them to" but rather
> "describes how they" never sit still.
Really? So it's not a matter of their making available precise
information about their location/momentum that 'forbids' such
'stasis'? Interesting.
notten_einstein
> A perpetual motion machine is a machine that useful work can be
> indefinitely extracted from.
Yes, I didn't express myself very well at all there, what I was trying
to get at is a nagging puzzlement about how the 'interaction' between
the perpendicular electric & magnetic forces in the process of 'going'
http://didaktik.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~pkrahmer/ntnujava/emWave/emWave.html
remains 'closed' ie without losing energy (as per, for example, black
hole bodies in orbit about each other lose energy via the production
of gravitational waves or the way black holes eventually 'evaporate'
as per Hawking) but seem to keep 'churning' itself along through the
cosmos the way it's depicted as doing, ad infinitum (cf atomic energy
level 'ground states' or whatever). As opposed to just pushing a
child's wagon between the planets or even a molecule of water or
whatever, though I'm aware there are waves involved there, too...
The atom seems 'closed' in a similar way, to me. I know about using
tuned lasers to cool things down, I guess I just haven't grasped why
there is a limit to how low the 'jitter' quotient can go in a single
atom (eg why it couldn't simply be 'drained' out of existence if one
could find the right frequency for the 'siphon') or particle; perhaps
I'm befuddled by trying to mix those Einstein-Rosen condensates into
my conceptual framework. As one poster reminds me, perhaps I need to
give up such attempts and concentrate on thinking about it in terms of
the mathematical description?
> >1) What exactly is the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves
> >'propagate' from place to place in the universe? I just don't get
> >this; are they supposed to be 'self-propelled' somehow? What keeps
> >them 'going' after they've set out on their 'infinite' journey at such
> >a constant speed (or is it velocity?)? Where does the energy come from
> >to apparently 'rejuventate' the lightwave for its subsequent
> >oscillation? Inside the thing?
>
> The waves keep going unless something stops them, same as a baseball.
> They got their energy from the thing that threw them, same as a baseball.
My problem stems, I suspect, from the fact that these waves require no
medium in which to 'go.'
> Fields are a basic concept. Fields are related to other things like
> charges, but we don't say fields are made of anything. They're just
> fields. Eventually you'll always run into terms that are just defined
> and accepted. You can't keep giving explanations forever, eventually
> you'll just be making stuff up that can't be tested.
>
> >
> >2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why??? What keeps them going?
> >I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to never
> >sit
> >still, but what does that mean exactly in terms of an 'internal'
> >mechanism; and does it extend to every subatomic 'particle' (whatever
> >the hell ~those~ are!) as well? Or is it an 'external' influence; or
> >some type of reciprocal give-n-take? Does this then mean that the
> >'Uncertainty Principle' is then some kind of energy
> >budgeting/distribution device? I just don't get this, the books seem
> >to take the vibrations of atoms/particles for granted without ever
> >saying what 'winds' them back up once/if they've started to 'run
> >down.'
>
> An atom in its ground state has non-zero energy, but it's not really
> vibrating in the sense of little things rattling around inside. It's not
> analogous to a perpetual motion machine because you just can't extract
> work from it without fundamentally changing it. E.g. if it absorbs a
> neutron and becomes unstable to some sort of decay or fission.
Very interesting & eye-opening explanation. Thanks.
I think it's the discontinuous aspect of a field, since quantum mech.
came on the scene, that is throwing me. Just now getting a handle on
this, thanks to a couple of pretty good books I've found on the
subject. But thank you for the input, very helpful.
> >4) How would one set about learning the math necessary to not only
> >comprehend all this superquantumrelativistic'x'pialadocious
> >gobbledy-gook but even to play around with the ideas for fun/personal
> >investigation? I mean what are the areas of mathematics one really
> >~need~ possess facility with in order to make measurable, 'objective'
> >progress? Calculus, topology, linear algebra, this 'tensor' stuff,
> >geometry (what kinds, besides that Riemanian stuff, I guess?),
> >'twistors', eigenvalues, & to explore superstrings, membranes, tigers,
> >and bears, and how they all lived happily ever after?
>
> College courses are one way. Or go through the textbooks used in college
> courses. Sometimes you can make do with cheap Dover books, try asking for
> specific recommendations. I liked Harley Flanders' book on complex
> analysis, for instance.
>
> Assuming you know something about algebra and trigonometry, it all begins
> with calculus. Fundamental definitions in physics are in terms of
> calculus, for instance velocity is v=dx/dt. Newton invented calculus
> because the other math available was not sufficient for his physics.
> If you stick to a two-year college sequence you'll also see vector
> calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra. That's a good
> start. Eigenthings are part of linear algebra. By the time you need
> things like tensors and topology and differential geometry, you'll know
> where to find it. I've never used twistors, I'm not sure what they are.
Thanks! That explained a lot.
> As for superstrings and membranes and tigers and things, I'm not going to
> make nice-nice about it. That's literally years away, years of hard work.
I am willing to make the attempt. The hard work part doesn't scare me,
it's been the ignorance & confusion about how/where to apply my own
energies that's been the obstacle.
Much appreciated. Thank you.
James
notten_einstein
As I mention in my response to another poster, it's the fact that
these systems are 'closed' whereas at one time it was thought that
black holes were also 'closed' and yet now we know they can evaporate
(Hawking's Headline News) that generated the question. I need to learn
the math.
>
> > 3) Okay, magnetism is supposedly, and unsatisfactorily in ~my~ book,
> > lol, defined, as I understand it, as a 'force' which occurs between
> > two (or
> > more? Does this happen?) electric currents. Then what is 'charge'
> > supposed to be? Has anyone yet successfully related the nature of
> > 'charge' to gravitation, whether relativistically or in some quantum
> > formulation of gravitation? The definitions/explanations I've found so
> > far all seem as perplexingly taken-for-granted as are all those
> > mystifying accounts of 'intertia' one finds about.
>
> Pottery cracks. Quack-Quack! It's much easier to crack a pot
> than it is to make one, but cracked-pots aren't functional.
I guess I was making a correlation between those things and entropy as
well as the concept of inertia. My hunt for the math books has already
begun, btw; soon be 'cracking' them open to make interesting omelettes
out of the 'cosmic' eggs they presumably describe.
I hear, and shall obey, Old Man!
J.
Dirk Van de moortel
"notten_einstein" <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
Many will envy you. Keep that in mind and enjoy :-)
Dirk Vdm
Gregory L. Hansen
>news:<bcq9vp$66n$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
>
>> A perpetual motion machine is a machine that useful work can be
>> indefinitely extracted from.
>
>Yes, I didn't express myself very well at all there, what I was trying
>to get at is a nagging puzzlement about how the 'interaction' between
>the perpendicular electric & magnetic forces in the process of 'going'
>
>http://didaktik.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~pkrahmer/ntnujava/emWave/emWave.html
It's a dramatic display, but it's a bit misleading in that it suggests
these field thingies springing out toward the y and z axes and snapping
back. And then if you're a little above and to the left of the x-axis the
wave will miss you. Rather, think of the x-axis being the only position,
and the y and z axes as field strengths, not spatial coordinates. In an
EM wave, the electric field just doesn't exist where there isn't also a
magnetic field, and vice versa. Real radiation fields occupy volume.
Besides, if you need to put energy into an EM wave to keep it going, what
happened to the energy that you'd put into it earlier? Does it radiate
away?
>
>remains 'closed' ie without losing energy (as per, for example, black
>hole bodies in orbit about each other lose energy via the production
>of gravitational waves or the way black holes eventually 'evaporate'
>as per Hawking) but seem to keep 'churning' itself along through the
>cosmos the way it's depicted as doing, ad infinitum (cf atomic energy
>level 'ground states' or whatever). As opposed to just pushing a
>child's wagon between the planets or even a molecule of water or
>whatever, though I'm aware there are waves involved there, too...
Black holes radiate as if they had a temperature that decreases as the
black hole gets bigger, and for physically reasonable black holes that
temperature is below the 3K background radiation. So they'll tend to
gain energy rather than lose it.
>
>The atom seems 'closed' in a similar way, to me. I know about using
>tuned lasers to cool things down, I guess I just haven't grasped why
>there is a limit to how low the 'jitter' quotient can go in a single
>atom (eg why it couldn't simply be 'drained' out of existence if one
>could find the right frequency for the 'siphon') or particle; perhaps
>I'm befuddled by trying to mix those Einstein-Rosen condensates into
>my conceptual framework. As one poster reminds me, perhaps I need to
>give up such attempts and concentrate on thinking about it in terms of
>the mathematical description?
Some people have talked about getting work out of the finite ground state
energy. But here's the kicker. Sure, you can drop a rock into a hole and
get some work out of it, but first you have to dig the hole, and then you
drop the rock in, and you have to lift the rock back out if you want to
repeat the cycle.
And that's what "ground state" suggests-- it's as low as it can go. A
hydrogen atom is just going to sit there because there's no lower energy
state for it to go to. It takes work to pull the electron away, it's
already lowered its energy when the electron and proton came together.
The proton doesn't have anything to decay to. So it just sits there.
You might smash a hydrogen and a triton together to make helium and
release some energy. But it takes a lot of energy for them to overcome
the Coulomb barrier, and then again they're just going to sit there
because helium is a lower energy state.
>> >supposed to be? Has anyone yet successfully related the nature of
>> >'charge' to gravitation, whether relativistically or in some quantum
>> >formulation of gravitation? The definitions/explanations I've found so
>> >far all seem as perplexingly taken-for-granted as are all those
>> >mystifying accounts of 'intertia' one finds about.
>> >
>> >I know that it is due to the presence or absence of electrons; but has
>> >some mechanism been proposed as yet for 'what' charge is ~apart- from
>> >an electron?
>>
>> Charge is another basic concept. Electrical charge is the propensity of a
>> thing to interact with electromagnetic fields. Color charge is the
>> propensity of a thing to interact with color fields, a nuclear force
>> mediated by gluons. Gravitational charge is mass. And I don't know what
>> it's called for the weak force.
>>
>> Electrical fields, and therefore charges, are a contributor to gravity.
>> The membrane theorists think they have quantum gravity, but I don't know
>> what's unified.
>
>I think it's the discontinuous aspect of a field, since quantum mech.
>came on the scene, that is throwing me. Just now getting a handle on
>this, thanks to a couple of pretty good books I've found on the
>subject. But thank you for the input, very helpful.
The field is actually continuous. When they talk about quantizing a field
they don't mean it becomes grainy like sand. They mean the energy of the
field changes by hf where h is Planck's constant and f the frequency. And
the frequencies, related to wavelength and speed by f=c/lambda, are
determined by boundary conditions. It is not the case that the field
changes by discrete steps as you go from one point in space to another
point.
>
>> As for superstrings and membranes and tigers and things, I'm not going to
>> make nice-nice about it. That's literally years away, years of hard work.
>
>I am willing to make the attempt. The hard work part doesn't scare me,
>it's been the ignorance & confusion about how/where to apply my own
>energies that's been the obstacle.
Good. But there's different levels of "hard". There's the one where it
takes a lot of time and effort. And that applies. But there's also the
one where you stare for two hours at a blank peice of paper because you
don't know how to begin, and aren't sure you even understand what it is
you're supposed to find. Nothing makes me feel stupider than physics
homework. Not having assignments and deadlines is both a blessing and a
curse in that you can skip a problem and go on to more interesting things,
but you're tempted to skip a problem and go on to more interesting things.
greywolf42
> mathematical analysis) but enthusiastic physics/chemistry
> amateurist and wonder if someone out there would mind helping me to
> understand a couple of things I keep wondering about basic physics but
> can't seem to find adequately explained in any of the several texts
> I've looked them up in; the point of my first questions being that
> wave propagation & atomic vibration both seem to me, from what I can
> understand of the explanations I've seen/been given, like instances of
> some kind of "perpetual motion," infinitely renewable energy---
One must be careful not to ask the "wrong" questions while undergoing
academic initiation into what passes for science these days. The current
dominant hierarchy eschews causality in favor of mathematical numbers games.
Once you hit quantum mechanics or SR, you will be expected to accept certain
"postulates" on faith -- without causative explanation. This is an
important part of your indoctrination.
> 1) What exactly is the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves
> 'propagate' from place to place in the universe? I just don't get
> this; are they supposed to be 'self-propelled' somehow? What keeps
> them 'going' after they've set out on their 'infinite' journey at such
> a constant speed (or is it velocity?)? Where does the energy come from
> to apparently 'rejuventate' the lightwave for its subsequent
> oscillation? Inside the thing?
The first thing you should understand about "modern physics" is that one no
longer has to explain how something works. Simply finding a mathematical
correlation is enough. And physical causality is actively shunned. This
view is for interal use only. Those who make their living (posing) as
scientists don't advertise this to the general public.
Waves in any medium are "self-propelled" because of the motions that are
contained within the MEDIUM itself. Think about sound waves, water waves
and seismic waves for a moment. A "wave" forms when a small portion of the
medium is displaced from it's normal "resting" (or average) position. The
medium contains some physical mechanism for restoring the displaced portion
to it's normal position. The adjacent portions of the medium accelerate the
displaced portion back to where it came from .... but in so doing are
themselves displaced away from their "center". Which will cause the NEXT
piece of medium to displace. And so we have created our wave. The energy
for all these displacements come from the internal motions within the
medium. Hence the action and reaction of the medium happens at a rate that
reflects the internal motions of the medium (i.e. the temperature, pressure,
density, type of medium). Sound waves move at a constant speed -- but only
if temperature, pressure, density, etc are constant. That characteristic
speed is a measure of the medium in which any wave travels. Waves don't
travel forever in any real material. Internal losses (which vary from
material to material) lead to eventual extinction of the wave.
Now to the specific case of light waves. The modern theory of "photons"
does not consider light to be a wave. It considers a photon to be a free
particle that has "wave-like properties". The photon is a useful concept
(as it lets one calculate the "right" answers when combined with other
assumptions). However, unlike other "free particles", one simply assumes
(postulates) that "photons" always are observed to move at a certain
constant velocity, with a speed of "c". This is part of quantum mechanics.
QM cannot answer your question, because "how" or "what happens inside" does
not exist in the statistical models of QM. One often hears the statement
"you can't ask why, it's not a valid question." Of course, the QUESTION is
valid. It's just that the QM theory can't answer it. But admitting that
would imply that there's a missing piece in QM.
Since the "inner construction" of a "photon" cannot be known, your question
cannot be answered in QM. Your question also cannot be answered in
relativity theory -- because the speed of "c" is a basic assumption of
relativity.
Warning: The following is "heresy" and will get you down-graded by over 90%
of all physics profs. So don't ever mention this prior to completing your
desired courses:
But if you'd like to see what MIGHT be going on in the real world, you have
to go back to the mechanical development of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's
equations were first developed with a physical fluid aether. ("On Physical
Lines of Force", 1861), in order to describe electric and magnetic
phenomena. Among other things, Maxwell derived the transverse wave speed in
his fluid. It matched the observed speed of light. This was the first
identification that light was related to electric and magnetic phenomena.
As such, the restoring forces for light are the same as for any other
medium. The internal motions of the medium. The speed of light is
"constant" only as the temperature, pressure, density of Maxwell's fluid
remains essentially unchanged.
> 2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why??? What keeps them going?
> I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to never
> sit
> still, but what does that mean exactly in terms of an 'internal'
> mechanism; and does it extend to every subatomic 'particle' (whatever
> the hell ~those~ are!) as well? Or is it an 'external' influence; or
> some type of reciprocal give-n-take? Does this then mean that the
> 'Uncertainty Principle' is then some kind of energy
> budgeting/distribution device? I just don't get this, the books seem
> to take the vibrations of atoms/particles for granted without ever
> saying what 'winds' them back up once/if they've started to 'run
> down.'
Again, quantum mechanics (the uncertainty principle) cannot give you an
answer as to "why," because it explicitly lacks any sort of "mechanism."
Indeed, "vibration" itself is not described in QM. It's more of a
"probability distribution." "Vibration" is more of a heuristic device (aid
to visualization) in this sense. In any event, "vibrations" or "orbits"
only wind down if there is some means of losing energy from the atom or
system (i.e. friction). If you can't get energy out, then the motion is
truly "perpetual."
"Perpetual motion" really has nothing to do with single atoms. The
postulate of energy conservation assures us that one can't get more energy
out than one puts in. Thus, if you drain off energy, things can't run
forever.
In the case of atoms (electron "orbitals"), the electrons don't have a
mechanism to radiate energy, unless they interact with their environment in
some way. Only certain orbits are stable. (QM agrees that this is so, but
doesn't explain whay.)
Note: the following is heresy, and should not be repeated in front of
Professors.
Classical EM can explain the stability of the orbit by the orbit because
electron motions generate accelerating and decelerating fields. And these
lead to harmonic resonances at certain distances from the nucleus.
> 3) Okay, magnetism is supposedly, and unsatisfactorily in ~my~ book,
> lol, defined, as I understand it, as a 'force' which occurs between
> two (or more? Does this happen?) electric currents.
Magnetism CAN be generated by changing electric currents. It also is
generated in compass needles, and other devices. Steady electric currents
do not give rise to magnetic fields. (You'll get more out of this when you
study classical E&M.)
> Then what is 'charge' supposed to be?
{moved from lower down to connect the subject}
> I know that it is due to the presence or absence of electrons; but has
> some mechanism been proposed as yet for 'what' charge is ~apart- from
> an electron?
Again, "charge" is explained in modern QM as one of those things that just
happens to exist. Accept it, because you can't ask why.
> Has anyone yet successfully related the nature of
> 'charge' to gravitation,
Charge (the electromagnetic force) has not yet been related to graviation.
Neither has the strong or nuclear forces been related to gravitation to
date.
> whether relativistically or in some quantum formulation of gravitation?
Actually, current gravitational theories (GR) contradict QM (or vice versa)
by more than 50 orders of magnitude. There is no functional "quantum"
gravitational theory to date that solves this little dilemma.
> The definitions/explanations I've found so
> far all seem as perplexingly taken-for-granted as are all those
> mystifying accounts of 'intertia' one finds about.
Welcome modern physics. :(
> 4) How would one set about learning the math necessary to not only
> comprehend all this superquantumrelativistic'x'pialadocious
> gobbledy-gook but even to play around with the ideas for fun/personal
> investigation? I mean what are the areas of mathematics one really
> ~need~ possess facility with in order to make measurable, 'objective'
> progress? Calculus, topology, linear algebra, this 'tensor' stuff,
> geometry (what kinds, besides that Riemanian stuff, I guess?),
> 'twistors', eigenvalues, & to explore superstrings, membranes, tigers,
> and bears, and how they all lived happily ever after?
Calculus would be the bare minimum to begin serious exploration into
physics. Tensors are just fancy and simplified notation for writing down
calculus equations. Topology and the rest is needed only for specialized
subjects (you'll know when you need it).
> I've read some articles by Roger Penrose which are the very best, and
> to my knowledge, ~only~ sources for finding real world
> ~understandable~ explanations of things like gravitation in terms of
> the math (eg the Einstein equation for general relativity) involved
> (geometric curvature's relationship to time dilation for an
> accelerating body, for instance); geez, he even explains what some of
> the esoteric notation is really all about, why won't anyone else
> 'stoop' to do this? Anyone know where someone might find similar
> treatments of the mathematics in order to gain expertise for physics
> calculation?
Penrose is reputed to be a "materialist." That is, someone who desires to
find a material cause for some material effect that is observed in the lab.
Materialism is quite rare in physics, because materialists tend to fail
quantum mechanics, or leave the field in disgust. QM is much more suited to
the very popular "positivist" phiolosphy. Wherein nothing causes
anything -- one can only describe what one personally sees.
Thus, Penrose is rare because "physics" has abandoned the material
philosophy that you are looking for. Now if you really like mathematics,
and scribbles on a page are all that's important -- you're in like flint.
> Can someone provide a bit of guidance here for someone not in a
> position financially to attend university? I would like to understand
> what kinds of things are going on in these fields to the point where I
> could at least ask intelligent, pertinent questions of those far more
> knowledgable (wouldn't take much) than am I; I'm tired of nothing but
> the innumerable 'lay' books to rely on and which do not seem to
> explicate one damn thing for me in any really usefully perspicacious
> way.
I'd say that Calculus is the linchpin to advancement from your position.
I'd suggest taking a calculus class from your local junior college (or
equivalent). Calculus is not self-evident, and most people require some
coaching to get the hang of it. Once you've got it, you're free to chew up
any topics you like. Most universities have undergraduate physics books
that are good introductions to the many and varied topics that exist. One
of those and a calculus text will get you started. Then you can head off in
any direction, as time and interest permit.
> Thank you in advance. Sorry to be so ignorant, but I can assure you my
> post is quite sincere and not a 'troll'; I would very much like to
> begin really understanding these subjects independently, I am tired of
> the frustration I feel when I try to come to terms with worm hole time
> travel, twistors & spinors & superstrings etc, quantum this and
> quantum that and why a quantum gravity is needed, and those equations
> start popping up.
>
> Tired of having to have it dumbed down,
> James D.
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Laurel Amberdine
> In article <7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com>,
> notten_einstein <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<big snip>
>>I am willing to make the attempt. The hard work part doesn't scare me,
>>it's been the ignorance & confusion about how/where to apply my own
>>energies that's been the obstacle.
>
> Good. But there's different levels of "hard". There's the one where it
> takes a lot of time and effort. And that applies. But there's also the
> one where you stare for two hours at a blank peice of paper because you
> don't know how to begin, and aren't sure you even understand what it is
> you're supposed to find. Nothing makes me feel stupider than physics
> homework.
Oh good, it's not just me.
Perhaps the ability to endure nearly endless periods of feeling utterly
stupid is important in learning physics? :)
A couple other things (this is directed to the OP), relevant
specifically to self teaching.
Don't be too eager to jump into something advanced when you're shaky on
the foundations. Like, it's really hard to do calculus if you aren't
*facile* (not just acquainted with) with algebra.
Get lots of books, even multiple books on the same topic. If you get
stuck with one book, a different approach may make the concept clear.
There are books specifically for self-teaching -- use those when you can.
These generally have more explanation, more frequent checks that you
understand what you just read, fewer problems, and (of course) answers to
the problems.
If you get stuck bad, just ask for help. People here (sci.physics) and in
sci.math are very helpful. Just don't give the impression you're asking
for a homework assignment, or that you haven't tried to figure it out
yourself.
Don't take too many days off from your studies. Too easy to forget stuff
if it's not constantly reinforced.
> Not having assignments and deadlines is both a blessing and a
> curse in that you can skip a problem and go on to more interesting things,
> but you're tempted to skip a problem and go on to more interesting things.
I have a different problem. I will obsess over the same stupid problem
that I can't figure out for MONTHS. I have finally learned to move on.
Though there's still this one dratted calculus problem that I get out and
try to solve every couple weeks...
-Laurel
Gregory L. Hansen
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
>notten_einstein <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
>One must be careful not to ask the "wrong" questions while undergoing
>academic initiation into what passes for science these days. The current
>dominant hierarchy eschews causality in favor of mathematical numbers games.
>Once you hit quantum mechanics or SR, you will be expected to accept certain
>"postulates" on faith -- without causative explanation. This is an
>important part of your indoctrination.
There are always postulates that are simply accepted. If you want e.g.
special relativity reduced to some kind of Newtonian mechanics, then you
want it expressed in a different set of postulates that you simply accept
on faith, like the Galilean transforms which have no justification
whatsoever except that's how things seem to work, at least at slower
speeds, and you'd take it as a matter of faith that they continue to work
even if they don't seem to.
Beware the man that says "Everyone else has a theory, I have REALITY."
greywolf42
Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bcv4a3$n89$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <vf49uf1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >
> >notten_einstein <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
>
> >One must be careful not to ask the "wrong" questions while undergoing
> >academic initiation into what passes for science these days. The current
> >dominant hierarchy eschews causality in favor of mathematical numbers
games.
> >Once you hit quantum mechanics or SR, you will be expected to accept
certain
> >"postulates" on faith -- without causative explanation. This is an
> >important part of your indoctrination.
>
> There are always postulates that are simply accepted.
Never in the scientific method.
> If you want e.g.
> special relativity reduced to some kind of Newtonian mechanics, then you
> want it expressed in a different set of postulates that you simply accept
> on faith,
Nope.
> like the Galilean transforms which have no justification
> whatsoever except that's how things seem to work,
Ah, but it's those experimental things that are the basis for our holding to
Newton's rules. It's not the postulates, but the experiments.
> at least at slower
> speeds, and you'd take it as a matter of faith that they continue to work
> even if they don't seem to.
It's not faith. If they "didn't seem to", then I look to see what I don't
understand. A perfect example is "Pioneer drag." The hierarchy ignores it,
says it doesn't exist, or insists that there is some mistake in the
calculation. Others invoke "fifth forces" or simply claim that Newton's
laws "don't apply" to miniscule accelerations. And all to avoid the dreaded
word: "aether."
> Beware the man that says "Everyone else has a theory, I have REALITY."
So we should beware those who traffic in "principles" instead of "theories."
I.e. "principle of relativity," "principle of equivalence," etc.
"Principle" denotes a claim to "truth." "Theory is admitted to be
uncertain.
Gregory L. Hansen
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:bcv4a3$n89$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <vf49uf1...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >notten_einstein <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> >One must be careful not to ask the "wrong" questions while undergoing
>> >academic initiation into what passes for science these days. The current
>> >dominant hierarchy eschews causality in favor of mathematical numbers
>games.
>> >Once you hit quantum mechanics or SR, you will be expected to accept
>certain
>> >"postulates" on faith -- without causative explanation. This is an
>> >important part of your indoctrination.
>>
>> There are always postulates that are simply accepted.
>
>Never in the scientific method.
You have no other choice, short of an infinite regress of explanations of
explanations.
>
>> If you want e.g.
>> special relativity reduced to some kind of Newtonian mechanics, then you
>> want it expressed in a different set of postulates that you simply accept
>> on faith,
>
>Nope.
Damn betcha.
>
>> like the Galilean transforms which have no justification
>> whatsoever except that's how things seem to work,
>
>Ah, but it's those experimental things that are the basis for our holding to
>Newton's rules. It's not the postulates, but the experiments.
And it's also those experimental things that are the basis for shoving
Newton's rules aside.
>
>> at least at slower
>> speeds, and you'd take it as a matter of faith that they continue to work
>> even if they don't seem to.
>
>It's not faith. If they "didn't seem to", then I look to see what I don't
>understand. A perfect example is "Pioneer drag." The hierarchy ignores it,
>says it doesn't exist, or insists that there is some mistake in the
>calculation. Others invoke "fifth forces" or simply claim that Newton's
>laws "don't apply" to miniscule accelerations. And all to avoid the dreaded
>word: "aether."
In other words, you accept without need of explanation that Newton's
postulates are true, and try to understand [insert phenomenon here] in
light of those postulates.
And it seems you also assume without need of explanation that "the
hierarchy" ignores it and says it doesn't exist. The Pioneer 10
acceleration can be easily accounted for by modifying Newtonian gravity,
but it's an ad hoc modification without a motivation that ties into other
known physics. Just as the "aether drag" as an explanation is an ad hoc
hypothesis with no other justification whatsoever beyond a personal world
view.
>
>> Beware the man that says "Everyone else has a theory, I have REALITY."
>
>So we should beware those who traffic in "principles" instead of "theories."
>I.e. "principle of relativity," "principle of equivalence," etc.
>"Principle" denotes a claim to "truth." "Theory is admitted to be
>uncertain.
Those are postulates. Return to the beginning of this message.
greywolf42
> In article <vf70i5p...@corp.supernews.com>,
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >
> >Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bcv4a3$n89$3...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> In article <vf49uf1...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >notten_einstein <dumbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:7ad81558.03061...@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> >One must be careful not to ask the "wrong" questions while undergoing
> >> >academic initiation into what passes for science these days. The
current
> >> >dominant hierarchy eschews causality in favor of mathematical numbers
> >games.
> >> >Once you hit quantum mechanics or SR, you will be expected to accept
> >certain
> >> >"postulates" on faith -- without causative explanation. This is an
> >> >important part of your indoctrination.
> >>
> >> There are always postulates that are simply accepted.
> >
> >Never in the scientific method.
>
> You have no other choice, short of an infinite regress of explanations of
> explanations.
Sure I have a choice. I use the scientific method... and I experiment to
try to disprove those "postulates".
> >> If you want e.g.
> >> special relativity reduced to some kind of Newtonian mechanics, then
you
> >> want it expressed in a different set of postulates that you simply
accept
> >> on faith,
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Damn betcha.
Again, one does not have to accept on faith. One runs experiments. That's
why we use Newton's mechanics.
> >> like the Galilean transforms which have no justification
> >> whatsoever except that's how things seem to work,
> >
> >Ah, but it's those experimental things that are the basis for our holding
to
> >Newton's rules. It's not the postulates, but the experiments.
>
> And it's also those experimental things that are the basis for shoving
> Newton's rules aside.
Name one experiment that requires shoving Newton's rules aside. Hint: If
you load an experiment with uncertainties, that doesn't disprove Newton.
> >> at least at slower
> >> speeds, and you'd take it as a matter of faith that they continue to
work
> >> even if they don't seem to.
> >
> >It's not faith. If they "didn't seem to", then I look to see what I
don't
> >understand. A perfect example is "Pioneer drag." The hierarchy ignores
it,
> >says it doesn't exist, or insists that there is some mistake in the
> >calculation. Others invoke "fifth forces" or simply claim that Newton's
> >laws "don't apply" to miniscule accelerations. And all to avoid the
dreaded
> >word: "aether."
>
> In other words, you accept without need of explanation that Newton's
> postulates are true, and try to understand [insert phenomenon here] in
> light of those postulates.
"Pioneer drag" was predicted centuries before it was announced. The
earliest predictor that I know of was LeSage (or perhaps Laplace). Pioneer
looks to be undergoing what is often called "Feynman drag" (since Feynman's
lectures on LeSage popularized the argument). This is a result of the
motion of Pionner (and the other spacecraft) and the Solar system through
the aether.
> And it seems you also assume without need of explanation that "the
> hierarchy" ignores it and says it doesn't exist.
I don't assume it. It is well documented in this N.G. See the many threads
on the subject.
> The Pioneer 10
> acceleration can be easily accounted for by modifying Newtonian gravity,
> but it's an ad hoc modification without a motivation that ties into other
> known physics.
Precisely my point.
> Just as the "aether drag" as an explanation is an ad hoc
> hypothesis with no other justification whatsoever beyond a personal world
> view.
Except that the "aether drag" was an explicit prediction. By many people
over 2 centuries. Not "ad hoc" at all. The "aether" was not invented
simply to explain Pioneer drag. Unlike the "modifying" Newtonian equations
just to match the observation.
> >> Beware the man that says "Everyone else has a theory, I have REALITY."
> >
> >So we should beware those who traffic in "principles" instead of
"theories."
> >I.e. "principle of relativity," "principle of equivalence," etc.
> >"Principle" denotes a claim to "truth." "Theory is admitted to be
> >uncertain.
>
> Those are postulates. Return to the beginning of this message.
If they were "merely" postulates, then that's what they'd have been called.
Again, your argument is falsified from the very beginning by your closing
statement. (Or rather your hypocrisy is showing.) You champion
"principles" postulated as reality, instead of theory.
Einstein was once asked what he would have done if Eddington's light-bending
measurements had not "confirmed" GR. Einstein is reputed to have replied
"Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord, because the principle is
correct!"
Gregory L. Hansen
And so you don't use postulates that are demonstrably false. Good for
you. There are any number of sets of postulates that can fit a given set
of data. And at the slow speeds of Newtonian physics, Einstein's
postulates fit the data just perfectly. So what experiments do you do,
then, to decide between them?
>
>> >> If you want e.g.
>> >> special relativity reduced to some kind of Newtonian mechanics, then
>you
>> >> want it expressed in a different set of postulates that you simply
>accept
>> >> on faith,
>> >
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Damn betcha.
>
>Again, one does not have to accept on faith. One runs experiments. That's
>why we use Newton's mechanics.
Newton's mechanics demonstrably fail at high speeds. Kinetic energy is
not 0.5*mv^2. Momentum is not mv. There is a transverse Doppler shift.
Light bends around the Sun by twice the angle predicted by Newtonian
gravity. And so on.
You've seen the validity of Newtonian mechanics perhaps even to supersonic
speeds. But it's only assumption or faith that assumes it stays valid at
much higher speeds near the speed of light. Can you name any experiments
that shows the validity of Newtonian mechanics in the near-light regime?
>
>> >> like the Galilean transforms which have no justification
>> >> whatsoever except that's how things seem to work,
>> >
>> >Ah, but it's those experimental things that are the basis for our holding
>to
>> >Newton's rules. It's not the postulates, but the experiments.
>>
>> And it's also those experimental things that are the basis for shoving
>> Newton's rules aside.
>
>Name one experiment that requires shoving Newton's rules aside. Hint: If
>you load an experiment with uncertainties, that doesn't disprove Newton.
The speed of gamma rays emitted from fast sources, e.g.
Phys Rev 135, B1071 (1964)
NIM A 355, 537 (1995)
for instance. If you can't find experiments that are inconsistent with
Newton, you haven't looked very hard. There's an extensive literature of
tests of both relativity and quantum mechanics.
Now, do you also know the experimental basis for rejecting the aether?
>
>> >> at least at slower
>> >> speeds, and you'd take it as a matter of faith that they continue to
>work
>> >> even if they don't seem to.
>> >
>> >It's not faith. If they "didn't seem to", then I look to see what I
>don't
>> >understand. A perfect example is "Pioneer drag." The hierarchy ignores
>it,
>> >says it doesn't exist, or insists that there is some mistake in the
>> >calculation. Others invoke "fifth forces" or simply claim that Newton's
>> >laws "don't apply" to miniscule accelerations. And all to avoid the
>dreaded
>> >word: "aether."
>>
>> In other words, you accept without need of explanation that Newton's
>> postulates are true, and try to understand [insert phenomenon here] in
>> light of those postulates.
>
>"Pioneer drag" was predicted centuries before it was announced. The
>earliest predictor that I know of was LeSage (or perhaps Laplace). Pioneer
>looks to be undergoing what is often called "Feynman drag" (since Feynman's
>lectures on LeSage popularized the argument). This is a result of the
>motion of Pionner (and the other spacecraft) and the Solar system through
>the aether.
And in the centuries since, Newton's theory of gravity found experimental
favor over aether theories. And since then, Newton's gravity was found
wanting.
It's a no-brainer to come up with a one trick pony. Crackpots come up
with the one trick pony that explains one phenomenon but fails in the
larger context, and they don't seem to notice or to care.
Try an aether theory of gravity that predicts the amount of the anomolous
acceleration from independent considerations, without having to insert the
acceleration as a free parameter, and also predicts the usual array of
gravitational redshifting, time of flight of radar signals, perihelion
precessions, and so on.
>
>> And it seems you also assume without need of explanation that "the
>> hierarchy" ignores it and says it doesn't exist.
>
>I don't assume it. It is well documented in this N.G. See the many threads
>on the subject.
Check the LANL arXives for counter-examples. Get to a library and look it
up.
>
>> The Pioneer 10
>> acceleration can be easily accounted for by modifying Newtonian gravity,
>> but it's an ad hoc modification without a motivation that ties into other
>> known physics.
>
>Precisely my point.
>
>> Just as the "aether drag" as an explanation is an ad hoc
>> hypothesis with no other justification whatsoever beyond a personal world
>> view.
>
>Except that the "aether drag" was an explicit prediction. By many people
>over 2 centuries. Not "ad hoc" at all. The "aether" was not invented
>simply to explain Pioneer drag. Unlike the "modifying" Newtonian equations
>just to match the observation.
>
>> >> Beware the man that says "Everyone else has a theory, I have REALITY."
>> >
>> >So we should beware those who traffic in "principles" instead of
>"theories."
>> >I.e. "principle of relativity," "principle of equivalence," etc.
>> >"Principle" denotes a claim to "truth." "Theory is admitted to be
>> >uncertain.
>>
>> Those are postulates. Return to the beginning of this message.
>
>If they were "merely" postulates, then that's what they'd have been called.
>Again, your argument is falsified from the very beginning by your closing
>statement. (Or rather your hypocrisy is showing.) You champion
>"principles" postulated as reality, instead of theory.
Since when?
I'm saying that your sorry characterization of the place of relativity in
science is just plain wrong. It's internally consistent, well validated
experimentally, and has the other characteristics of a good theory like
its fecundity and small set of universally applied postulates.
I have never said it was "true" in any sense of ultimate reality. I don't
think I've written anything that suggest I hold that opinion. I can only
imagine you make broad assumptions about the opinions of anyone that
argues with you on the matter.
>
>Einstein was once asked what he would have done if Eddington's light-bending
>measurements had not "confirmed" GR. Einstein is reputed to have replied
>"Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord, because the principle is
>correct!"
And I'm sure he was completely serious. Einstein never made jokes, or
said anything with tongue in cheek.
Bill Hobba
> 1) What exactly is the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves
> 'propagate' from place to place in the universe? I just don't get
> this; are they supposed to be 'self-propelled' somehow? What keeps
> them 'going' after they've set out on their 'infinite' journey at such
> a constant speed (or is it velocity?)? Where does the energy come from
> to apparently 'rejuventate' the lightwave for its subsequent
> oscillation? Inside the thing?
Answer - Maxwell's equations. If your math is not up to understanding them
then get that knowledge - you need it for an understanding.
notten_einstein wrote:
>
> 2) Atoms vibrate without cease, correct? Why??? What keeps them going?
> I've read how it's the uncertainty principle requiring them to never
> sit
> still, but what does that mean exactly in terms of an 'internal'
> mechanism; and does it extend to every subatomic 'particle' (whatever
> the hell ~those~ are!) as well? Or is it an 'external' influence; or
> some type of reciprocal give-n-take? Does this then mean that the
> 'Uncertainty Principle' is then some kind of energy
> budgeting/distribution device? I just don't get this, the books seem
> to take the vibrations of atoms/particles for granted without ever
> saying what 'winds' them back up once/if they've started to 'run
> down.'
Answer - Quantum Mechanics. Forget about thinking in terms of models like
'what keeps it going etc' think in terms of the math. Read Diracs -
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
notten_einstein wrote:
>
> 3) Okay, magnetism is supposedly, and unsatisfactorily in ~my~ book,
> lol, defined, as I understand it, as a 'force' which occurs between
> two (or
> more? Does this happen?) electric currents. Then what is 'charge'
> supposed to be? Has anyone yet successfully related the nature of
> 'charge' to gravitation, whether relativistically or in some quantum
> formulation of gravitation? The definitions/explanations I've found so
> far all seem as perplexingly taken-for-granted as are all those
> mystifying accounts of 'intertia' one finds about.
>
Answer - Magnetism is a relativistic effect of electric fields. In any
theory you need some primary assumed things. In electromagnetism electric
charge is an assumed thing. For a correct account of Electromagnetism there
ar plenty of good books. I like Landau - Classical Theory of Fields
although Julian Schwinger's book Classical Electrodynamics may even have the
edge. If your serious get both. You will not be disappointed. Oh did I
mention the math is reasonably advanced If you really want to understand
physics get a grasp oh advanced math. Sorry this is the only way.
> I know that it is due to the presence or absence of electrons; but has
> some mechanism been proposed as yet for 'what' charge is ~apart- from
> an electron?
>
Sure - we have Quantum electrodynamics and even more recently string theory,
Then there is Kaluza-Klein theory where it is a curled up extra dimension
but, except for Quantum Electrodynamics they are only theories at the
moment. BTW to get in these areas you need to increase you math even
further,
notten_einstein wrote:
> 4) How would one set about learning the math necessary to not only
> comprehend all this superquantumrelativistic'x'pialadocious
> gobbledy-gook but even to play around with the ideas for fun/personal
> investigation?
Good question to ask. See
greywolf42
By definition, a postulate is not "demonstrably false."
> Good for
> you. There are any number of sets of postulates that can fit a given set
> of data. And at the slow speeds of Newtonian physics, Einstein's
> postulates fit the data just perfectly. So what experiments do you do,
> then, to decide between them?
One does one of the early experiments -- Sagnac. An explicit disproof of
SR. You could let SR weasel out by invoking "non-locality" or claiming that
the Sagnac ring is shorter CCW than CW, or some such physical impossibility.
Or, one could do a simple OWLS experiment. However, since one of Einstein's
postulates is the "requirement" of e-synching, relativists will disavow any
such experiment.
> >> >> If you want e.g.
> >> >> special relativity reduced to some kind of Newtonian mechanics, then
> >you
> >> >> want it expressed in a different set of postulates that you simply
> >accept
> >> >> on faith,
> >> >
> >> >Nope.
> >>
> >> Damn betcha.
> >
> >Again, one does not have to accept on faith. One runs experiments.
That's
> >why we use Newton's mechanics.
>
> Newton's mechanics demonstrably fail at high speeds. Kinetic energy is
> not 0.5*mv^2. Momentum is not mv.
That statement first requires you to redefine space and time according to
Einstein's SR As such you can make no claims about Newtonian mechanics.
> There is a transverse Doppler shift.
This is classical, also.
> Light bends around the Sun by twice the angle predicted by Newtonian
gravity.
Demonstrably false when first claimed in 1919. Non-repeatable for decades.
Arbitrary corrections applied to VLBI claims (some invoke plasma bending in
the solar corona, others don't -- as required to get the predicted GR
result). And finally the ultimate in bayesian statistics applied to
noise -- use of Hipparcos data (nowhere near the Sun). Three million 1
significant figure results (or less) "regressed" to three orders of
magnitude below the physical detection limit of the device, matched to the
bayesian prior of "GR is correct."
> And so on.
Yep. We see massive "reinterpretation" of data in order to get the desired
result.
> You've seen the validity of Newtonian mechanics perhaps even to supersonic
> speeds. But it's only assumption or faith that assumes it stays valid at
> much higher speeds near the speed of light.
What's this focus on "faith" of yours?
> Can you name any experiments
> that shows the validity of Newtonian mechanics in the near-light regime?
Pioneer effect and stable planetary orbits in the Titius/Bode series. Of
course both of those imply a Newtonian aether.
Can you show any that demonstrate the failure of Newtonian mechanics?
(i.e. ones that don't use E&M theory -- which itself fails at that speed --
at least according to Maxwell's model?)
> >> >> like the Galilean transforms which have no justification
> >> >> whatsoever except that's how things seem to work,
> >> >
> >> >Ah, but it's those experimental things that are the basis for our
holding
> >to
> >> >Newton's rules. It's not the postulates, but the experiments.
> >>
> >> And it's also those experimental things that are the basis for shoving
> >> Newton's rules aside.
> >
> >Name one experiment that requires shoving Newton's rules aside. Hint: If
> >you load an experiment with uncertainties, that doesn't disprove Newton.
>
> The speed of gamma rays emitted from fast sources, e.g.
>
> Phys Rev 135, B1071 (1964)
> NIM A 355, 537 (1995)
>
> for instance.
ROTFLMAO!!!
WAVE speeds don't contradict Newtonian mechanics. Try again.
> If you can't find experiments that are inconsistent with
> Newton, you haven't looked very hard. There's an extensive literature of
> tests of both relativity and quantum mechanics.
But all of those ASSUME that Newtonian mechanics "fails" and use Einstein's
"redefinition" of time and space. So they can't be invoked as disproof of
Newtonian mechanics.
> Now, do you also know the experimental basis for rejecting the aether?
I've not seen any. I've seen a lot of them that require dumping SR (Sagnac,
HK, CMBR background....) Why didn't you just provide your own list?
Sociological "favor" has nothing to do with the question. Newton HAD no
theory of gravity ("Hypothesis non fingo.") Newton PREDATED aether-gravity
theories. LeSage (and others) came up with aether-caused theories.
Now, what -- exactly -- is the reason that Newton's "theory" (sic) was
"found wanting?"
> It's a no-brainer to come up with a one trick pony. Crackpots come up
> with the one trick pony that explains one phenomenon but fails in the
> larger context, and they don't seem to notice or to care.
Aether is not a "one-trick". It's a common physical cause.
Relativists' one-trick pony is the invocation of the holy SR/GR (and
addition of as many ad hoc epicycles (dark matter, dark energy,"non-local"
results, etc) and redefinitions as needed to make the answer come out
"right"). However, in this case, aetherists predicted the observation
centuries ago. In fact, relativists delighted in pointing out that aether
"can't exist" because such deceleration was not seen (just like
pseudo-scientists invoked against the atomic theory of fluid and against
Copernicus, via parallax).
> Try an aether theory of gravity that predicts the amount of the anomolous
> acceleration from independent considerations, without having to insert the
> acceleration as a free parameter,
There is no "free parameter" Pioneer calculations (as frequently provided in
this N.G.). But why do you claim that aether theories must do this? GR
can't.
> and also predicts the usual array of gravitational redshifting,
Done. This is also classical.
> time of flight of radar signals,
I presume you mean Shapiro time delay? Better known as fluid motion to
aetherists?
> perihelion precessions,
Yep. Done 17 years before Einstein. A simple requirement of finite
propagation speed.
> and so on.
Why the need to imply there exist more? Feeling uncertain?
> >> And it seems you also assume without need of explanation that "the
> >> hierarchy" ignores it and says it doesn't exist.
> >
> >I don't assume it. It is well documented in this N.G. See the many
threads
> >on the subject.
>
> Check the LANL arXives for counter-examples. Get to a library and look it
> up.
I see you have no references to back up your claim. WHAT, exactly should I
be looking up?
> >> The Pioneer 10
> >> acceleration can be easily accounted for by modifying Newtonian
gravity,
> >> but it's an ad hoc modification without a motivation that ties into
other
> >> known physics.
> >
> >Precisely my point.
> >
> >> Just as the "aether drag" as an explanation is an ad hoc
> >> hypothesis with no other justification whatsoever beyond a personal
world
> >> view.
> >
> >Except that the "aether drag" was an explicit prediction. By many people
> >over 2 centuries. Not "ad hoc" at all. The "aether" was not invented
> >simply to explain Pioneer drag. Unlike the "modifying" Newtonian
equations
> >just to match the observation.
I see you have no response. Expected.
> >> >> Beware the man that says "Everyone else has a theory, I have
REALITY."
> >> >
> >> >So we should beware those who traffic in "principles" instead of
> >"theories."
> >> >I.e. "principle of relativity," "principle of equivalence," etc.
> >> >"Principle" denotes a claim to "truth." "Theory is admitted to be
> >> >uncertain.
> >>
> >> Those are postulates. Return to the beginning of this message.
> >
> >If they were "merely" postulates, then that's what they'd have been
called.
> >Again, your argument is falsified from the very beginning by your closing
> >statement. (Or rather your hypocrisy is showing.) You champion
> >"principles" postulated as reality, instead of theory.
>
> Since when?
In your post, of course.
> I'm saying that your sorry characterization of the place of relativity in
> science is just plain wrong.
But we aren't discussing the "place of relativity" in what passes for
science in the mutual brown-nosing and grant-grubbing society that we
euphimistically refer to as "science."
> It's internally consistent,
All tautologies are internally consistent. However, they are not
scientific.
> well validated experimentally,
All tautologies are insultated against disproof. That is WHY they aren't
scientific.
> and has the other characteristics of a good theory like
> its fecundity
I agree that it is fertilizer.
> and small set of universally applied postulates.
NO theory has "universally applied postulates." All theories have regions
of applicability.
> I have never said it was "true" in any sense of ultimate reality. I don't
> think I've written anything that suggest I hold that opinion. I can only
> imagine you make broad assumptions about the opinions of anyone that
> argues with you on the matter.
Your statement was "Beware the man that says 'Everyone else has a theory, I
have REALITY.'" I merely pointed out that your Prophet dealt in
"principles," not theories. EINSTEIN said SR was ultimate truth.
> >
> >Einstein was once asked what he would have done if Eddington's
light-bending
> >measurements had not "confirmed" GR. Einstein is reputed to have replied
> >"Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord, because the principle is
> >correct!"
>
> And I'm sure he was completely serious. Einstein never made jokes, or
> said anything with tongue in cheek.
You may try to weasel out however you like. However, Einstein insisted on
the applications of "universal principles." That's a claim for
truth-with-a-capital T. Since you champion his view, you are championing
claims of ultimate reality. Aetherists don't do that. They try to
understand how things work. In nature.
Gregory L. Hansen
Some sets of postulates lead to incorrect predictions.
>
>> Good for
>> you. There are any number of sets of postulates that can fit a given set
>> of data. And at the slow speeds of Newtonian physics, Einstein's
>> postulates fit the data just perfectly. So what experiments do you do,
>> then, to decide between them?
>
>One does one of the early experiments -- Sagnac. An explicit disproof of
>SR. You could let SR weasel out by invoking "non-locality" or claiming that
>the Sagnac ring is shorter CCW than CW, or some such physical impossibility.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Are you maybe assuming a rotating reference frame is inertial?
>
>Or, one could do a simple OWLS experiment. However, since one of Einstein's
>postulates is the "requirement" of e-synching, relativists will disavow any
>such experiment.
>
>
>> >> >> If you want e.g.
>> >> >> special relativity reduced to some kind of Newtonian mechanics, then
>> >you
>> >> >> want it expressed in a different set of postulates that you simply
>> >accept
>> >> >> on faith,
>> >> >
>> >> >Nope.
>> >>
>> >> Damn betcha.
>> >
>> >Again, one does not have to accept on faith. One runs experiments.
>That's
>> >why we use Newton's mechanics.
>>
>> Newton's mechanics demonstrably fail at high speeds. Kinetic energy is
>> not 0.5*mv^2. Momentum is not mv.
>
>That statement first requires you to redefine space and time according to
>Einstein's SR As such you can make no claims about Newtonian mechanics.
Nope. We can measure energy, we can measure momentum. E.g.
Soviet Physics JETP 34(7), 384 (1958)
>
>> There is a transverse Doppler shift.
>
>This is classical, also.
I assume you mean Newtonian. Classical means it's not quantum mechanics.
And no, it isn't. Do the math. The relativistic prediction gives an
extra factor of 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) that the Newtonian prediction lacks.
>
>> Light bends around the Sun by twice the angle predicted by Newtonian
>gravity.
>
>Demonstrably false when first claimed in 1919. Non-repeatable for decades.
>Arbitrary corrections applied to VLBI claims (some invoke plasma bending in
>the solar corona, others don't -- as required to get the predicted GR
>result). And finally the ultimate in bayesian statistics applied to
>noise -- use of Hipparcos data (nowhere near the Sun). Three million 1
>significant figure results (or less) "regressed" to three orders of
>magnitude below the physical detection limit of the device, matched to the
>bayesian prior of "GR is correct."
>
>> And so on.
>
>Yep. We see massive "reinterpretation" of data in order to get the desired
>result.
>
>> You've seen the validity of Newtonian mechanics perhaps even to supersonic
>> speeds. But it's only assumption or faith that assumes it stays valid at
>> much higher speeds near the speed of light.
>
>What's this focus on "faith" of yours?
You brought it up, remember? It's still quoted above.
>
>> Can you name any experiments
>> that shows the validity of Newtonian mechanics in the near-light regime?
>
>Pioneer effect and stable planetary orbits in the Titius/Bode series. Of
>course both of those imply a Newtonian aether.
>
>Can you show any that demonstrate the failure of Newtonian mechanics?
>(i.e. ones that don't use E&M theory -- which itself fails at that speed --
>at least according to Maxwell's model?)
>
>> >> >> like the Galilean transforms which have no justification
>> >> >> whatsoever except that's how things seem to work,
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, but it's those experimental things that are the basis for our
>holding
>> >to
>> >> >Newton's rules. It's not the postulates, but the experiments.
>> >>
>> >> And it's also those experimental things that are the basis for shoving
>> >> Newton's rules aside.
>> >
>> >Name one experiment that requires shoving Newton's rules aside. Hint: If
>> >you load an experiment with uncertainties, that doesn't disprove Newton.
>>
>> The speed of gamma rays emitted from fast sources, e.g.
>>
>> Phys Rev 135, B1071 (1964)
>> NIM A 355, 537 (1995)
>>
>> for instance.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!
>
>WAVE speeds don't contradict Newtonian mechanics. Try again.
Funny waves, but that brings us to quantum mechanics.
>
>> If you can't find experiments that are inconsistent with
>> Newton, you haven't looked very hard. There's an extensive literature of
>> tests of both relativity and quantum mechanics.
>
>But all of those ASSUME that Newtonian mechanics "fails" and use Einstein's
>"redefinition" of time and space. So they can't be invoked as disproof of
>Newtonian mechanics.
I should know better than to continue this. After reading things like the
paragraph above I know we can both spend a lot of time on this and just
get frustrated. But no, they don't ASSUME that Newtonian mechanics
"fails".
>> Now, do you also know the experimental basis for rejecting the aether?
>
>I've not seen any. I've seen a lot of them that require dumping SR (Sagnac,
>HK, CMBR background....) Why didn't you just provide your own list?
Okay, what is it about the CMBR that required dumping SR? The most recent
measurements show amazingly good agreement with models of Big Bang
cosmology.
Even if you don't agree with extant theory, if you can't even understand
why other people thought it was a good idea then there's something
horribly wrong with your understanding. That's why I didn't provide my
own list, I wanted to see what you had to say about it. We can start with
stellar aberration which suggest the Earth moves through the aether and
the Michelson-Morley experiment which suggests it doesn't, leading to
Lorentz's contraction (an additional postulate) that tried to reconcile
the results.
Try Physics Today, May 1987, page 69, for some of them.
Descarte's model of gravity as swirling aethers predated Newton's model of
central forces. I don't know LeSage's.
>
>Now, what -- exactly -- is the reason that Newton's "theory" (sic) was
>"found wanting?"
That there seems to be no problem with orbiting in the wrong direction,
for one.
>
>> It's a no-brainer to come up with a one trick pony. Crackpots come up
>> with the one trick pony that explains one phenomenon but fails in the
>> larger context, and they don't seem to notice or to care.
>
>Aether is not a "one-trick". It's a common physical cause.
>
>Relativists' one-trick pony is the invocation of the holy SR/GR (and
>addition of as many ad hoc epicycles (dark matter, dark energy,"non-local"
>results, etc) and redefinitions as needed to make the answer come out
>"right"). However, in this case, aetherists predicted the observation
>centuries ago. In fact, relativists delighted in pointing out that aether
>"can't exist" because such deceleration was not seen (just like
>pseudo-scientists invoked against the atomic theory of fluid and against
>Copernicus, via parallax).
>
>> Try an aether theory of gravity that predicts the amount of the anomolous
>> acceleration from independent considerations, without having to insert the
>> acceleration as a free parameter,
>
>There is no "free parameter" Pioneer calculations (as frequently provided in
>this N.G.). But why do you claim that aether theories must do this? GR
>can't.
Because you're telling me that the aether is the explanation. I'm saying
prove it. I know GR doesn't account for the anomolous acceleration and
I'm not pretending it does.
>
>> and also predicts the usual array of gravitational redshifting,
>
>Done. This is also classical.
>
>> time of flight of radar signals,
>
>I presume you mean Shapiro time delay? Better known as fluid motion to
>aetherists?
>
>> perihelion precessions,
>
>Yep. Done 17 years before Einstein. A simple requirement of finite
>propagation speed.
>
>> and so on.
>
>Why the need to imply there exist more? Feeling uncertain?
Atomic clock flown around on airplanes compared to one on the ground, GPS,
Thomas precession, fine structure, cyclotron frequency, bending radius of
charged particles in magnetic fields, bremmstrahlung, mass defects in
nuclei, mass defects in chemical reactions, electron-positron pair
creation... come on, it's a big field, you can't expect me to name every
relativistic effect by the seat of my pants.
>
>> >> And it seems you also assume without need of explanation that "the
>> >> hierarchy" ignores it and says it doesn't exist.
>> >
>> >I don't assume it. It is well documented in this N.G. See the many
>threads
>> >on the subject.
>>
>> Check the LANL arXives for counter-examples. Get to a library and look it
>> up.
>
>I see you have no references to back up your claim. WHAT, exactly should I
>be looking up?
"Pioneer 10", of course, in "astrophysics" at xxx.lanl.gov. You'll find
titles like "Independent confirmation of the Pioneer 10 Anomalous
Acceleration", "Five-dimensional Gravity and the Pioneer Effect", "Pioneer
Anomaly and the Helicity-Rotation Coupling", etc.
At the library I find titles like "Conventional forces can explain the
anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10", "Study of the anomalous
acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11", "An explanation of the 'Pioneer
effect' based on quasi-metric relativity", "Pioneer probe generates 'space
warp", disproves 'big bang'"...
I can't vouch for the quality of all of those reports. But to say that
scientists have completely ignored the Pioneer effect and pretend it
doesn't exist gives an unusual definition to "ignore", because there's a
lot of stuff published about it.
Einstein was his own man, I'm mine. I believe you're just
mischaracterizing Einstein's opinion, but it doesn't matter, because his
theory still works very well.
>Aetherists don't do that. They try to
>understand how things work. In nature.
Then I take it you'll agree that the aether is just another theory that
shouldn't be confused with any kind of "reality".
I was going to cut this off, but I kept going, anyway. See how I do next
time.
greywolf42
But an incorrect prediction is not necessarily the result of an "incorrect
postulate." It may be due to bad logic, bad math, bad experiments or simply
"bad" reporting.
> >> Good for
> >> you. There are any number of sets of postulates that can fit a given
set
> >> of data. And at the slow speeds of Newtonian physics, Einstein's
> >> postulates fit the data just perfectly. So what experiments do you do,
> >> then, to decide between them?
> >
> >One does one of the early experiments -- Sagnac. An explicit disproof of
> >SR. You could let SR weasel out by invoking "non-locality" or claiming
that
> >the Sagnac ring is shorter CCW than CW, or some such physical
impossibility.
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
>
> Are you maybe assuming a rotating reference frame is inertial?
I'm not making any such assumptions. I'm merely pointing out that the
Sagnac experiment disproved SR. The relativists had to make up a convoluted
"explanation" after the fact.
Of course, you COULD make the claim that any acceleration at all invalidates
any physical experiment -- because one has to accelerate something to make
the measurments. It's the selective use of that argument that gives the
game away.
> >Or, one could do a simple OWLS experiment. However, since one of
Einstein's
> >postulates is the "requirement" of e-synching, relativists will disavow
any
> >such experiment.
No response. As expected.
> >> >> >> If you want e.g.
> >> >> >> special relativity reduced to some kind of Newtonian mechanics,
then
> >> >you
> >> >> >> want it expressed in a different set of postulates that you
simply
> >> >accept
> >> >> >> on faith,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nope.
> >> >>
> >> >> Damn betcha.
> >> >
> >> >Again, one does not have to accept on faith. One runs experiments.
> >That's
> >> >why we use Newton's mechanics.
> >>
> >> Newton's mechanics demonstrably fail at high speeds. Kinetic energy is
> >> not 0.5*mv^2. Momentum is not mv.
> >
> >That statement first requires you to redefine space and time according to
> >Einstein's SR As such you can make no claims about Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Nope. We can measure energy,
If you can actually measure energy (instead of calculating it) there is a
Nobel prize waiting for you. We measure observables. Energy is
fundamentally not observable.
> we can measure momentum. E.g.
>
> Soviet Physics JETP 34(7), 384 (1958)
For both energy and momentum, one needs time and space measurements. Since
you've redefined both time and space in your e-synching (time) definition,
you cannot apply the results to Newtonian space and time.
And since I don't get Soviet Physics, how about an extract about what you're
talking about.
> >
> >> There is a transverse Doppler shift.
> >
> >This is classical, also.
>
> I assume you mean Newtonian. Classical means it's not quantum mechanics.
> And no, it isn't. Do the math. The relativistic prediction gives an
> extra factor of 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) that the Newtonian prediction lacks.
I mean Maxwellian, not Newtonian. Maxwell, as in Maxwell's equations. (The
doppler effect requires a fluid and waves in same in classical mechanics.)
> >> Light bends around the Sun by twice the angle predicted by Newtonian
> >gravity.
> >
> >Demonstrably false when first claimed in 1919. Non-repeatable for
decades.
> >Arbitrary corrections applied to VLBI claims (some invoke plasma bending
in
> >the solar corona, others don't -- as required to get the predicted GR
> >result). And finally the ultimate in bayesian statistics applied to
> >noise -- use of Hipparcos data (nowhere near the Sun). Three million 1
> >significant figure results (or less) "regressed" to three orders of
> >magnitude below the physical detection limit of the device, matched to
the
> >bayesian prior of "GR is correct."
No response. As expected.
> >> And so on.
> >
> >Yep. We see massive "reinterpretation" of data in order to get the
desired
> >result.
No response. As expected.
> >> You've seen the validity of Newtonian mechanics perhaps even to
supersonic
> >> speeds. But it's only assumption or faith that assumes it stays valid
at
> >> much higher speeds near the speed of light.
> >
> >What's this focus on "faith" of yours?
>
> You brought it up, remember? It's still quoted above.
Mea culpa. However, you've now made several attempts to avoid dealing with
the "faith" of academia (relativists and QM priests), by attempting to claim
that ALL physicists work on faith. My point was that you keep trying to
apply the label without thought.
> >> Can you name any experiments
> >> that shows the validity of Newtonian mechanics in the near-light
regime?
> >
> >Pioneer effect and stable planetary orbits in the Titius/Bode series. Of
> >course both of those imply a Newtonian aether.
No response. As expected.
> >Can you show any that demonstrate the failure of Newtonian mechanics?
> >(i.e. ones that don't use E&M theory -- which itself fails at that
speed --
> >at least according to Maxwell's model?)
I didn't think so.
> >> >> >> like the Galilean transforms which have no justification
> >> >> >> whatsoever except that's how things seem to work,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Ah, but it's those experimental things that are the basis for our
> >holding
> >> >to
> >> >> >Newton's rules. It's not the postulates, but the experiments.
> >> >>
> >> >> And it's also those experimental things that are the basis for
shoving
> >> >> Newton's rules aside.
> >> >
> >> >Name one experiment that requires shoving Newton's rules aside. Hint:
If
> >> >you load an experiment with uncertainties, that doesn't disprove
Newton.
> >>
> >> The speed of gamma rays emitted from fast sources, e.g.
> >>
> >> Phys Rev 135, B1071 (1964)
> >> NIM A 355, 537 (1995)
> >>
> >> for instance.
> >
> >ROTFLMAO!!!
> >
> >WAVE speeds don't contradict Newtonian mechanics. Try again.
>
> Funny waves, but that brings us to quantum mechanics.
Nothing funny about light waves at all. See Maxwell, "On Physical Lines of
Force", 1861. Purely Newtonian mechanics in a corpuscular fluid --
resulting in Maxwell's equations. Hint: QM is not involved. Same as for
sound waves and for water waves.
> >> If you can't find experiments that are inconsistent with
> >> Newton, you haven't looked very hard. There's an extensive literature
of
> >> tests of both relativity and quantum mechanics.
> >
> >But all of those ASSUME that Newtonian mechanics "fails" and use
Einstein's
> >"redefinition" of time and space. So they can't be invoked as disproof
of
> >Newtonian mechanics.
>
> I should know better than to continue this. After reading things like the
> paragraph above I know we can both spend a lot of time on this and just
> get frustrated.
Then perhaps it's time for you to actually think about the opposing view,
before blindly posting statements that are simply taken on faith. (I used
to be a good little relativist. I believed my books and teachers. Then I
started reading the original works, and started thinking.)
> But no, they don't ASSUME that Newtonian mechanics "fails".
They assume Newtonian mechanics fails as soon as they apply e-synching
(relativity and QM) and redefine time and space.
> >> Now, do you also know the experimental basis for rejecting the aether?
> >
> >I've not seen any. I've seen a lot of them that require dumping SR
(Sagnac,
> >HK, CMBR background....) Why didn't you just provide your own list?
>
> Okay, what is it about the CMBR that required dumping SR? The most recent
> measurements show amazingly good agreement with models of Big Bang
> cosmology.
The CMBR is a preferred frame. This contradicts the assumptions of SR.
Regardless of whether it it's in agreement with a non-SR/GR theory (the big
bang).
> Even if you don't agree with extant theory, if you can't even understand
> why other people thought it was a good idea then there's something
> horribly wrong with your understanding.
But I DO understand why other people thought it was a good idea. I've spent
years tracking down the history of various claims. And most of them are
pure B.S. and wishful thinking.
> That's why I didn't provide my own list, I wanted to see what you had to
say about it.
That's a pretty tentative approach. If you make assertions in this game,
you should be willing to back them up.
> We can start with stellar aberration
This is one of those convenient myths. Stellar aberration cannot
distinguish between aether and non-aether. Both give rise to stellar
aberration in exactly the same manner. The claim that there was some
problem for the aether (that didn't apply to SR) was the unsubstantiated
brain-child of Max Born, in 1923, "The Theory of Relativty." Most texts
repeat this blatantly false claim (and embellish it as in the game of
"telephone.")
> which suggest the Earth moves through the aether and
> the Michelson-Morley experiment which suggests it doesn't,
It only suggests this to people who don't apply Maxwell's model to Maxell's
equations. Use the equations blindly (a la Michelson) and get into trouble.
> leading to
> Lorentz's contraction (an additional postulate) that tried to reconcile
> the results.
Lorentz' postulate was the recovery of Maxwell's model. He incorporated the
real, physical field (aether) that Michelson and Einstein disdain.
> Try Physics Today, May 1987, page 69, for some of them.
No. I asked YOU to provide your own list. If you want to borrow from
elsewhere -- feel free. But I'm looking for why YOU feel the way you do.
So far, all I see is faith and indoctrination. You don't even seem to be
aware of the reasons others gave.
Newton HAS no model. "Hypothesis non fingo." Are you avoiding reading my
post?
> I don't know LeSage's.
Then you don't know anything about aether models. How is it that you felt
capable of making the claim about aether theories of gravity? Faith.
> >Now, what -- exactly -- is the reason that Newton's "theory" (sic) was
> >"found wanting?"
>
> That there seems to be no problem with orbiting in the wrong direction,
> for one.
Huh??? There is no "wrong direction" in Newtonian mechanics. Nor is there
in GR. Could you be a wee bit more specific here?
> >> It's a no-brainer to come up with a one trick pony. Crackpots come up
> >> with the one trick pony that explains one phenomenon but fails in the
> >> larger context, and they don't seem to notice or to care.
> >
> >Aether is not a "one-trick". It's a common physical cause.
> >
> >Relativists' one-trick pony is the invocation of the holy SR/GR (and
> >addition of as many ad hoc epicycles (dark matter, dark
energy,"non-local"
> >results, etc) and redefinitions as needed to make the answer come out
> >"right"). However, in this case, aetherists predicted the observation
> >centuries ago. In fact, relativists delighted in pointing out that
aether
> >"can't exist" because such deceleration was not seen (just like
> >pseudo-scientists invoked against the atomic theory of fluid and against
> >Copernicus, via parallax).
No response. As expected.
> >> Try an aether theory of gravity that predicts the amount of the
anomolous
> >> acceleration from independent considerations, without having to insert
the
> >> acceleration as a free parameter,
> >
> >There is no "free parameter" Pioneer calculations (as frequently provided
in
> >this N.G.). But why do you claim that aether theories must do this? GR
> >can't.
>
> Because you're telling me that the aether is the explanation. I'm saying
> prove it. I know GR doesn't account for the anomolous acceleration and
> I'm not pretending it does.
Then you are admitting yourself a hypocrite. YOU claimed that aether simply
applied a "free parameter" (measure Pioneer drag and claim an ad-hoc cause).
Yet you know that GR does this all the time (dark mattter, dark energy,
velocity-dependent back-action, etc). You're not saying "prove it" to GR --
only to aether theories.
Hilarious, since Pioneer drag is NOT ad hoc. See "Pushing Gravity",
Aperion, April, 2002."Dynamic Effects in Le Sage Models"
> >> and also predicts the usual array of gravitational redshifting,
> >
> >Done. This is also classical.
No response. As expected.
> >> time of flight of radar signals,
> >
> >I presume you mean Shapiro time delay? Better known as fluid motion to
> >aetherists?
No response. As expected.
> >> perihelion precessions,
> >
> >Yep. Done 17 years before Einstein. A simple requirement of finite
> >propagation speed.
No response. As expected.
> >> and so on.
> >
> >Why the need to imply there exist more? Feeling uncertain?
>
> Atomic clock flown around on airplanes compared to one on the ground,
Predicted by aetherists.
> GPS,
Active, constant correction of clocks. Doesn't prove anything one way or
the other. (Do you really think the military would set up a system that
required scientists to know what they're doing?)
> Thomas precession,
Aether
> fine structure,
Calculated from first-principle aether parameters.
> cyclotron frequency,
E&M, which is classical particle dynamics.
> bending radius of charged particles in magnetic fields,
E&M, which is classical particle dynamics.
> bremmstrahlung,
E&M, which is classical particle dynamics.
> mass defects in nuclei,
Tautology. These are calculated. Not measured.
> mass defects in chemical reactions,
Do you mean isotope-specific variations? Or is this just a repeat of the
nuclei claim. (We still don't measure energy.)
> electron-positron pair creation...
Simply explained with Maxwell's aether.
> come on, it's a big field, you can't expect me to name every
> relativistic effect by the seat of my pants.
No. Just the ones that you belive support your worldview. And you seem to
have a strange view of what constitutes SR and GR.
The problem is that you've taken on faith that these experiments have no
aetheric explanation. That is merely your ignorance talking. Not your
fault, as you were misled as a student. It IS your fault, if you
deliberately continue your ignorance. Then you have become a cultist.
> >> >> And it seems you also assume without need of explanation that "the
> >> >> hierarchy" ignores it and says it doesn't exist.
> >> >
> >> >I don't assume it. It is well documented in this N.G. See the many
> >threads
> >> >on the subject.
> >>
> >> Check the LANL arXives for counter-examples. Get to a library and look
it
> >> up.
> >
> >I see you have no references to back up your claim. WHAT, exactly should
I
> >be looking up?
>
> "Pioneer 10", of course, in "astrophysics" at xxx.lanl.gov. You'll find
> titles like "Independent confirmation of the Pioneer 10 Anomalous
> Acceleration", "Five-dimensional Gravity and the Pioneer Effect", "Pioneer
> Anomaly and the Helicity-Rotation Coupling", etc.
Of course?
> At the library I find titles like "Conventional forces can explain the
> anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10",
Of course you didn't read past the title. ;) Had you read it (and seen the
multitudes of other papers) you'd have to come to the conclusion that the
title is mere wishful thinking. Oh, and this constitutes "says it doesn't
exist" -- which was my point.
> "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11",
And the conclusion of this paper is?
> "An explanation of the 'Pioneer effect' based on quasi-metric relativity",
This constitutes "says it doesn't exist" -- which was my point.
> "Pioneer probe generates 'space warp", disproves 'big bang'"...
This constitutes "says it doesn't exist" -- which was my point.
> I can't vouch for the quality of all of those reports. But to say that
> scientists have completely ignored the Pioneer effect and pretend it
> doesn't exist gives an unusual definition to "ignore", because there's a
> lot of stuff published about it.
But the question is, what is the content of those publications? Titles
don't mean diddly.
Glad we got that straight.
> >> I'm saying that your sorry characterization of the place of relativity
in
> >> science is just plain wrong.
> >
> >But we aren't discussing the "place of relativity" in what passes for
> >science in the mutual brown-nosing and grant-grubbing society that we
> >euphimistically refer to as "science."
No comment, as expected.
> >> It's internally consistent,
> >
> >All tautologies are internally consistent. However, they are not
> >scientific.
No comment, as expected.
> >> well validated experimentally,
> >
> >All tautologies are insultated against disproof. That is WHY they aren't
> >scientific.
No comment, as expected.
> >> and has the other characteristics of a good theory like
> >> its fecundity
> >
> >I agree that it is fertilizer.
> >
> >> and small set of universally applied postulates.
> >
> >NO theory has "universally applied postulates." All theories have
regions
> >of applicability.
No comment, as expected.
> >> I have never said it was "true" in any sense of ultimate reality. I
don't
> >> think I've written anything that suggest I hold that opinion. I can
only
> >> imagine you make broad assumptions about the opinions of anyone that
> >> argues with you on the matter.
> >
> >Your statement was "Beware the man that says 'Everyone else has a theory,
I
> >have REALITY.'" I merely pointed out that your Prophet dealt in
> >"principles," not theories. EINSTEIN said SR was ultimate truth.
No comment, as expected.
> >> >
> >> >Einstein was once asked what he would have done if Eddington's
> >light-bending
> >> >measurements had not "confirmed" GR. Einstein is reputed to have
replied
> >> >"Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord, because the principle
is
> >> >correct!"
> >>
> >> And I'm sure he was completely serious. Einstein never made jokes, or
> >> said anything with tongue in cheek.
> >
> >You may try to weasel out however you like. However, Einstein insisted
on
> >the applications of "universal principles." That's a claim for
> >truth-with-a-capital T. Since you champion his view, you are championing
> >claims of ultimate reality.
>
> Einstein was his own man, I'm mine. I believe you're just
> mischaracterizing Einstein's opinion, but it doesn't matter, because his
> theory still works very well.
Hey, YOU brought up Einstein and Truth-with-a-capital-T. Sorry your
argument didn't work out.
And Einstein's "principles" still aren't scientific theories. Because they
are mathematical tautologies, immunized from disproof.
> >Aetherists don't do that. They try to
> >understand how things work. In nature.
>
> Then I take it you'll agree that the aether is just another theory that
> shouldn't be confused with any kind of "reality".
It should not be confused with metaphysical "principles" that are claimed
for reality.
> I was going to cut this off, but I kept going, anyway. See how I do next
> time.
Feel free to trim the higher levels (with notice). It IS getting a bit
unwieldy.
Gregory L. Hansen
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>No response. As expected.
The problem with discussions like this is it takes much more time and work
to answer each point than you or Usenet in general is worth. There's been
other discussions where I've tried, to have a few hours' worth of effort
snipped without a glance, with only an insult given in return. This
smells like another one of those kinds of discussions. And now a new
deadline found its way to me, so I'll have to cut this short to do some
work, and leave you to wonder why all the scientists are stupid except
for yourself.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:bda2af$a3n$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com>,
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >
> >Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bd7shm$k0h$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> >No response. As expected.
>
> The problem with discussions like this is it takes much more time and work
> to answer each point than you or Usenet in general is worth.
That is the Barry Mingst Smoke Screen Tactics.
See also
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
How Cute! Dinky is trying to start a new "big lie." By accusing me of the
actions that defines the Speicher/ Semon/ Van Der Mortal posts.
But it's Dinky VDM who constantly removes other's arguments. Who's
smokescreening who?
greywolf42
> In article <vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com>,
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >
> >Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bd7shm$k0h$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> >No response. As expected.
>
> The problem with discussions like this is it takes much more time and work
> to answer each point than you or Usenet in general is worth. There's been
> other discussions where I've tried, to have a few hours' worth of effort
> snipped without a glance, with only an insult given in return. This
> smells like another one of those kinds of discussions.
But I've not returned insults. What I've done is to demolish your
unsupported assertions.
> And now a new
> deadline found its way to me, so I'll have to cut this short to do some
> work,
This is a newsgroup. There are no deadlines here. Take your time.
> and leave you to wonder why all the scientists are stupid except
> for yourself.
Ah! Now we see who originates the insults. No wonder it happens so often
in your posts. ;)
Alfred Einstead
> Does this then mean that the 'Uncertainty Principle' is then some
> kind of energy budgeting/distribution device?
The Uncertainty Principle says, in essece, that the total amount
of decimals of precision with respect to ordinary units that EXIST
(not "that can be found", but "that exist"), say, combined in the
x coordinates of a proton taken at two times separated by a small
interval dt is about 7 + D, where D is the number of decimals of
precision in dt.
It doesn't say anything about particles or atoms vibrating, per se.
So, if it's a 10^{-12} second interval, there's 19 decimals of
precision in all in the two x-coordinates.
It goes further: it also states that there is NO allocation of
the precision between the 2 x-coordinates at all ... until a
measurement clamps down the precision of one or the other and
forces an allocation. If the first x-coordinate is measured
to 10 places, then this implies that the 2nd x-coordinate
does not even EXIST to more than 9 places. From that, it
follows it can't be measured to more than 9 places either,
since it doesn't exist to more than 9, to begin with.
For more massive objects, the total precision increases in
proportion to the decimal precision of the object's mass. An
electron is about 3 decimals lighter than a proton; so the
respective numbers would be about 4 + D and 16.
jmfb...@aol.com
Thus, you prove that Gregory was correct in his analysis of the
intent of the post.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Gregory L. Hansen
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>
>Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:bda2af$a3n$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In article <vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:bd7shm$k0h$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>>
>> >No response. As expected.
>>
>> The problem with discussions like this is it takes much more time and work
>> to answer each point than you or Usenet in general is worth. There's been
>> other discussions where I've tried, to have a few hours' worth of effort
>> snipped without a glance, with only an insult given in return. This
>> smells like another one of those kinds of discussions.
>
>But I've not returned insults. What I've done is to demolish your
>unsupported assertions.
No, you've returned with more unsupported assertions. You've demanded
references and I've given some, but you've given nothing in return.
If you want to continue this, why don't you explain in detail why the
Sagnac effect contradicts special relativity, how your analysis follows
from the postulates of special relativity, and why the usual analysis is a
convoluted "explanation". Provide as many references as you like.
>
>> And now a new
>> deadline found its way to me, so I'll have to cut this short to do some
>> work,
>
>This is a newsgroup. There are no deadlines here. Take your time.
I will.
>
>> and leave you to wonder why all the scientists are stupid except
>> for yourself.
>
>Ah! Now we see who originates the insults. No wonder it happens so often
>in your posts. ;)
You've said again and again that analyses of things like Sagnac are
convoluted "explanation", and experiments only seem to support relativity
when the experimenter's assume Newton is wrong and redefine space and time
for their measurements. (Although you haven't bothered to support it or
provide references.) That indicates a pretty low opinion of the
cognitive abilities of scientists around the world for the past hundred
years.
greywolf42
> In article <vfhg7to...@corp.supernews.com>,
> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >
> >Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >news:bda2af$a3n$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> >> In article <vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:bd7shm$k0h$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> >>
> >> >No response. As expected.
> >>
> >> The problem with discussions like this is it takes much more time and
work
> >> to answer each point than you or Usenet in general is worth. There's
been
> >> other discussions where I've tried, to have a few hours' worth of
effort
> >> snipped without a glance, with only an insult given in return. This
> >> smells like another one of those kinds of discussions.
> >
> >But I've not returned insults. What I've done is to demolish your
> >unsupported assertions.
>
> No, you've returned with more unsupported assertions. You've demanded
> references and I've given some, but you've given nothing in return.
A bold-faced lie. Let's recap (trying just to follow the original main
points):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On June 20th, your main arguments were:
1) There are always postulates that are simply accepted.
2) Galilean transforms which have no justification whatsoever except that's
how things seem to work
3) I'd take it as a matter of faith that they continue to work even if they
don't seem to
4) Beware the man that says "Everyone else has a theory, I have REALITY."
The first three are merely unsupported assertions, the last, an allusional
ad hominem. Since your first three arguments were pure proofs-by-assertion,
I referred to the scientific method, experiment in general and the specific
situation of Pioneer drag for #3 to disprove your assertions. For the
fourth, I merely noted that your allusion was pointed at yourself and
Einstein -- not the aetherists.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On June 21st, your main arguments were (keeping the same numbering system):
1) I have no choice, short of an infinite regress of explanations of
explanations.
2) Experimental things are the basis for shoving Newton's rules aside.
3a) I accept without need of explanation that Newton's postulates are true,
and use ad hoc explanations in light of those postulates
3b) I assume without need of explanation that "the hierarchy" ignores it and
says it doesn't exist.
3c) Pioneer 10 acceleration can be easily accounted for by ad hoc
modification of Newton's laws
3d) "Aether drag" is an ad hoc hypothesis
4) Einstein's principles are "merely" postulates
Your #1 was simply a repeat of the assertion, and my reply was a recap of
the scientific method and using experiment to test postulates.
For your #2, I asked you to name one experiment that requires shoving
Newton's rules aside.
For 3a, I reminded you that "Pioneer drag" was predicted centuries before it
was announced -- by aetherists. Explicitly demolishing your incorrect
assertion.
For 3b, I pointed out prior threads in this N.G that neatly disproved your
point.
For 3c, I agreed that the hierarchy's approach was to apply ad hoc
adjustments to Newton to avoid aether theory.
For 3d, I again reminded you that "aether drag" was an explicit prediction.,
not "ad hoc" at all. The "aether" was not invented simply to explain
Pioneer drag.
For 4, I pointed out that you champion "principles" postulated as reality,
instead of theory. Which what your original quote seems to lament.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On June 23rd, your main arguments were (again using the same numbering
system):
1a) There are any number of sets of postulates that can fit a given set of
data. So what experiments do you do, then, to decide between them?
1b) Can you name any experiments that shows the validity of Newtonian
mechanics in the near-light regime?
2a) The speed of gamma rays emitted from fast sources requires shoving
Newtonian mechanics aside.
2b) Now, do you also know the experimental basis for rejecting the aether?
3a) Newton's theory of gravity found experimental favor over aether
theories.
3aa) Newton's gravity was found wanting.
3b) Get to a library and look "it" up.
3c) Dropped without comment.
3d) Dropped without comment.
4a) My sorry characterization of the place of relativity in science is just
plain wrong.
4b) Relativity is internally consistent
4c) Relativity is well validated experimentally
4d) Relativty has the characteristics of a good theory like a small set of
universally applied postulates
My responses:
to 1a was the early experiments -- Sagnac as an explicit disproof of SR.
But that one could use "non-locality" to weasel out of that. So one could
do a simple OWLS experiment, but that relativists will disavow any such
experiment because of their "requirement" of e-synching.
to 1b was Pioneer effect and stable planetary orbits in the Titius/Bode
series.
to 2a was WAVE speeds don't contradict Newtonian mechanics. (with a
ROTFLMAO)
to 2b I've spent years tracking down the history of various claims. And
most of them are pure B.S. and wishful thinking.
to 3a was Newton HAD no theory of gravity ("Hypothesis non fingo.")
LeSage had the first physical model.
to 3aa requested the reason that Newton's "theory" (sic) was "found
wanting?"
to 3b was WHAT, exactly should I be looking up?
to 4a was we aren't discussing the "place of relativity"
to 4b was all tautologies are internally consistent, but not scientific.
to 4c was all tautologies are insultated against disproof, which isWHY
they aren't scientific.
to 4d was that NO theory has "universally applied postulates," they have
regions of applicability.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On June 24th, your main arguments were (again using the same numbering
system):
1a) You provided a hyperlink to mathpages on relativist avoidance of Sagnac
through a claim of nonlocality.
1b) Dropped without comment.
2a) Funny waves, but that brings us to quantum mechanics.
2b_1) stellar aberration disproves aether
2b_2) the Michelson-Morley experiment
2b_3) Lorentz's contraction (an additional postulate) that tried to
reconcile the results.
3a_1) (ignoring prior post) Descarte's model of gravity as swirling aethers
predated Newton's model of central forces.
3a_2) You don't know LeSage's aether model.
3aa) There is no problem with orbiting in the wrong direction.
3b) Pioneer 10, you found titles of papers (apparently without reading them)
that mentioned the word Pioneer 10, and there's a lot of stuff published
about it.
4a) Dropped without comment.
4b) Dropped without comment.
4c) Dropped without comment.
4d) Dropped without comment.
My responses:
1a) Relativists had to make up a convoluted "explanation" after the fact
(you'd proved my point).
2a) Sound, water and light waves all can be derived from purely Newtonian
mechanics in a corpuscular fluid -- QM is not involved.
2b_1) This claim was the unsubstantiated brain-child of Max Born, in
1923, "The Theory of Relativty. Repeated without examination, since.
2b_2) Use Maxwell's equations blindly (a la Michelson) and get into
trouble.
2b_3) Lorentz' recovered of Maxwell's model, using a real, physical field
(aether).
3a_1) (repeating) Newton HAS no model. "Hypothesis non fingo."
3a_2) Then you don't know anything about aether models of gravity.
3aa) Could you be a wee bit more specific here?
3b) Counting titles don't mean diddly. Content is what matters.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So we see that the give-and-take was not limited to my simply demanding
references and Gregory providing "some." We see that Gregory is amittedly
quite ignorant of the basics of aether theory. He's never heard of LeSage,
or other gravitational aether theories (except for Descartes' qualitative
musings). What he knows is merely the summarily dismissive contents from
various textbooks from which he was taught. He's apparently not aware of
the many recent discussions on this N.G. concerning EM and gravitational
aethers.
Gregory's initial assertions were that he took things on faith. And he
asserted that everyone else had to do the same. When his assertions were
shown to be groundless, he shifted to implications and accusations that
aether theory was "ad hoc" and inferior. Then, pushed for specific
objections, he mentioned titles (of experiments and papers) without
identifying how these "disproved" aether theories.
> If you want to continue this, why don't you explain in detail why the
> Sagnac effect contradicts special relativity, how your analysis follows
> from the postulates of special relativity, and why the usual analysis is a
> convoluted "explanation". Provide as many references as you like.
I'll simply provide you a link to one of the many threads on this subject
already covered in this N.G.
> >
> >> And now a new
> >> deadline found its way to me, so I'll have to cut this short to do some
> >> work,
> >
> >This is a newsgroup. There are no deadlines here. Take your time.
>
> I will.
>
> >
> >> and leave you to wonder why all the scientists are stupid except
> >> for yourself.
> >
> >Ah! Now we see who originates the insults. No wonder it happens so
often
> >in your posts. ;)
>
> You've said again and again that analyses of things like Sagnac are
> convoluted "explanation",
> and experiments only seem to support relativity
> when the experimenter's assume Newton is wrong and redefine space and time
> for their measurements. (Although you haven't bothered to support it or
> provide references.)
My statement was "That statement first requires you to redefine space and
time according to Einstein's SR As such you can make no claims about
Newtonian mechanics."
You didn't ask for support in this thread. I've supported it many times in
concurrent threads.
In this thread (my June 23 post): "Or, one could do a simple OWLS
experiment. However, since one of Einstein's postulates is the
"requirement" of e-synching, relativists will disavow any such experiment."
See my post of 6/20/03 to "OWLS Refutes the SR Claim..."
See my post of 6/18/03 to "Let's experiment..."
But better yet, see Einstein, "On the Electodynamics of Moving Bodies",
1905, section 1, Defintion of Simultaneity. Excerpt is available from my
post of 4/30/03 on "Philosophical Question about Time.":
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=vb2mvfab4qh069%40cor
p.supernews.com
> That indicates a pretty low opinion of the
> cognitive abilities of scientists around the world for the past hundred
> years.
Not their cognitive abilities. Their religion (or Kantian philosophy
elevated beyond question). And what ideas can be or cannot be thought
about.
greywolf42
greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message
news:vfrlt4k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:bdc8ms$vv2$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
{snip}
> > If you want to continue this, why don't you explain in detail why the
> > Sagnac effect contradicts special relativity, how your analysis follows
> > from the postulates of special relativity, and why the usual analysis is
a
> > convoluted "explanation". Provide as many references as you like.
>
> I'll simply provide you a link to one of the many threads on this subject
> already covered in this N.G.
>
Whoopsie! Now for the links to some of the many threads.........
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20020713093839.03052
.00000494%40mb-ch.aol.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030423071644.18917.00000434%40mb-m11.
aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1471237086d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=20030414092743.14478.00000271%40mb-fy.aol.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=68aae149.0207190816.
1d97f609%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20020512132816.00568
.00011922%40mb-md.aol.com
{snip}
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com...
Whoopsie, smokescreen #5!
So we have
#1 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vemlos4...@corp.supernews.com
#2 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfem054...@corp.supernews.com
#3 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfgtonn...@corp.supernews.com
#4 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrlt15...@corp.supernews.com
#5 http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=vfrn4g1...@corp.supernews.com
and counting :-)
Dirk Vdm
Gregory L. Hansen
The first has been a standard part of the philosophy of science since
Aristotle wrote down his inductive-deductive method. For the second, see
the first. As to how you'd take the Galilean transforms even if they
don't seem to work, well, they *don't* seem to work, but you say it's the
Lorentz transforms that everyone is just taking on faith. The fourth is a
reiteration of the first. If you're going to take it as something, then
take it as ridicule, not ad hominem. There's a difference. But hell,
man, I've practically quoted, word for word, a few people that have been
through this newsgroup. Spaceman, certainly, but I'm sure there've been
at least one other that has said almost exactly that.
>I referred to the scientific method, experiment in general and the specific
>situation of Pioneer drag for #3 to disprove your assertions. For the
>fourth, I merely noted that your allusion was pointed at yourself and
>Einstein -- not the aetherists.
No, of course not. The aetherists aren't the ones saying everyone else
has a theory while they have REALITY. The aetherists are the ones saying
that everyone simply takes the Lorentz transforms on faith, but the way
gravity and things REALLY work is by these unmeasurable gasses.
The remaining point-by-point enumeration of the discussion indicates
you're either taking Usenet far too seriously, or you have too much
time on your hands.
greywolf42
> news:bdc8ms$vv2$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> > In article <vfhg7to...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
> > >
{snip}
> >
> > You've said again and again that analyses of things like Sagnac are
> > convoluted "explanation",
>
> > and experiments only seem to support relativity
> > when the experimenter's assume Newton is wrong and redefine space and
time
> > for their measurements. (Although you haven't bothered to support it or
> > provide references.)
>
> My statement was "That statement first requires you to redefine space and
> time according to Einstein's SR As such you can make no claims about
> Newtonian mechanics."
>
> You didn't ask for support in this thread. I've supported it many times
in
> concurrent threads.
Oh, yes. Here's one specifically on that "mathpages" link that you gave
earlier:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1021025853d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=v93i6rd5rd7g59%40corp.supernews.com
{snip}
greywolf42
Why are you trying to rediscuss the beginning? This was a recap of the
prior discussion. Not an invitation to start all over!
> The first has been a standard part of the philosophy of science since
> Aristotle wrote down his inductive-deductive method.
LOL! The scientific method was not invented (Al Haytham) until about a
thousand years after Aristotle. And this isn't a philosophical NG --
contrary to Patrick's delusions. Aristotle wasn't a scientist.
> For the second, see the first.
LOL! And Galileo was 1500 years after Aristotle. (I'm going to ingnore the
rest of the rehash. But the Aristotle thing was too precious to ignore!)
> As to how you'd take the Galilean transforms even if they
> don't seem to work, well, they *don't* seem to work, but you say it's the
> Lorentz transforms that everyone is just taking on faith. The fourth is a
> reiteration of the first. If you're going to take it as something, then
> take it as ridicule, not ad hominem. There's a difference. But hell,
> man, I've practically quoted, word for word, a few people that have been
> through this newsgroup. Spaceman, certainly, but I'm sure there've been
> at least one other that has said almost exactly that.
>
> >I referred to the scientific method, experiment in general and the
specific
> >situation of Pioneer drag for #3 to disprove your assertions. For the
> >fourth, I merely noted that your allusion was pointed at yourself and
> >Einstein -- not the aetherists.
>
> No, of course not. The aetherists aren't the ones saying everyone else
> has a theory while they have REALITY. The aetherists are the ones saying
> that everyone simply takes the Lorentz transforms on faith, but the way
> gravity and things REALLY work is by these unmeasurable gasses.
>
> The remaining point-by-point enumeration of the discussion indicates
> you're either taking Usenet far too seriously, or you have too much
> time on your hands.
The "enumeration" was merely provided in order to demolish your bold-faced
lie: "You've demanded references and I've given some, but you've given
nothing in return." So, I take it you agree your claim was a bold-faced
lie, that you apparently don't care about anymore.
Oh, and I do take science seriously. That's why bold-faced lies and
evasions irritate me.
Now, about those closing quotes that you snipped (The ones AFTER the
enumeration.). Sorry, you'll have to tolerate the replacement of the
current issue. Since this was "too confusing" for you before, let me
explain that your statements have a ">" marked. Mine don't. [You also have
two statements remaining from a prior post that have a "> >>" in front. My
direct responses have a "> >" in front.]
===========================
So we see that the give-and-take was not limited to my simply demanding
references and Gregory providing "some." We see that Gregory is amittedly
quite ignorant of the basics of aether theory. He's never heard of LeSage,
or other gravitational aether theories (except for Descartes' qualitative
musings). What he knows is merely the summarily dismissive contents from
various textbooks from which he was taught. He's apparently not aware of
the many recent discussions on this N.G. concerning EM and gravitational
aethers.
Gregory's initial assertions were that he took things on faith. And he
asserted that everyone else had to do the same. When his assertions were
shown to be groundless, he shifted to implications and accusations that
aether theory was "ad hoc" and inferior. Then, pushed for specific
objections, he mentioned titles (of experiments and papers) without
identifying how these "disproved" aether theories.
> If you want to continue this, why don't you explain in detail why the
> Sagnac effect contradicts special relativity, how your analysis follows
> from the postulates of special relativity, and why the usual analysis is a
> convoluted "explanation". Provide as many references as you like.
I'll simply provide you a link to one of the many threads on this subject
already covered in this N.G.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20020713093839.03052
.00000494%40mb-ch.aol.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030423071644.18917.00000434%40mb-m11.
aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1471237086d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=20030414092743.14478.00000271%40mb-fy.aol.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=68aae149.0207190816.
1d97f609%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=20020512132816.00568
.00011922%40mb-md.aol.com
> >
> >> And now a new
> >> deadline found its way to me, so I'll have to cut this short to do some
> >> work,
> >
> >This is a newsgroup. There are no deadlines here. Take your time.
>
> I will.
>
> >
> >> and leave you to wonder why all the scientists are stupid except
> >> for yourself.
> >
> >Ah! Now we see who originates the insults. No wonder it happens so
often
> >in your posts. ;)
>
> You've said again and again that analyses of things like Sagnac are
> convoluted "explanation", and experiments only seem to support relativity
> when the experimenter's assume Newton is wrong and redefine space and time
> for their measurements. (Although you haven't bothered to support it or
> provide references.)
My statement was "That statement first requires you to redefine space and
time according to Einstein's SR As such you can make no claims about
Newtonian mechanics."
You didn't ask for support in this thread. I've supported it many times in
concurrent threads.
Here's one specifically on that "mathpages" link that you gave earlier:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1021025853d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&se
lm=v93i6rd5rd7g59%40corp.supernews.com
In this thread (my June 23 post): "Or, one could do a simple OWLS
experiment. However, since one of Einstein's postulates is the
"requirement" of e-synching, relativists will disavow any such experiment."
See my post of 6/20/03 to "OWLS Refutes the SR Claim..."
See my post of 6/18/03 to "Let's experiment..."
But better yet, see Einstein, "On the Electodynamics of Moving Bodies",
1905, section 1, Defintion of Simultaneity. Excerpt is available from my
post of 4/30/03 on "Philosophical Question about Time.":
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=vb2mvfab4qh069%40cor
p.supernews.com
> That indicates a pretty low opinion of the
> cognitive abilities of scientists around the world for the past hundred
> years.
Not their cognitive abilities. Their religion (or Kantian philosophy
elevated beyond question). And what ideas can be or cannot be thought
about.
===========================
Last time, Gregory demanded that I discuss or provide references backing my
views on the Sagnac effect and e-synching. I provided several, and Gregory
immediately snipped the evidence! A true DHR.
Gregory, should I presume, therefore, that your statements that you snipped
are also deliberate lies that you no longer care about?
Gregory L. Hansen
Aristotle kicked the scientific football with his inductive-deductive
method. But regardless of who you think started science, it's been
discussed at least since Aristotle's time that any number of sets of
postulates can lead to identical conclusions. It really does fall under
the term "common knowledge".
Okay, if you're going to keep calling me a liar, I'm finished here.
You're a bitter, demanding, insulting coot. You assume the worst of what
people say and the stupidest of what they mean, and you lack the
entertainment value of Spaceman. And the truth is I just don't think
you're worth much of my time, and it really doesn't matter to me what you
think re: relativity and aethers. Even if you weren't virtually
powerless to affect the course of science I wouldn't try to stop you,
because some dissenting voices are good, and nobody's going to fall in
line behind you unless there are some good reasons to. So even if I
thought you were going to shake some foundations, it still wouldn't
bother me, and I couldn't think of any reason to try to convince you of
anything.
>
>Oh, and I do take science seriously. That's why bold-faced lies and
>evasions irritate me.
I place you in the same category as JosX, who posted numerous
contradictions in relativity based on half-Newtonian, half-Einsteinian
analyses. When his errors were explained he'd call that weaseling or
somesuch, suggesting the only reason the contradiction was resolved was
because of desparate fabrications by "relativists" to save appearances,
and go on to post another contradiction, and another, and another. For
him it wasn't about learning, it wasn't about trying out an idea, it was
about a crusade against relativity. He was sure the theory was wrong even
though he had no intention of studying it (and said exactly that).
You're a lot smarter, a lot more sophisticated than that. But I believe,
for instance, that I could spend days reviewing material I hadn't worked
with in some time, and preparing an analysis of the Sagnac effect from an
accelerated reference frame or any other point of view you care for. And
you'd spend all of thirty seconds to dismiss it as a "convoluted
'explanation'", and you'd keep telling people until your dying day that
the Sagnac effect contradicts relativity. No matter how many times you
say it, it won't change the analyses I've seen. The effect is well known,
thoroughly examined, commercially exploited. But it does pretty much
establish your credibility for me, and the seriousness of your science.
And that's another reason I refuse to spend much time with you. I could
spend arbitrarily much time on this, but it would only reaffirm both of
our positions.
I remember now why I've been ignoring you for years.
If you take your science seriously, track down the reference of Feynman
determining the LeSage aether drag and understand his conclusions, compare
a numerical value of the expected drag to the Pioneer anomalous
acceleration, and let that determine your stand on LeSage's theory.
>Now, about those closing quotes that you snipped (The ones AFTER the
>enumeration.). Sorry, you'll have to tolerate the replacement of the
>current issue. Since this was "too confusing" for you before, let me
No, I won't. I'm done with this. Finished. The sooner you realize that
no quip from you implies any obligation for me, the happier we'll both
be.
greywolf42
LOL! "Common knowledge" includes (or included) "heavier objects fall faster
than light objects (Aristotle)", "Nature abhors a vacuum (Aristotle), "the
Earth is flat", and "any number of sets of postulates can lead to identical
conclusions." All of these are false.
However, if you have a mathematical proof that there exists an infinite
number of postulates that can lead to ANY specific conclusion (whatever that
might mean in mathematics), I'll be happy to be corrected.
Thank you. :) However, I'll remind you that you began with the insults a
couple of posts ago. And I didn't call "you" a liar. I noted that your
statement in your post was a lie. And it remains an self-evident,
bald-faced lie. You may be an honest soul otherwise. It doesn't affect the
fact that you attempted to bail from the discussion by posting a lie. Now
that you've been caught you proffer your (false) "wounded pride" as the
excuse to leave the discussion.
Why didn't you just pull a Nixon, like the DHR's normally do?
> You assume the worst of what
> people say and the stupidest of what they mean, and you lack the
> entertainment value of Spaceman. And the truth is I just don't think
> you're worth much of my time, and it really doesn't matter to me what you
> think re: relativity and aethers. Even if you weren't virtually
> powerless to affect the course of science I wouldn't try to stop you,
> because some dissenting voices are good, and nobody's going to fall in
> line behind you unless there are some good reasons to.
That's what science is supposed to be about. But you won't know if they're
good reasons or not unless you actually read them.
> So even if I
> thought you were going to shake some foundations, it still wouldn't
> bother me,
A better description of science-as-religion is hard to come by.
> and I couldn't think of any reason to try to convince you of
> anything.
Perhaps to clarify your own thoughts, by examining why YOU believe what you
do?
> >Oh, and I do take science seriously. That's why bold-faced lies and
> >evasions irritate me.
>
> I place you in the same category as JosX, who posted numerous
> contradictions in relativity based on half-Newtonian, half-Einsteinian
> analyses. When his errors were explained he'd call that weaseling or
> somesuch, suggesting the only reason the contradiction was resolved was
> because of desparate fabrications by "relativists" to save appearances,
> and go on to post another contradiction, and another, and another. For
> him it wasn't about learning, it wasn't about trying out an idea, it was
> about a crusade against relativity. He was sure the theory was wrong even
> though he had no intention of studying it (and said exactly that).
>
> You're a lot smarter, a lot more sophisticated than that.
In other words, even though I'm not like JosX, you're going to "place me in
the same category." My own personal efforts are focused not on changing the
mass-mind, but on reducing the hold that urban myth has on the current crop
of PhDs.
> But I believe,
> for instance, that I could spend days reviewing material I hadn't worked
> with in some time, and preparing an analysis of the Sagnac effect from an
> accelerated reference frame or any other point of view you care for.
Yeah. And isn't that exactly what you asked -- nay demanded -- that I do?
Isn't this called hypocrisy?
> And
> you'd spend all of thirty seconds to dismiss it as a "convoluted
> 'explanation'",
Like you spent 30 seconds with "The problem with discussions like this is it
takes much more time and work to answer each point than you or Usenet in
general is worth."? Funny how you know what my response is going to be
before I make it.
> and you'd keep telling people until your dying day that
> the Sagnac effect contradicts relativity.
Until I see a logical and non-circular SR "explanation", there is no
scientific reason to change my view. Your assertions that the
powers-that-be have spoken certainly is no reason to change my mind.
> No matter how many times you say it, it won't change the analyses I've
seen.
But that's why I asked for references! Show me! You gave one reference to
a pathetic Baez website that's been shot down many times. Once by me. So
if you can't address the objections that I provided (or provide a better
reference), your position is frankly ludicrous.
> The effect is well known,
> thoroughly examined, commercially exploited. But it does pretty much
> establish your credibility for me, and the seriousness of your science.
I never said that the Sagnac experiment didn't exist, nor do I deny the
results of same. I merely stated that aetherists predicted it (a historical
truth, and an elementary and perfectly simple consequence of the aether),
and the SR post-hoc "explanations" are all convoluted and/or
self-contradictory, or completely circular (Baez). My response IS serious
science. Your position is apparently theological (authority is all).
> And that's another reason I refuse to spend much time with you. I could
> spend arbitrarily much time on this, but it would only reaffirm both of
> our positions.
Only if whomever is in error refuses to look at the evidence. And right now
only one of us is actively avoiding references and discussion of same
(yourself).
> I remember now why I've been ignoring you for years.
The mark of a scientist is not who listens to them, but who THEY listen to.
> If you take your science seriously, track down the reference of Feynman
> determining the LeSage aether drag and understand his conclusions, compare
> a numerical value of the expected drag to the Pioneer anomalous
> acceleration, and let that determine your stand on LeSage's theory.
Been there, done that, many times. Including in this thread. You snipped
my analysis without comment. See "Pushing Gravity", Aperion, April 2002.
Perhaps you should do the same?
> >Now, about those closing quotes that you snipped (The ones AFTER the
> >enumeration.). Sorry, you'll have to tolerate the replacement of the
> >current issue. Since this was "too confusing" for you before, let me
>
> No, I won't. I'm done with this. Finished. The sooner you realize that
> no quip from you implies any obligation for me, the happier we'll both
> be.
I couldn't resist the quip. YOU had attempted to claim that my wanting to
address the physics issues that you kept snipping was "confusing." Then
used that flimsy excuse to avoid them again.
Of course there's no obligation on your part. You're free make pontifical
pronouncements and not back them up. However, there is neither honor nor
knowledge nor reputation to be gained by you in such an action.
Enjoy your rosaries.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vfu8nqj...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Gregory L. Hansen <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:bdll90$tbo$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> > In article <vfseqlm...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > greywolf42 <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > >
> > >The "enumeration" was merely provided in order to demolish your
> bold-faced
> > >lie: "You've demanded references and I've given some, but you've given
> > >nothing in return." So, I take it you agree your claim was a bold-faced
> > >lie, that you apparently don't care about anymore.
> >
> > Okay, if you're going to keep calling me a liar, I'm finished here.
> > You're a bitter, demanding, insulting coot.
>
> Thank you. :) However, I'll remind you that you began with the insults a
> couple of posts ago. . I noted that your
> statement in your post was a lie. And it remains an self-evident,
> bald-faced lie. You may be an honest soul otherwise. It doesn't affect the
> fact that you attempted to bail from the discussion by posting a lie. Now
> that you've been caught you proffer your (false) "wounded pride" as the
> excuse to leave the discussion.
"And I didn't call "you" a liar":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YouLiar.html
Three in a row :-)
Nice.
Dirk Vdm
greywolf42
This is a new low in "creative snipping" -- even from van der Mumble. He
managed to snip the phrase out of which he was trying to create a "fumble".
Jeff Krimmel
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:oLHLa.5229$P26....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>>
>> "And I didn't call "you" a liar":
>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YouLiar.html
>> Three in a row :-)
>> Nice.
>
> This is a new low in "creative snipping" -- even from van der Mumble. He
> managed to snip the phrase out of which he was trying to create a "fumble".
I have to disagree. The above is one of the undeniable classics of Dirk's
collection. Telling someone they uttered a "bold-faced lie", yet insisting
you didn't call them a liar...priceless.
Keep up the good work (both of you),
Jeff
Tom Potter
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:oLHLa.5229$P26....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
It is interesting to see that some people
seem to get an ego boost and feeling of power
from setting up web sites designed to demean folks.
If I ever need an ego boost,
or begin to feel powerless,
I think I will set me up a web site to demean folks.
I bet that would really get me out of the dumps,
if I ever got in the dumps!
Hey, maybe that's the connection!
The people in the dumps
post garbage,
and try to dirty other folks,
so they will have company.
As the old saying go,
"Misery love company."
What do you think?
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
greywolf42
Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.06.30....@hotmail.com...
1) I was commenting on how Dinky actually managed to delete the phrase he
was trying to "phumble." Since you've snipped the evidence, it lowers you
to Dinky's level.
2) I was (apparently incorrectly) assuming that those following science
newsgroups could tell the difference between an ad hominem statement ("You
are a liar.") and an explicit fact ("The statement you posted was a
bold-faced lie."). The former avoids the specific statement by implying
that no statement made by the poster may be trusted. The latter simply
addresses a single statement.
That Gregory posted a bold-faced lie is undeniable. Which is why Dinky and
you, not to mention Gregory, want to focus on a quibble about whether a
specific statement implies a generalized comment.
Dirk Van de moortel
"greywolf42" <min...@sim-ss.com> wrote in message news:vg0pepo...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.06.30....@hotmail.com...
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:59:50 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in
> > > message news:oLHLa.5229$P26....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > >>
> > >> "And I didn't call "you" a liar":
> > >> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YouLiar.html
> > >> Three in a row :-)
> > >> Nice.
> > >
> > > This is a new low in "creative snipping" -- even from van der Mumble.
> He
> > > managed to snip the phrase out of which he was trying to create a
> "fumble".
> >
> > I have to disagree. The above is one of the undeniable classics of Dirk's
> > collection. Telling someone they uttered a "bold-faced lie", yet insisting
> > you didn't call them a liar...priceless.
> >
> > Keep up the good work (both of you),
>
> 1) I was commenting
That's a bold-faced lie.
> on how Dinky actually managed
That's a bold-faced lie.
> to delete the phrase he
> was trying to "phumble."
That's a bold-faced lie.
> Since you've snipped the evidence, it lowers you
> to Dinky's level.
That's a bold-faced lie.
>
> 2) I was (apparently incorrectly) assuming
That's a bold-faced lie.
> that those following science
> newsgroups could tell the difference
That's a bold-faced lie.
> between an ad hominem statement ("You
> are a liar.") and an explicit fact ("The statement you posted
That's a bold-faced lie.
> was a
> bold-faced lie."). The former avoids the specific statement
That's a bold-faced lie.
> by implying
> that no statement made by the poster may be trusted.
That's a bold-faced lie.
> The latter simply
> addresses a single statement.
That's a bold-faced lie.
>
> That Gregory posted a bold-faced lie is undeniable.
That's a bold-faced lie.
> Which is why Dinky and
> you, not to mention Gregory, want to focus
That's a bold-faced lie.
> on a quibble about whether a
> specific statement implies a generalized comment.
That's a bold-faced lie.
>
> greywolf42
> ubi dubium ibi libertas
Well said.
Dirk Vdm
Jeff Krimmel
> Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.06.30....@hotmail.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:59:50 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>>
>> I have to disagree. The above is one of the undeniable classics of
>> Dirk's collection. Telling someone they uttered a "bold-faced lie", yet
>> insisting you didn't call them a liar...priceless.
>>
>> Keep up the good work (both of you),
>
> 1) I was commenting on how Dinky actually managed to delete the phrase
> he was trying to "phumble." Since you've snipped the evidence, it
> lowers you to Dinky's level.
It sounds like you need to have your diaper changed.
> 2) I was (apparently incorrectly) assuming that those following science
> newsgroups could tell the difference between an ad hominem statement
> ("You are a liar.") and an explicit fact ("The statement you posted was
> a bold-faced lie."). The former avoids the specific statement by
> implying that no statement made by the poster may be trusted. The
> latter simply addresses a single statement.
You could have said Gregory uttered a false statement, if your intent was
not to call him a liar. Instead, you insist he posted a "bold-faced lie".
The word "lie" itself implies an intent to deceive. It only takes
one lie to make you a liar, just like it only takes one murder to make you
a murderer.
[...]
Jeff
wchogg
I'd also challenge anyone to tell the next person who says something false
or mistaken that they're telling "a bold-faced lie", and see if they don't
take offense.
--
William C. Hogg
greywolf42
wchogg <grif...@ups.physics.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.030630...@ups.physics.wisc.edu...
Of COURSE he'd take offense. The point WAS to shame him. Why should a
group of "scientists" (and I use the term loosely) tolerate the posting of
statements that are explicitly -- and deliberately -- untrue?
greywolf42
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:42:32 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
>
>
> > Jeff Krimmel <mad_sci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.06.30....@hotmail.com...
> >> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:59:50 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:
> >>
> >> I have to disagree. The above is one of the undeniable classics of
> >> Dirk's collection. Telling someone they uttered a "bold-faced lie", yet
> >> insisting you didn't call them a liar...priceless.
> >>
> >> Keep up the good work (both of you),
> >
> > 1) I was commenting on how Dinky actually managed to delete the phrase
> > he was trying to "phumble." Since you've snipped the evidence, it
> > lowers you to Dinky's level.
>
> It sounds like you need to have your diaper changed.
Pure kindergarten response.
> > 2) I was (apparently incorrectly) assuming that those following science
> > newsgroups could tell the difference between an ad hominem statement
> > ("You are a liar.") and an explicit fact ("The statement you posted was
> > a bold-faced lie."). The former avoids the specific statement by
> > implying that no statement made by the poster may be trusted. The
> > latter simply addresses a single statement.
>
> You could have said Gregory uttered a false statement, if your intent was
> not to call him a liar. Instead, you insist he posted a "bold-faced lie".
Yes.
> The word "lie" itself implies an intent to deceive.
Yes. Quite clearly in this case.
> It only takes one lie to make you a liar, just like it only takes one
> murder to make you a murderer.
In which case every human that has learned to talk, that ever lived is a
liar. For they all have told at least one lie in their lifetimes. With the
possible exception of Jesus.
Which is WHY I posted my comment that Gregory's STATEMENT was a bold-faced
lie. I care not what Gregory does at other times, but I DO care when
somebody posts a bold-faced lie.
Now why all the sturm-and-drang about my use of the WORD "lie?" Do you
dispute either that Gregory's statement was explicitly untrue? Or that he
"didn't intend to deceive?"
=============================================
Gregory:
The problem with discussions like this is it takes much more time and work
to answer each point than you or Usenet in general is worth. There's been
other discussions where I've tried, to have a few hours' worth of effort
snipped without a glance, with only an insult given in return. This smells
like another one of those kinds of discussions.
And now a new deadline found its way to me, so I'll have to cut this short
to do some work, and leave you to wonder why all the scientists are stupid
except for yourself.
greywolf42:
But I've not returned insults. What I've done is to demolish your
unsupported assertions.
Gregory:
No, you've returned with more unsupported assertions. You've demanded
references and I've given some, but you've given nothing in return.
greywolf42:
A bold-faced lie. Let's recap (see my post of 6/29/03 if anyone really
cares to see the "evidence") ...
Gregory's reply:
The remaining point-by-point enumeration of the discussion indicates you're
either taking Usenet far too seriously, or you have too much time on your
hands.
greywolf42:
The "enumeration" was merely provided in order to demolish your bold-faced
lie: "You've demanded references and I've given some, but you've given
nothing in return." So, I take it you agree your claim was a bold-faced
lie, that you apparently don't care about anymore.
Gregory:
Okay, if you're going to keep calling me a liar, I'm finished here. You're a
bitter, demanding, insulting coot.
greywolf42:
Thank you. :) However, I'll remind you that you began with the insults a
couple of posts ago. And I didn't call "you" a liar. I noted that your
statement in your post was a lie. And it remains a self-evident,
bald-faced lie. You may be an honest soul otherwise. It doesn't affect the
fact that you attempted to bail from the discussion by posting a lie. Now
that you've been caught you proffer your (false) "wounded pride" as the
excuse to leave the discussion.
Why didn't you just pull a Nixon, like the DHR's normally do?
=============================================
If you want to continue this tempest in a teapot, please let me know your
views on those two questions. If it's 'yes' to both, then my description
was correct.
>
> [...]