DJMenCK infinitely massive ether (was Re: Ether, ...
Paul Stowe
djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>>fsu.edu!dirac.csit.fsu.edu!jac
>>From: j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
>>Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
>>Date: 16 Mar 2001 06:18:49 GMT
>>Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
>>Lines: 32
>>Message-ID: <98sb89$fti$1...@news.fsu.edu>
>>References: <20010304181859...@ng-fi1.aol.com>
>><20010304230006...@ng-fb1.aol.com>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: dirac.csit.fsu.edu
>>X-Trace: news.fsu.edu 984723529 16306 144.174.128.44 (16 Mar 2001 06:18:49
>>GMT)
>>X-Complaints-To: ab...@fsu.edu
>>NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Mar 2001 06:18:49 GMT
>>
>>
>>
>>In article <20010304230006...@ng-fb1.aol.com>
>>clar...@aol.com (Clarke768) writes:
>>>
>> ... to DJMenCK ...
>>>
>>>Damn you are slick.
>>
>> Very slimy, but once you get a good grip you can keep him
>> from slipping away by ignoring all of his troll attempts,
>
>Dennis: Carr avoids answering direct questions that show the weakness of his
>position by labeling them "troll attempts" or claiming that they were answered
>some place before.
> For example, whenever he asks me the mass or radius of aethrons, I have asked
>him perhaps a dozen times what is the mass and radius of dark matter particles.
> He labels this question as "rhetorical" because apparently he can't see the
>connection between the two concepts.
>
>Carr: > like the one that hooked you in this thread. Diseases
>> have nothing to do with whether DJMenCK can tell us how
>> to measure the mass, radius, and compressibility of his
>> aetheron particles.
>
>Dennis: How do you measure mass and radius of dark matter particles? That's
>not a troll or rhetorical question.
Why don't you add neutrinos to that list.
Paul Stowe
GLOBARR
<j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> (Jim Carr) wrote:
Ref: <97q1i6$j7g$1...@news.fsu.edu>
<96sua4$lgt$1...@news.fsu.edu>
<20010208004308...@ng-md1.aol.com>
<20010220101717...@ng-md1.aol.com>
<20010303110412...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
>
| | djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
Jim Carr wrote:
| I note that your statement is not, in any way, an argument
| that what I wrote is incorrect so I will merely point out
| that some might recognize your remark as a rhetorical
| technique where the writer makes a statement that is
| structured like an objection but does not actually contain an
| objection.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
This post, as with many of Jim Carr's posts, gets down to a
`he said, she said' type of an argument. The point at this
point is not the correct physics, but who said what when.
Rather than belabor the precise point at which someone said
something, or why they said it, we would all be more benefited
by knowing what is the more acceptable physics, would we
not????
Jim Carr continues:
| Anyone who knows what _unconstrained_ means will realize that
| such a theory allows massless as well as infinitely massive
| aetherons, just as I stated, so one would be free to adopt
| either without changing the predictions. They would also
| realize that such a theory does not specify how to determine
| those parameters, since otherwise there would be a
| theoretical constraint on it that it be obtained from a
| specific experiment.
O'Barr comments:
I am sure that a more balanced or reasonable position would
be that the actual mass might matter, but for now we have no
reasons to make a specific assignment. For an example, in the
at theory, the total mass of any one of two interacting
particles is not near as important as the amount of mass that
ends up being exchanged in the interaction. It is the amount
that is exchanged that produces the changes in mass, momentums
and energies, and the total mass becomes almost unseen!!!! Of
course the total mass must at least be as much as the mass that
gets exchanged, but that sure leaves a lot up for assumptions,
does it not????
Jim Carr wrote:
What, exactly, is ludicrous about my well-supported claim that
your reply to me quoted above stated that the number of
etherons is "unconstrained" and implicitly (by failing to say
how to do so experimentally) admits that there is no way to
determine if they have mass or size or any of the properties
you claim for them? After all, you repeat that admission here
when you delete
| Thank you for implicitly agreeing with me by not posting
| any retraction or modification of your statement above
| that would show how to measure the size and mass of your
| aetherons via experiment.
from my article rather than address it. All we have to go on
concerning your alleged theory is what you write here, so the
only possible conclusion is that it is DJMenCK who does not
understand how to describe the means to measure the properties
of these particles that remain purely mathematical at this
point in time.
Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
The strongest ether theory we presently have (the one that
is superior to SR) is not perfect. But it is perfect enough to
be superior to SR in every conceivable way. Even though it is
completely superior, it does not address the specific nature of
the ether or how it works. It only addresses its effects on
matter. You, Jim Carr, you are making a mountain out of a mole
hill, and by doing this, you are not being scientific.
In article <20010303110412...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) goes on to claim:
>
>Each aethron is incompressible.
Jim Carr wrote:
Not unless you can tell us how to measure their
compressibility in an experiment or define a quantity that
would be different if they did not have this seemingly
idealistic property.
O'Barr comments:
Everyone can understand your desire to know all these
things, Jim. But just because you want to know does not keep
you from being silly in saying that Dennis has to tell you
these things before they have any meaning. You are being an
imbecile. If you believe that some state of incompressibility
is improper, then you should point such out. Dennis only needs
to state their property, and unless he uses this property in
the math, there is no need to do more.
Dennis wrote:
>Their quantity is what gives objects mass.
Jim Carr wrote:
Only if they have a measurable mass, and you can't tell
us how to measure it. Until you can do so, your aetherons
are just a mathematical artifice.
O'Barr comments:
Your logic is non-existing! Any thinking person can
understand the possibility of having objects that have too
small of a mass to individually measure, but collectively,
could be measured. Are you just disappointed that you did not
think of this first?????
Dennis wrote:
> The size of the aethrons must be smaller than a certain sub-
> atomic limit.
Jim Carr wrote:
You do not tell us how this limit on their radial size was
determined. (Elsewhere you made a statement giving a mass in
kg as the size limit, making me question if you even know how
the radius shows up in your alleged theory of aetherons.)
O'Barr comments:
Since you make out that you are the top dog, here, then why
do you not show us that you are the top dog by given us a
better way to determine the size of ether particles???? After
all, the ether is a legal scientific theory, and all can
approach it on a sound and reasonable way, just as much as
anyone else. Why are you so `gun shy'????? Where is your
smarts??? Are you afraid to show it???? Why????
Dennis wrote:
> Their number density has to be experimentally determined.
Jim Carr wrote:
You do not say how, so this is an impossible task for you at
present. Until you do, you have no physical theory. See above
for why.
O'Barr comments:
This sounds like a perfect job for Jim Carr. Why don't you
tell us the best way to do it?????
Dennis wrote:
> This is not strange--nor is it theoretically unsatisfactory.
Jim Carr wrote:
It is both. Every physical theory that has parameters such
as mass includes within it the means to determine that mass.
Why, you even admit that here at the end of your article.
O'Barr comments:
Certainly there are stages to theories where what is known
is limited. At one time, the atomic theory of matter did not
know the mass of the individual atoms. The theory that the
ether is composed of particles is weak if we do not have the
means of `measuring' these particles on an individual basis.
But the most important thing that has to be considered is not
if we can or can't, but whether we should and can't.
Therefore, Carr, you are the one under obligation here, to
point out the fact that we should be able to measure such
particles on an individual basis, and yet they are not seen.
Why don't you do your own homework??????
>
Dennis wrote (about other scientific theories where the mass
was at times uncertain):
> These points are obvious and well known. Carr tries
> to make issue of them for purely personal reasons--
> not scientific.
Jim Carr wrote:
You have that backwards. You are trying to hide the fact
that what is well known about those "points" is that they
support my observation that you must be able to tell us how to
determine the mass of your aetherons if you are to make a claim
to have a scientific rather than metaphysical argument for
their existence. Why, you even give us the examples that you
are wrong.
It is your crusade that makes you stand out as the one
taking standard challenges to your alleged "theory" as attacks
on you.
O'Barr comments:
And so Carr, it is you that sees Dennis being on a crusade.
You, of course, have no crusade at all! You are being very
scientific, and reasonable, and logical. But what I see is the
exact opposite. You are the one showing signs of being bigoted
and one sided. You will not let anything be said that would
allow the ether approach to be superior to SR, or even allow
the ether to be a theory. With you, you allow your mind to
define the ether to be only the way Lorentz defined it, as he
defined it before MMX, and thus of course it is totally
disproved. That sure makes things easy for you, and it make
you the bigot!
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to improve the SR FAQ)
Tom Clarke
From Carr in response to Clarke
> > ... to DJMenCK ...
>
> >>Damn you are slick.
>
> > Very slimy, but once you get a good grip you can keep him
> > from slipping away by ignoring all of his troll attempts,
>
> Dennis: Carr avoids answering direct questions that show the weakness of his
> position by labeling them "troll attempts" or claiming that they were answered
> some place before.
> For example, whenever he asks me the mass or radius of aethrons, I have asked
> him perhaps a dozen times what is the mass and radius of dark matter particles.
> He labels this question as "rhetorical" because apparently he can't see the
> connection between the two concepts.
Dark matter has one characteristic that is quantified, mass density.
What characteristic of your "ether" is quantified?
> Carr: > like the one that hooked you in this thread. Diseases
> > have nothing to do with whether DJMenCK can tell us how
> > to measure the mass, radius, and compressibility of his
> > aetheron particles.
>
> Dennis: How do you measure mass and radius of dark matter particles? That's
> not a troll or rhetorical question.
Density per unit volume of the dark matter particles (or extra field source of
gravity)
is measured via its effect on the rotation curves of galaxies, on the expansion
rate of the universe in relation to primordial abundance of helium.
What effect does ether have?
[Should reinstitute the original title, it seems]
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
Mass of neutrinos is the subject of on-going experimentation.
Neutrino-initiated nuclear events have been observed from a
supernova in the Large Magellinic cloud.
I don't think you should add neutrinos to the list of
speculative particles.
Tom Clarke
Jackie & Barry
Tom Clarke wrote:
> Although as I proof this I realize that your definition of "explained" is
> probably different than mine. I mean something like "predicts all observed
> phenomena". I think you might mean something like "provides a common
> sense model". If I am right in this, then I suppose the you would find the
> non-ether theories non-explanatory.
In the real world, I'm rarely accused of common sense.
But, as a matter of fact, I thought it was the other way around. I would
think of the ether as something that "predicts all observed phenomena".
The postulate of dark matter, on the other hand, "provides a common
sense model" for an anomalous observation - objects move as if some
invisible mass is present, so let's suppose that there is.
> OK. So are there any effects of ether that are not explained
> *without* ether?
> Other than providing a "common sense" explanation of light?
Another low blow accusation of common sense.
I kind of like to picture the ether as a fluid which flows along
geodesics.
In that case, objects not in free fall (i.e. acted on by a "force"),
fell the resistance of this fluid, we call this resistance inertia.
Common sense says that a 3D fluid wouldn't behave that way, but perhaps
we have to go beyond common sense and envisage a 4D fluid.
Barry
Matthew Nobes
??
There is definately a way of measureing both the mass and the radius of
neutrinos.
For the mass you look at beta decay, look at *lots* of beta decays.
You'll observe electrons with some energy spectrum (this is of course why
neutrinos were postualted in the first place). Now the *low* energy part
of that spectrum is sensitive to the presence of a neutrino mass term in
your calculation. So by doing very precise measurments of the low energy
electrons you can get the shape of the low energy curve and comapare it
with theory for different neutrino masses.
This has been done, but of course in the real world it's really hard to
measure the low energy electrons. The best that anybody has been able to
do is an upper limit. Checking with the particle data book (online at
pdg.lbl.gov) we find that (for the electron neutrino)
m < 3 eV/c^{2}
That's pretty small.
There are of course other ways to measure the neutrino mass. For example
in a high energy electron positron collision the following process can
take place
e^{+} + e^{-} -> Z^{0} -> \nu + \bar{\nu}
This will be sensitive to the neutrino mass. Of course to do this you
need a Large Electron Positron collider (or SLAC) and this will mean that
you won't get nearly the precision of the atomic physics experiments. On
the upside you will produce lots of tau neutrinos this way, so you can use
this to constrain the tau mass. The best limit is (again from the
particle data book)
m(tau neutrino) < 18.2 MeV/c^{2}
There is also a limit given on the muon neutrino, its
m(mu neutrino) < 0.19 MeV/c^{2}
Note that the recent measurements of neutrino oscillations would confirm
that the masses are non-zero, however the oscillation process is only
sensitive to a mass difference, so you can't get any information without
knowing at least one mass from a different method.
As for the radius, it would be extremely difficult to do, but *in
principle* one could build a neutrino collider. This would collide high
energy neutrinos and antineutrinos. I would guess that the dominant
reaction would be
nu + \bar{nu} -> Z^{0} -> \nu' + \bar{\nu}'
(where nu' might be a different type of neutrino). Such a process would
(again in principle) be sensitive to any structure in the neutrino. This
is essentially how one sets limits on electron structure. I stress that
this is not a particularly realistic experimental situation, nonetheless
it illustrates that such a measurement is possible.
Actually you wouldn't need to go that far. The reaction
e^{+} + e^{-} -> Z^{0} -> \nu + \bar{\nu}
Would be sensitive to a non zero neutrino radius.
Okay on to Dennis' other big complaint, dark matter. Hopefully, after
reading this he'll shut up about it once and for all, but somehow I doubt
it.
The mass and radius of dark matter is determineable once one decides what
sort of dark matter to look for. For example, let's say that the dark
matter is some sort of Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP). People
have been searching for WIMPS for decades now. The first step is to
identify such a beastie, and it's dominant interactions. Then one can
make some model, and try to determine it's mass and radius useing the same
techniques as in particle physics experiments. You can read about the
status of these searches in the particle data book (and the refs. that it
contains).
Another popular dark matter candidate is the lightest supersymmetric
particle. Again you have to pick a specific model to compare to data (and
there's plently to choose from). The particle data book gives limits to
the mass so obviously such an experiment is possible. And again, after it
was identified one could look for a radius with scattering experiments.
Hopefully the preceeding discussion illustrates the profound difference
between what Dennis McCarthy considers physics and what the rest of use
consider physics. WITHIN A GIVEN MODEL there are plently of ways to
determine the mass and radius of both dark matter particles and neutrinos.
The techniques are typically the same as used in high precision atomic
physics and/or particle physics. Various processes will depend on the
masses of the particles, you simply measure the process and fit to the
mass. Likewise for the radius.
Contrast this with Dennis' aether particles. He cannot, even in
principle, give a method for determining their mass or radius.
--
"It was one thing to say, along the banks of |Matthew Nobes
the Sea of Galilee, `Love thy neighbour.' It |c/o Physics Dept.
is a different thing to say it in today's |Simon Fraser University
world. Not that it is any less `true'; but |8888 University Drive
it has a different meaning in terms of |Burnaby, B.C., Canada
practice and in terms of what men can manage" |pastureh.phys.sfu.ca
-Robert Oppenheimer |
Matter234
>>In article <20010304230006...@ng-fb1.aol.com>
>>clar...@aol.com (Clarke768) writes:
>>>
>> ... to DJMenCK ...
>>>
>>>Damn you are slick.
>>
>> Very slimy, but once you get a good grip you can keep him
>> from slipping away by ignoring all of his troll attempts,
>
>Dennis: Carr avoids answering direct questions that show the weakness of his
>position by labeling them "troll attempts" or claiming that they were
>answered
>some place before.
> For example, whenever he asks me the mass or radius of aethrons, I have
>asked
>him perhaps a dozen times what is the mass and radius of dark matter
>particles.
> He labels this question as "rhetorical" because apparently he can't see the
>connection between the two concepts.
>
>Carr: > like the one that hooked you in this thread. Diseases
>> have nothing to do with whether DJMenCK can tell us how
>> to measure the mass, radius, and compressibility of his
>> aetheron particles.
>
>Dennis: How do you measure mass and radius of dark matter particles? That's
>not a troll or rhetorical question.
Jim Carr totally shows his double standard, when he bring the measurement of
mass and radius of aetheron particles, but he doesn't seem to understand.
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke wrote:
>
> > Although as I proof this I realize that your definition of "explained" is
> > probably different than mine. I mean something like "predicts all observed
> > phenomena". I think you might mean something like "provides a common
> > sense model". If I am right in this, then I suppose the you would find the
> > non-ether theories non-explanatory.
>
> In the real world, I'm rarely accused of common sense.
>
> But, as a matter of fact, I thought it was the other way around. I would
> think of the ether as something that "predicts all observed phenomena".
Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX, alas it is not so,
at least for the really common-sense stationary sort of ether.
Moving ether theories are just too complicated for my taste.
> The postulate of dark matter, on the other hand, "provides a common
> sense model" for an anomalous observation - objects move as if some
> invisible mass is present, so let's suppose that there is.
You could argue that. But invisible, imperceptible mass is not a very common
sense sort of thing.
Of course a few changes of words in the above produces:
"(light) move(s) as if some
invisible (medium) is present, so let's suppose that there is."
But the difference is that without ether, physical theory works.
Whereas without hidden mass, physical theory does not work for galaxies.
> > OK. So are there any effects of ether that are not explained
> > *without* ether?
>
> > Other than providing a "common sense" explanation of light?
>
> Another low blow accusation of common sense.
I cannot understand what other motivation there is for continuing
to postulate an ether when it is not theoretically necessary.
> I kind of like to picture the ether as a fluid which flows along
> geodesics.
To the mathematically literate, this is fairly common-sensical.
> In that case, objects not in free fall (i.e. acted on by a "force"),
> fell the resistance of this fluid, we call this resistance inertia.
But this is not theoretically necessary. Inertia can be seen as
just a property of mass. No need for fluids.
> Common sense says that a 3D fluid wouldn't behave that way, but perhaps
> we have to go beyond common sense and envisage a 4D fluid.
I've been teaching myself homotopy theory. One section of the book reads
"the rest of this section will be a technical exposition .... This may be skipped
by the more impatient students, but is in fact a good introduction to
'seeing in higher dimensions.' "
So perhaps common sense is just a matter of training.
Tom Clarke
Jackie & Barry
Tom Clarke wrote:
> Density per unit volume of the dark matter particles (or extra field source of
> gravity)
> is measured via its effect on the rotation curves of galaxies, on the expansion
> rate of the universe in relation to primordial abundance of helium.
The rotation curves of galaxies are *explained by* postulating the
existence of dark matter.
Can we then say that the rotation curves of galaxies *are* therefor an
"observable effect" of the existence of dark matter?
> What effect does ether have?
The wave nature of light is *explained by* postulating the existence of
the ether.
Can we say that the wave nature of light is therefor an "observable
effect" of the ether?
> [Should reinstitute the original title, it seems]
Done.
Barry
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke wrote:
>
> > Density per unit volume of the dark matter particles (or extra field source of
> > gravity)
> > is measured via its effect on the rotation curves of galaxies, on the expansion
> > rate of the universe in relation to primordial abundance of helium.
>
> The rotation curves of galaxies are *explained by* postulating the
> existence of dark matter.
>
> Can we then say that the rotation curves of galaxies *are* therefor an
> "observable effect" of the existence of dark matter?
To an extent, yes. Of course no one is really happy with having to postulate
something that is colorless and odorless and tasteless but has gravity to
account for rotation curves. It would be much better if some observations
independent of gravitational effects could be found - microlensing events
of macho's or laboratory detections of wimps or something of that nature.
Until, and if, some such independent confirmation of dark matter is
found, dark matter will be in serious doubt and there will be theorists
out beating the bush for other explanations.
> > What effect does ether have?
>
> The wave nature of light is *explained by* postulating the existence of
> the ether.
The nature of light is explained *without* postulating the existence of the
ether by pefectly adequate theory.
Although as I proof this I realize that your definition of "explained" is
probably different than mine. I mean something like "predicts all observed
phenomena". I think you might mean something like "provides a common
sense model". If I am right in this, then I suppose the you would find the
non-ether theories non-explanatory.
> Can we say that the wave nature of light is therefor an "observable
> effect" of the ether?
No. There is a perfectly good theory that explains light *without* ether.
If there were a perfectly good theory that could account for galaxy rotation
curves *without* dark matter, then I am sure that dark matter would not
be postulated.
> > [Should reinstitute the original title, it seems]
>
> Done.
OK. So are there any effects of ether that are not explained
*without* ether?
Other than providing a "common sense" explanation of light?
Tom Clarke
David Evens
>| | djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>Jim Carr wrote:
>| I note that your statement is not, in any way, an argument
>| that what I wrote is incorrect so I will merely point out
>| that some might recognize your remark as a rhetorical
>| technique where the writer makes a statement that is
>| structured like an objection but does not actually contain an
>| objection.
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
> This post, as with many of Jim Carr's posts, gets down to a
>`he said, she said' type of an argument. The point at this
>point is not the correct physics, but who said what when.
>Rather than belabor the precise point at which someone said
>something, or why they said it, we would all be more benefited
>by knowing what is the more acceptable physics, would we
>not????
Then why did you NOT OBJECT to anything he said?
>Jim Carr continues:
>| Anyone who knows what _unconstrained_ means will realize that
>| such a theory allows massless as well as infinitely massive
>| aetherons, just as I stated, so one would be free to adopt
>| either without changing the predictions. They would also
>| realize that such a theory does not specify how to determine
>| those parameters, since otherwise there would be a
>| theoretical constraint on it that it be obtained from a
>| specific experiment.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> I am sure that a more balanced or reasonable position would
>be that the actual mass might matter, but for now we have no
>reasons to make a specific assignment. For an example, in the
>at theory, the total mass of any one of two interacting
>particles is not near as important as the amount of mass that
>ends up being exchanged in the interaction. It is the amount
>that is exchanged that produces the changes in mass, momentums
>and energies, and the total mass becomes almost unseen!!!! Of
>course the total mass must at least be as much as the mass that
>gets exchanged, but that sure leaves a lot up for assumptions,
>does it not????
It would if your prattle in any way resembled anything that actually
HAPPENS.
>Jim Carr wrote:
> What, exactly, is ludicrous about my well-supported claim that
>your reply to me quoted above stated that the number of
>etherons is "unconstrained" and implicitly (by failing to say
>how to do so experimentally) admits that there is no way to
>determine if they have mass or size or any of the properties
>you claim for them? After all, you repeat that admission here
>when you delete
> | Thank you for implicitly agreeing with me by not posting
> | any retraction or modification of your statement above
> | that would show how to measure the size and mass of your
> | aetherons via experiment.
> from my article rather than address it. All we have to go on
>concerning your alleged theory is what you write here, so the
>only possible conclusion is that it is DJMenCK who does not
>understand how to describe the means to measure the properties
>of these particles that remain purely mathematical at this
>point in time.
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr comments:
> The strongest ether theory we presently have (the one that
>is superior to SR) is not perfect. But it is perfect enough to
^^^^^^^^
You have mispelled 'grossly inferior'.
>be superior to SR in every conceivable way. Even though it is
>completely superior, it does not address the specific nature of
>the ether or how it works. It only addresses its effects on
>matter. You, Jim Carr, you are making a mountain out of a mole
>hill, and by doing this, you are not being scientific.
Why is recognising that you are demanding that the universe runs on
magic anything other than scientific?
>In article <20010303110412...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) goes on to claim:
>>
>>Each aethron is incompressible.
>
>Jim Carr wrote:
> Not unless you can tell us how to measure their
>compressibility in an experiment or define a quantity that
>would be different if they did not have this seemingly
>idealistic property.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Everyone can understand your desire to know all these
>things, Jim. But just because you want to know does not keep
>you from being silly in saying that Dennis has to tell you
>these things before they have any meaning. You are being an
>imbecile. If you believe that some state of incompressibility
>is improper, then you should point such out. Dennis only needs
>to state their property, and unless he uses this property in
>the math, there is no need to do more.
You freely admited to being incapable of supporting ANY of your
claims.
>Dennis wrote:
>>Their quantity is what gives objects mass.
>
>Jim Carr wrote:
> Only if they have a measurable mass, and you can't tell
>us how to measure it. Until you can do so, your aetherons
>are just a mathematical artifice.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Your logic is non-existing! Any thinking person can
>understand the possibility of having objects that have too
>small of a mass to individually measure, but collectively,
>could be measured. Are you just disappointed that you did not
>think of this first?????
Why would he be disapointed at not making the mistake of assuming the
existence of objects with truely infinitesimal mass?
>Dennis wrote:
>> The size of the aethrons must be smaller than a certain sub-
>> atomic limit.
>
>Jim Carr wrote:
> You do not tell us how this limit on their radial size was
>determined. (Elsewhere you made a statement giving a mass in
>kg as the size limit, making me question if you even know how
>the radius shows up in your alleged theory of aetherons.)
>
>O'Barr comments:
> Since you make out that you are the top dog, here, then why
>do you not show us that you are the top dog by given us a
>better way to determine the size of ether particles???? After
>all, the ether is a legal scientific theory, and all can
>approach it on a sound and reasonable way, just as much as
>anyone else. Why are you so `gun shy'????? Where is your
>smarts??? Are you afraid to show it???? Why????
Where did you get a logical, scientific modem of your magical medium?
Dennis McCarthy
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 16:58:04 -0500
>Organization: University of Central Florida
>Lines: 69
>Message-ID: <3AB28C6C...@ist.ucf.edu>
>References: <98sb89$fti$1...@news.fsu.edu>
><20010316105418...@ng-cg1.aol.com>
><3AB24C2C...@ist.ucf.edu> <3AB279AA...@mts.net>
><3AB27DEE...@ist.ucf.edu> <3AB28737...@mts.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: wks148.ist.ucf.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: news.cc.ucf.edu 984779890 2055 132.170.193.148 (16 Mar 2001 21:58:10
>GMT)
>X-Complaints-To: ne...@news.cc.ucf.edu
>NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Mar 2001 21:58:10 GMT
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
>X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
>
>
>
>Jackie & Barry wrote:
>
>> Tom Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > Although as I proof this I realize that your definition of "explained" is
>> > probably different than mine. I mean something like "predicts all
>observed
>> > phenomena". I think you might mean something like "provides a common
>> > sense model". If I am right in this, then I suppose the you would find
>the
>> > non-ether theories non-explanatory.
>>
>> In the real world, I'm rarely accused of common sense.
>>
>> But, as a matter of fact, I thought it was the other way around. I would
>> think of the ether as something that "predicts all observed phenomena".
>
>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX, alas it is not so,
Dennis 34th time: The MMX did not falsify all ether models--only non-Lorentz
ones which has the ether stationary with respect to the background stars.
There were already "ether-drag" theories available in 1860's.
What is more: The most accurate MM ever conducted, BH, found a 17 Hz
anisotropic signal which was not predicted by SR--and which is predicted by
ether models in which the ether is moving slowly (at least in the horizontal
direction) in the ECI.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> In article <20010316105418...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
>> djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>
>> >Dennis: How do you measure mass and radius of dark matter particles?
>That's
>> >not a troll or rhetorical question.
>>
>> Why don't you add neutrinos to that list.
>
>Neutrino-initiated nuclear events have been observed from a
>supernova in the Large Magellinic cloud.
>
>I don't think you should add neutrinos to the list of
>speculative particles.
Dennis: They are on the list for particles for which the mass and radius
remains unknown.
Dennis McCarthy
Clarke768
>>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX, alas it is not so,
>Dennis 34th time: The MMX did not falsify all ether models--only non-Lorentz
>ones which has the ether stationary with respect to the background stars
For the twothousand eighthundred thirty fourth time,
Please do not edit posts so as to change meanings.
Here is the entireity of what I wrote:
>>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX,
>>alas it is not so, at least for the really common-sense stationary
>>sort of ether. Moving ether theories are just too
>>complicated for my taste.
Sheesh.
Tom Clarke
John Pesola
>From: clar...@aol.com (Clarke768)
>Date: 3/17/01 2:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010317143039...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
You know I have been lurking here and just reading posts for two months trying
to learn what relativity is all about. The one common denominator I have
noticed in this newsgroup is the various number of people who all have accused
Dennis McCarthy of this very same thing. It would lead a person to believe that
for someone to have been rebuked so many times for selective snipping and
continue to do it is then probably doing it on purpose. If it is done on
purpose then it would also lead a person to believe that the one doing this
really doesn't have a valid argument.
It would not seem that he could continue to maintain that he is innocent of the
infractions, and it is all a conspiracy against him, when it is so many
different people making the very same claim of selective snipping.
I have to wonder why you people waste your time with an individual who appears
to be so openly dishonest to so many people. Does he really believe that no one
else but his so called enemies would notice the pattern of deceptive argument?
He seems to have no shame, but does appear to have an agenda. The most apparent
beyond the selective snipping is the answering of a question directed at him by
asking another question, instead of answering the question directly. It looks
like a good money bet that he was on his high school debating team, and never
got much beyond that level. Anybody know for sure?
Do you truly think that he doesn't realize what he does, or how he appears. Or
might it be that he doesn't care because a win is a win no matter how
dishonestly it might be gained?
J. Pesola
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: On this, you are right. Sorry. I got to failure of MMX and hit reply.
But it is clear you are referring to motionless aether theories.
Anyway, "moving ether theories" are of course expected--as no medium remains
completely motionless. Moreover, the alternative is mutual time dilation,
curving space, wave particle duality, massless particles, singularities,
medium-less waves, etc. etc, etc.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
A new poster, "John Pesola" who has not posted anywhere before writes:
Pesola: >You know I have been lurking here and just reading posts for two
months
>trying
>to learn what relativity is all about. The one common denominator I have
>noticed in this newsgroup is the various number of people who all have
>accused
>Dennis McCarthy of this very same thing. It would lead a person to believe
>that
>for someone to have been rebuked so many times for selective snipping and
>continue to do it is then probably doing it on purpose. If it is done on
>purpose then it would also lead a person to believe that the one doing this
>really doesn't have a valid argument.
>It would not seem that he could continue to maintain that he is innocent of
>the
>infractions, and it is all a conspiracy against him, when it is so many
>different people making the very same claim of selective snipping.
Dennis: Actually, the last rebuke by Clarke was correct. The rest of his
paragraph clarified that he was referring to motionless aethers--so my
response, which looked like a correction, was not relevant because of the
context of his statement.
However, in my defense, Clarke had written perhaps a dozen times before that
MMX refuted the ether theory without such a clarification--so I would
auto-correct every time I saw that statement. This time. however, he had
clarified. So I retracted my comment and agreed the context of his paragraph
shows his statement needed no correction. Not much else I can do. Moreover, I
have written thousands of posts here--and quoted people perhaps hundreds of
thousands of times. I am sure there are a few other examples where a statement
was quoted out of context.
However, most of the accusations against me are ludicrous to the extreme--at
least in my opinion and in the opinions of a few lurkers who are not etherists.
Examples below:
Pesola: >I have to wonder why you people waste your time with an individual who
>appears
>to be so openly dishonest to so many people. Does he really believe that no
>one
>else but his so called enemies would notice the pattern of deceptive
>argument?
>He seems to have no shame, but does appear to have an agenda.
Dennis: Repeated comments like this from a new label are not uncommon. It is
possible that many of them are from the same person, who doesn't want himself
identified. But as for John Pesola's accusation, there certainly is truth to
it: Various posters are quick to describe (though again, usually without
specific quotes or explanations) a similar view that I use disreputable tactics
or am an outright liar, sociopath, contemptible, meglomaniacal, zoo animal,
etc.. Not surprisingly, all of these people follow the mainstream view that I
am attacking--and I have debated with almost all of them personally. Not
surprisingly, many of these people have also launched into personal attacks
against other people with whom they have debated, including Van Flandern,
O'Barr, Matter, etc. Van Flandern, Matter, and I rarely respond in kind--and
certainly we do not express comments as viciously, quickly, or frequently as
our opponents. One would think that relativists should have to defend why they
are so quick to launch into such personal and bitter attacks against the
debating opponents in general--rather than force the victims of the attacks to
explain why they are being attacked.
But let's focus on the negative statements about me for a moment (because I
appear to be more of a lightning rod for attacks than most others)--and let's
look at the flip-side. It is also true that I have some defenders, though fewer
in number than my denouncers, who have claimed that the people I debate with
attack me personally and call me dishonest because I frustrate them with
arguments they can't answer, which leads them to take positions that they can't
defend. Most of my defenders are etherists who more or less agree with my
positions intellectually. Thus, to a large extent, the question as to whether I
am an evil, misrepresenter or a person honestly fighting for my beliefs depends
on whether you follow relativity or the ether view.
Certainly, it should be obvious that if my relativity/ether debates were held
before dissident physicists at an ether conference or NPA meeting, I would have
the majority of people behind me and the frequent ad hominem attacks that the
relativists seem to enjoy would be looked at with a great amount of disdain.
Indeed, the awful statement that I was a liar--would probably elicit immediate
vocal condemnation and calls for immediate proof or an apology.
Unfortunately, here, with relativists being in the majority, such unreferenced
accusations are the norm and are even lauded and quoted by others. The only
support they need is that a number of relativists are willing to say it. That's
proof enough.
Interestingly, one person who doesn't agree with my views, Phil Glasgow, came
to my defense, saying, "I think he is as faithful and honest to his notions as
is anyone else here" and declared the attack of one anonymous poster to be
"malicious" and the "defamatory remarks" of others due to frustration. Perhaps,
the most notable defender, who doesn't exactly agree with my views, is Martin
Gradwell--who spent hours and hours researching all of the attacks and asked
people to provide specific examples of my dishonest behavior. I consider his
defense to be extraordinary considering how thorough and selfless it was: Here
was part of his conclusion:
"Meanwhile his opponents find themselves driven to such a point of distraction
that they feel obliged to counter *every* point made by Dennis, without
exception. Since an invalid argument might consist of nine valid steps and only
one invalid step, this means that Dennis can win his points nine times out of
ten, even if his main premise is flawed. If his opponents were rational, they
would concentrate on the points where they were sure they could win, and let
the rest go. Since they can't understand why they are acting irrationally, they
form an opinion that Dennis is somehow manipulating them in a devious and
underhand way. Therefore, so their reasoning goes, he is a liar. In reality,
they have done it to themselves. Because Dennis's theories look somewhat
farfetched, people who don't know him think he is just another crackpot who can
be easily refuted, so they weigh in. "It will all be over by Christmas", they
say. A thousand posts later they realize their mistake, but by then they're in
too deep to give up. It has become an addiction."
But if people have vastly different opinions about who is right or wrong in
these debates, perhaps we should check the content of the posts themselves.
In a very recent example, I have been declared dishonest because I wrote,
"According to you [Roberts] the atmosphere is "unobservable," as well...."
I wrote that because Roberts had recently written in response to me (regarding
the specific definition of "observed"):
"Nevertheless, the existence of the atmosphere is a _theory_, and there are no
observations _OF_THE_ATMOSPHERE_ITSELF_, there are only observations of
physical phenomena."
I include Roberts" full post at the end of this one, because occassionally when
I quote someone and don't include the full post or other comments someone else
considers relevant, I am again labeled dishonest.
Pesola:
The most
>apparent
>beyond the selective snipping is the answering of a question directed at him
>by
>asking another question, instead of answering the question directly.
Dennis: ? A recent and typical example of this is that when I was asked "What
is the mass and radius of aether particles?" I responded, "What is the mass of
dark matter particles?" The obvious point here, which is not written
explicitly, is the following: I don't know the radius and mass of aether
particles, but that point is not relevant to the validity of the theory because
it is well known that throughout the history of science various substances have
been hypothesized even without knowledge of the objects mass or radius.
I did not write all of the above because my point regarding dark matter
should have been obvious just by asking the question.
Unfortunately, it appears I have to be a little more detailed for some
readers.
But, let me help you out:
Do you have any specific question that you want to ask me that you would like
directly answered?
Please feel free--and you will get a direct answer.
(This is not a deal that my relativist opponents ever offer.)
A Tom Roberts Post from which the quote above was extracted:
****************************************************
Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> >Dennis McCarthy wrote:
> >> The point here, Roberts, is that the Doppler, Sagnac, inteference,
> >aberration
> >> are, according to ether theory, physical effects of the ether that have
> >been
> >> **observed.**
> Roberts; >They are not "physical effects of the ether",
> Dennis: According to ether theory they are physical effects of the ether!
> [... further ranting]
I see I was not specific enough, and you figured out a way to misinterpret what
I said.
THERE IS NO _OBSERVATION_ WHATSOEVER OF "DOPPLER EFFECT IN ETHER", OR EVEN OF
"DOPPLER EFFECT". What we have are observations that for a source moving wrt a
detector the frequency of the received signal varies with their relative
velocity, and the observations provide the dependence of that variation on the
relative velocity (with some error bars). That is what is _OBSERVED_. Now one
can easily _INTERPRET_ that observation as being consistent with the Doppler
effect in ether theory #1, the Doppler effect in ether theory #2, ..., and the
Doppler effect in SR. And _COLLOQUIALLY_ we humans often take verbal shortcuts
and say things like "this variation is due to the Doppler effect", and "we have
observed the Doppler effect", when in reality those are SHORTCUTS for the more
accurate description above.
Ditto for all the other entries of your list.
Once one separates the ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS from the _INTERPRETATIONS_ of those
observations, it becomes clear that no _OBSERVATIONS_ are of "physical effects
of the ether" -- that is an _INTERPRETATION_. And it is by no means unique.
<shrug>
> How many times do you have to be told by Ilja and others the rather obvious
> fact that the THEORY determines what it predicts and what its observable
> consequences are.
I am completely aware of that. It fact, it is an underlying theme of these
three articles -- did you actually read them? My point is: you must separate
OBSERVATION from INTERPRETATION. No theoretical prediction can ever be
_OBSERVED_, one can at most conclude that a given set of observations are
consistent with the predictions of a given theory. <shrug>
> confirmation
> of...predictions...
> is..considered a good thing.
Sure. But earlier you were NOT discussing "confirmation of predictions", you
were discussing "observation of physical effects". The two are
_COMPLETELY_DIFFERENT_ (the first is possible, the second is not). Your
inability to distinguish between them is all too revealing.
No matter how well the observations confirm its predictions, a theory is never
"proven" to be true. And the theoretical interpretations of the experimental
results remain that: _INTERPRETATIONS_. But humans often take verbal shortcuts
which can confuse the unwary....
Your repeated example of the atmosphere shows how utterly dependent you are on
these verbal shortcuts. It's just that the theory "earth has an atmosphere with
these properties ..." is so well confirmed by zillions of observations (e.g.
wind pressure on one's cheek, sound propagation, etc.) that is is hopelessly
cumbersome to continually repeat "assuming the atmosphere theory is valid ...".
Nevertheless, the existence of the atmosphere is a _theory_, and there are no
observations _OF_THE_ATMOSPHERE_ITSELF_, there are only observations of
physical phenomena. There are literally zillions of such theories, and it would
be impossible to carry out normal human discourse if one referred to them in
every sentence....
This is all wrapt up in language. For instance, consider the _theory_ that the
chair I am sitting in exists. I can feel it, it has
continuity over time, etc. We have essentially _REDEFINED_ the meaning of
"exists" to conform to such observations INDEPENDENT of the "real" underlying
meaning of "exists". Such redefinitions occur throughout the language, and make
it extremely difficult to discuss such issues. Yes, this difficulty affects
this entire article....
As I have said so often, science is a _SOCIAL_ endeavor. A major part of the
socialization process is understanding the above.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
******************************
--Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Ken H. Seto
>djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy)
>
>>>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX, alas it is not so,
>
>>Dennis 34th time: The MMX did not falsify all ether models--only non-Lorentz
>>ones which has the ether stationary with respect to the background stars
>
>For the twothousand eighthundred thirty fourth time,
>Please do not edit posts so as to change meanings.
>Here is the entireity of what I wrote:
>
>>>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX,
>>>alas it is not so, at least for the really common-sense stationary
>>>sort of ether.
The MMX did not refute the stationary ether. In fact it confirmed it
with the following new interpretation:
The mirrors at the ends of the arms acted as sources. The speed of
light is independent of the motion of the sources. Source independence
requires a stationary medium. The target mirror that recombines the
two beams is moving vertically while the light beams from the source
mirrors are moving horizontally in the stationary ether. Both beams
arrive at the target mirror at the same time no matter what is the
orientation of the arms. This gives rise to the null result (no
fringe shift) of the MMX. This description of the MMX is exactly like
the famous light clock thought experiment that give rise to the
Lorentz transformation.
For a more detail description of the MMX please visit my website
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html> and click on to the section
entitled "The current state of our universe".
Ken Seto
Jackie & Barry
Tom Clarke wrote:
> Jackie & Barry wrote:
> > But, as a matter of fact, I thought it was the other way around. I would
> > think of the ether as something that "predicts all observed phenomena".
> Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX, alas it is not so,
> at least for the really common-sense stationary sort of ether.
> Moving ether theories are just too complicated for my taste.
In that case, do you consider moving water (or atmosphere) theories too
complicated for your taste?
> > The postulate of dark matter, on the other hand, "provides a common
> > sense model" for an anomalous observation
> You could argue that. But invisible, imperceptible mass is not a very common
> sense sort of thing.
Invisible, imperceptible mass is a standard common sense response.
The first response to anomalous planetary motions was to attribute them
to "invisible, imperceptible" planets.
The first response to anomalous wobbles in stellar motion is attributed
to "invisible, imperceptible" companions.
> But the difference is that without ether, physical theory works.
> Whereas without hidden mass, physical theory does not work for galaxies.
So there are at least *two* possibilities, there is hidden mass *or* the
currently accepted physical theory is wrong and *doesn't* "work" (and
perhaps an ether theory is correct).
> > Another low blow accusation of common sense.
> I cannot understand what other motivation there is for continuing
> to postulate an ether when it is not theoretically necessary.
I expect that there have been lots of things that you didn't understand
at first. We don't have to understand everything.
I think I do understand why so many have a negative response to ether
theories.
I'm not a Theist, but I think I understand why others are.
> > I kind of like to picture the ether as a fluid which flows along
> > geodesics.
> To the mathematically literate, this is fairly common-sensical.
> > In that case, objects not in free fall (i.e. acted on by a "force"),
> > fell the resistance of this fluid, we call this resistance inertia.
> But this is not theoretically necessary. Inertia can be seen as
> just a property of mass. No need for fluids.
"Anomalous" rotation of galaxies could be seen just as a property of
galaxies. No need for dark matter.
> > Common sense says that a 3D fluid wouldn't behave that way, but perhaps
> > we have to go beyond common sense and envisage a 4D fluid.
> I've been teaching myself homotopy theory. One section of the book reads
> "the rest of this section will be a technical exposition .... This may be skipped
> by the more impatient students, but is in fact a good introduction to
> 'seeing in higher dimensions.' "
> So perhaps common sense is just a matter of training.
If you read "Flatland" type expositions, they all seem to make one
assumption - the flatlanders remain on the flat "surface", not observing
the 3rd dimension. Why can't they move through our 3D space, observing a
changing 2d surface, as they move, measuring distances using light.
Guess what. If they were as thick (sic) as us, they would probably
devise a theory in which their 2D world had length contraction and time
dilation.
They might treat the third dimension as if it were time, and this (2 +
1) D world would appear curved.
Barry
Clarke768
>Tom Clarke wrote:
>> Jackie & Barry wrote:
>> > But, as a matter of fact, I thought it was the other way around. I would
>> > think of the ether as something that "predicts all observed phenomena".
>> Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX, alas it is not so,
>> at least for the really common-sense stationary sort of ether.
>> Moving ether theories are just too complicated for my taste.
>In that case, do you consider moving water (or atmosphere) theories too
>complicated for your taste?
Fluid dynamics is much harder than EM theory.
Establishing the mathematical status of the Navier-Stoke
equations is a million dollar math prize at claymath.org,
Maxwell's equations are not.
But to address the question more directly, it would
be nice if fluid mechanics were simpler, but apparently
the universe is such that fluid flow is complicated.
But nature does not make EM so complicated. Adding
fluid-like ether flows to EM is an unneccessary complication
in my opinion.
>> > The postulate of dark matter, on the other hand, "provides a common
>> > sense model" for an anomalous observation
>> You could argue that. But invisible, imperceptible mass is not a very
>common
>> sense sort of thing.
>Invisible, imperceptible mass is a standard common sense response.
>The first response to anomalous planetary motions was to attribute them
>to "invisible, imperceptible" planets.
And those planets were searched for and found.
Uranus then Neptune. Scientists are now looking for
dark matter candidates. They looked for expected effects
of ether and found none. If dark matter remains undetected
long enough it will be abandoned.
The perihelion advance of Mercury was attributed to
an inner planet "Vulcan". Vulcan was never found and
eventually GR provided the explanation. Percival Lowell
predicted a planet beyond Neptune - Pluto was not it -
eventually his calculations were found to be in error
[memory is dim here, but I think I am right on this]
>The first response to anomalous wobbles in stellar motion is attributed
>to "invisible, imperceptible" companions.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
>> But the difference is that without ether, physical theory works.
>> Whereas without hidden mass, physical theory does not work for galaxies.
>So there are at least *two* possibilities, there is hidden mass *or* the
>currently accepted physical theory is wrong and *doesn't* "work" (and
>perhaps an ether theory is correct).
Sure. Undetected mass and no change to theory is
the first response. Change of theory is traumatic -
this newsgroup of evidence of that. Many participants
still haven't gotten over the switch to relativity from Newtonian
absolute space and time.
>> > Another low blow accusation of common sense.
>> I cannot understand what other motivation there is for continuing
>> to postulate an ether when it is not theoretically necessary.
>I expect that there have been lots of things that you didn't understand
>at first. We don't have to understand everything.
But that is the nature of the human.
>I think I do understand why so many have a negative response to ether
>theories.
How do you understand the negative responses to ether
theories? I'm curious. My reason is that it is unnecessary.
>I'm not a Theist, but I think I understand why others are.
Perhaps I should search for another term than
"common sense" if you think its use a low blow.
People have a sense of wonder. Some find a god the way
to satisfy this sense. Others find wonder in just existence.
People have a need to understand how things work. Some
think that this understanding should be based on everday
perceptions. I think these people favor ether-type theories.
If find such a prejudice toward every day perception odd,
as many of these same people don't mind using the hidden
machinery of computers.
>> > I kind of like to picture the ether as a fluid which flows along
>> > geodesics.
>> To the mathematically literate, this is fairly common-sensical.
>> > In that case, objects not in free fall (i.e. acted on by a "force"),
>> > fell the resistance of this fluid, we call this resistance inertia.
>> But this is not theoretically necessary. Inertia can be seen as
>> just a property of mass. No need for fluids.
>"Anomalous" rotation of galaxies could be seen just as a property of
>galaxies. No need for dark matter.
Well perhaps you could formulate a theory - an addition
to standard gravity theory that would work like that.
Galaxies have anomalous property A that accounts
for the rotation curves, perhaps A is left over form the
big bang ... Clusters of galaxies could have property C
(the sum of property A's ) that account for the gravitational
lensing of clusters. Etc.
Of course if A/C acts like some sort of matter etc then
we are back to a dark matter theory. If A is a modification
to GR field equations then it would be a more of less
traumatic change to theory.
But whatever, there is a real anomaly in the data of galaxies
that needs explanation.
For ether there are no anomolies in the data of EM or
wave propagation that need explanation.
>> > Common sense says that a 3D fluid wouldn't behave that way, but perhaps
>> > we have to go beyond common sense and envisage a 4D fluid.
>> I've been teaching myself homotopy theory. One section of the book reads
>> "the rest of this section will be a technical exposition .... This may be
>skipped
>> by the more impatient students, but is in fact a good introduction to
>> 'seeing in higher dimensions.' "
>> So perhaps common sense is just a matter of training.
>If you read "Flatland" type expositions, they all seem to make one
>assumption - the flatlanders remain on the flat "surface", not observing
>the 3rd dimension. Why can't they move through our 3D space, observing a
>changing 2d surface, as they move, measuring distances using light.
I read Abbott's book a long time ago.
>Guess what. If they were as thick (sic) as us, they would probably
>devise a theory in which their 2D world had length contraction and time
>dilation.
Sure. Hey, maybe there is a market for 2D relativistic
Flatland book! I understand that you can construct a
quantum gravity in 2D as well.
>They might treat the third dimension as if it were time, and this (2 +
>1) D world would appear curved.
In "Gravitation" by Misner Thorne and Wheeler they have
an example of an ant crawling on an apple attributing the
curvature of its path to gravity like forces.
It all depends on whether you think of the 2D (lower D)
space as embedded in a higher D space or not. The
embedding is not necessary mathematically, just a
convenient visualization tool.
Tom Clarke
John Pesola
>From: djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy)
>Date: 3/17/01 4:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20010317165550...@ng-md1.aol.com>
>
>
>A new poster, "John Pesola" who has not posted anywhere before writes:
I am not really sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China. Oh,
wait. This does look familiar. It says to me: 'Just in case I can't make points
in my following explanation I had better throw doubt on the credibility of the
poster' did Dennis McCarthy think to himself. A very old debating technique,
especially in the arena of politics. Obviously you think you need this defense;
I have observed you doing it before.
I might posit that you are a lightning rod not because of your beliefs, but
because of you chosen method of debate. Note that the others who hold your same
thoughts do not draw nearly the ire that you do. Note also that their
presentation appears to be viewed by your opponents as a scientific debate that
they can enter into with little name calling and less derision. You, on the
other hand, seem to use a 'debating' technique that is destined to make you
look dishonest. Your opponents can then only assume that you do it on purpose,
to avoid true scientic discussion. Instead of concentrating on all of the
vebosity that you have written in defense of yourself, maybe you should take
the time to view your debating technique from the other's point of view. That
is unless you can only defend your points with your suspect technique. Note
also that it doesn't matter if you think your method of discourse is correct or
incorrect, if a large number of others think that it is suspect, you will never
be able to advance beyond that point of contention.
<snip of a lot of stuff that probably won't change anybody's mind>
>Dennis: ? A recent and typical example of this is that when I was asked
>"What
>is the mass and radius of aether particles?" I responded, "What is the mass
>of
>dark matter particles?" The obvious point here, which is not written
>explicitly, is the following: I don't know the radius and mass of aether
>particles, but that point is not relevant to the validity of the theory
>because
>it is well known that throughout the history of science various substances
>have
>been hypothesized even without knowledge of the objects mass or radius.
> I did not write all of the above because my point regarding dark matter
>should have been obvious just by asking the question.
> Unfortunately, it appears I have to be a little more detailed for some
>readers.
> But, let me help you out:
> Do you have any specific question that you want to ask me that you would
>like
>directly answered?
> Please feel free--and you will get a direct answer.
> (This is not a deal that my relativist opponents ever offer.)
Ok... seems like a fair deal:
Here is my first 'direct' questions that you can address with direct answers.
*Why, when you were asked the question "What is the mass and radius of aether
particles?" did you not just say "I don't know"?
Why did you instead answer the question with your response "What is the mass
of dark matter particles?"?
Does not the answering of a fundamental question with another question appear
to be 'no answer at all'? (In other words, it could imply 'I don't want to have
to say "I don't know".)
There are three simple, and direct questions.
By the way, for your information, I do not know which of these camps is correct
in their contentions about the existence or absence of an ether. I was just
trying to learn. The problem for me is that your 'approach' to the debate, and
methods used, suggest to my instinct that you are arguing from a position of
weakness, because of methods that you use that have the appearance of being
more political than scientific.
John Pesola
Jackie & Barry
Clarke768 wrote:
> Jackie & Barry
> >In that case, do you consider moving water (or atmosphere) theories too
> >complicated for your taste?
> But to address the question more directly, it would
> be nice if fluid mechanics were simpler, but apparently
> the universe is such that fluid flow is complicated.
> But nature does not make EM so complicated. Adding
> fluid-like ether flows to EM is an unneccessary complication
> in my opinion.
That is one of the reasons to react negatively to ether theory.
> >Invisible, imperceptible mass is a standard common sense response.
> Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Yes, sometimes you can fix things with a swift kick - sometimes you
can't. Kicking harder doesn't always help.
> >So there are at least *two* possibilities, there is hidden mass *or* the
> >currently accepted physical theory is wrong and *doesn't* "work" (and
> >perhaps an ether theory is correct).
> Sure. Undetected mass and no change to theory is
> the first response. Change of theory is traumatic -
> this newsgroup of evidence of that.
That is another of the reasons to react negatively to ether theory.
Resistance to change.
> >I think I do understand why so many have a negative response to ether
> >theories.
> How do you understand the negative responses to ether
> theories? I'm curious. My reason is that it is unnecessary.
1. "Fear of complications"
Discussed above
2. "Reluctance to change"
Discussed above
3. "Unfashionable, following the trend"
For example, in " Acceleration of Physics at the End of the
Millennium", the word "ether" does not appear once.
4. "Authority"
For example, in "The Cambridge Encyclopedia", we read "The MMX was
important in demonstrating the absence of the ether". That is typical of
dismissive references to the ether to which we are all exposed. What the
MMX did was imply that we might have zero velocity wrt the local ether,
it did *not* "demonstrate the absence of the ether.
Twig A is floating downstream, at zero velocity wrt the local water.
Twig B is floating downstream, at zero wrt the local water.
Twigs A and B have relative motion wrt each other.
Ergo the water doesn't exist?
> >I'm not a Theist, but I think I understand why others are.
> Perhaps I should search for another term than
> "common sense" if you think its use a low blow.
Mental laziness? The point is that what you accused me of *is* a low
blow, it doesn't matter what you call it.
I think that rejection of the ether is common sense (mental laziness).
It's produced by unwillingness to get into complications, reluctance to
change, following (not leading) and unquestioning acceptance of
Authority.
> People have a sense of wonder. Some find a god the way
> to satisfy this sense. Others find wonder in just existence.
In such a complex, wonderful world, it is easy (lazy?) to follow the
well trodden tourist routes. Sometimes you just have to follow the path
less trodden.
> People have a need to understand how things work. Some
> think that this understanding should be based on everday
> perceptions. I think these people favor ether-type theories.
> If find such a prejudice toward every day perception odd,
> as many of these same people don't mind using the hidden
> machinery of computers.
I don't see the ether as an everyday perception, I see it as an every
day rejection.
> >"Anomalous" rotation of galaxies could be seen just as a property of
> >galaxies. No need for dark matter.
> Well perhaps you could formulate a theory - an addition
> to standard gravity theory that would work like that.
> Galaxies have anomalous property A that accounts
> for the rotation curves, perhaps A is left over form the
> big bang ... Clusters of galaxies could have property C
> (the sum of property A's ) that account for the gravitational
> lensing of clusters. Etc.
> Of course if A/C acts like some sort of matter etc then
> we are back to a dark matter theory. If A is a modification
> to GR field equations then it would be a more of less
> traumatic change to theory.
> But whatever, there is a real anomaly in the data of galaxies
> that needs explanation.
> For ether there are no anomolies in the data of EM or
> wave propagation that need explanation.
Maybe the ether *is* the dark matter. Light matter is the ether
condensed, dark matter is the ether uncondensed. Who knows.
> >If you read "Flatland" type expositions, they all seem to make one
> >assumption - the flatlanders remain on the flat "surface", not observing
> >the 3rd dimension. Why can't they move through our 3D space, observing a
> >changing 2d surface, as they move, measuring distances using light.
> I read Abbott's book a long time ago.
Yes, he made that very assumption I think. But he was writing in 1884,
decades before the 4th spatial dimension was "mixed up with time". He
can be forgiven...
> >Guess what. If they were as thick (sic) as us, they would probably
> >devise a theory in which their 2D world had length contraction and time
> >dilation.
> Sure. Hey, maybe there is a market for 2D relativistic
> Flatland book! I understand that you can construct a
> quantum gravity in 2D as well.
The secret is to read the book before it's written.
> >They might treat the third dimension as if it were time, and this (2 +
> >1) D world would appear curved.
> In "Gravitation" by Misner Thorne and Wheeler they have
> an example of an ant crawling on an apple attributing the
> curvature of its path to gravity like forces.
> It all depends on whether you think of the 2D (lower D)
> space as embedded in a higher D space or not. The
> embedding is not necessary mathematically, just a
> convenient visualization tool.
In my thread "Why I need the Ether", that was my point the ether can be
at least, and maybe not "just", a visualization tool.
Barry
Clarke768
>> Sure. Undetected mass and no change to theory is
>> the first response. Change of theory is traumatic -
>> this newsgroup of evidence of that.
>That is another of the reasons to react negatively to ether theory.
>Resistance to change.
I rather see it as opposite. Ether theory is _not new_.
It is a reactionary attempt to avoid accepting relativity.
>> How do you understand the negative responses to ether
>> theories? I'm curious. My reason is that it is unnecessary.
>1. "Fear of complications"
> Discussed above
"Fear"? That is rather a strong term to use.
The opposite of finding simplicity a virtue is not
"fear".
>2. "Reluctance to change"
> Discussed above
This cuts both ways, see above.
>3. "Unfashionable, following the trend"
> For example, in " Acceleration of Physics at the End of the
>Millennium", the word "ether" does not appear once.
Not sure what you mean. But the issue of rebellion,
etc cuts both ways as well.
>4. "Authority"
> For example, in "The Cambridge Encyclopedia", we read "The MMX was
>important in demonstrating the absence of the ether".
The MMX isn't all that complicated, not need to appeal to
authority for explanation.
> [...] What the
>MMX did was imply that we might have zero velocity wrt the local ether,
>it did *not* "demonstrate the absence of the ether.
Sure. And any theory that requires an ether that is pulled
this way and that with respect to whatever you happen to
be standing on is - well - complicated.
>Twig A is floating downstream, at zero velocity wrt the local water.
>Twig B is floating downstream, at zero wrt the local water.
>Twigs A and B have relative motion wrt each other.
Sure. But this description entails TWO streams of local
water intertwining with each other in some hard to imagine
fashion.
>Ergo the water doesn't exist?
Ergo it is hard to imagine how two streams of water
can occupy the same place at the same time having
different velocities.
>> >I'm not a Theist, but I think I understand why others are.
>> Perhaps I should search for another term than
>> "common sense" if you think its use a low blow.
>Mental laziness? The point is that what you accused me of *is* a low
>blow, it doesn't matter what you call it.
"Mental laziness" is your term, not mine. One could have
a principle that physical theory be such that ordinary
descriptions apply. This leads to mental contortions of two
ether streams occupying the same place at same time or
some such. This is complicated, not lazy.
>I think that rejection of the ether is common sense (mental laziness).
I've been know to tell students that mathematics is lazy.
It could be argued athematics is about finding the shortest
way to prove theorems, express things etc.
>It's produced by unwillingness to get into complications, reluctance to
>change, following (not leading) and unquestioning acceptance of
>Authority.
These are virtues of a theory?
>> People have a sense of wonder. Some find a god the way
>> to satisfy this sense. Others find wonder in just existence.
>In such a complex, wonderful world, it is easy (lazy?) to follow the
>well trodden tourist routes. Sometimes you just have to follow the path
>less trodden.
Sometimes. Science uses the criteria of successful prediction
- and sometimes theoretical elegance - to determine when
to leave the beaten path.
Ether meets neither criteria.
>> People have a need to understand how things work. Some
>> think that this understanding should be based on everday
>> perceptions. [...]
>I don't see the ether as an everyday perception, I see it as an every
>day rejection.
Everday in that waves have to be waves in something.
[...]
>> For ether there are no anomolies in the data of EM or
>> wave propagation that need explanation.
>Maybe the ether *is* the dark matter. Light matter is the ether
>condensed, dark matter is the ether uncondensed. Who knows.
Could be. But dark matter doesn not necessarily have anything
to do with EM propagation.
[Flatland]
>> I read Abbott's book a long time ago.
>Yes, he made that very assumption I think. But he was writing in 1884,
>decades before the 4th spatial dimension was "mixed up with time". He
>can be forgiven...
Forgiven? Are you sure you are not Nemesis <grin>
>In my thread "Why I need the Ether", that was my point the ether can be
>at least, and maybe not "just", a visualization tool.
Still seems complicated to me.
Tom Clarke
Dennis McCarthy
>
>>Subject: Re: Ether, observability
>>From: djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy)
>>Date: 3/17/01 4:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20010317165550...@ng-md1.aol.com>
>>
>>
>>
>
Pesola:
>I might posit that you are a lightning rod not because of your beliefs, but
>because of you chosen method of debate. Note that the others who hold your
>same
>thoughts do not draw nearly the ire that you do.
Dennis: 1) Well, they also draw considerable ire and personal attacks. I
happen to post more often than any of them. Also, such slights or criticisms
are not uncommon with regard to scientific dissidents: Just consider Wegener
or Arp or Beckmann or Boltzmann or Waterston.
2) You are simply judging my honesty and debating tactics--not by pointing to
or analyzing something specific I have written--but by simply pointing to the
reactions of others who are quick to launch into personal attacks. Personally,
I would think a gentleman would actually chastise the people who in public
debates are quick to post vicious accusations and make personal slights. It
seems odd that the subject of the personal attacks has to defend himself for
getting personally attacked.
3) We both agree that I am the subject of personal attacks. There are one of
two possibilities: A) My debating tactics are so dishonest that I cause people
to attack me personally B) Or another possibility is as Martin Gradwell claims,
my debating opponents often adopt indefensible positions in order to avoid any
concessions--and then they get trapped and frustrated and so start to attack me
personally.
Now, the only way we can determine which reason is most likely true-- is NOT
to look at the comments of others (it is already stipulated that they are
unflattering) but instead to look at what they have described as the most
egregious examples of my alleged dishonesty. I provided a recent example in
the last post (which you then edited.) I post another example below.
Perhaps, you and I can analyze it together and see if it really shows that
below is an "outright lie."
http://x75.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=691023878.1&mhitnum=162
Matthew Nobes <Error! Bookmark not defined.> wrote in message
news:Error! Bookmark not defined....
..
> What I would call an outright lie is your continual pleas that you are
> interested in talking about science. This is false, you are only here to
> argue with people. I'll leave you with the following exchange between
> yourself and Tim Shuba, which nicely illustrates the point
>
> From Error! Bookmark not defined. Mon Nov 6 13:21:42 2000
> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:53:07 GMT
> From: Error! Bookmark not defined.
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
> Subject: Re: Proofs of SR
>
> Master Dennis wrote:
>
> > Dennis: Well, here was the relevant first quote:
> > ****************************************
> > Shuba:" LET supporters almost to a person have shown themselves
incapable of
> > mathematically presenting LET, and they
> > generally do not have a working understanding of SR either."
> >
[Dennis:]
> > When I mentioned that this was unreferenced and does not describe any
specific
> > physics argument but was just meant to demean supporters of LET, you
then
> > focused exclusively on me, ranting that I was the "most spiteful, trite,
and
> > innumerate posters here." You also used the phrases "egotistical
(bordering on
> > megalomania)", "complete inadequacies in the area of mathematical
physics are
> > revealed...." with an "insatiable ego" and that you "...couldn't
possibly be
> > content with the method you choose of never trying to learn something
new, and
> > never admitting to making mistakes. You are a rotten teacher, and a
rotten
> > student" and you also expressd "only contempt for your method."
> > **************************************
> > [Dennis]: It seems you became very personal, wouldn't you say?
>[Shuba:]
> Sure, and it's my honest opinion. What's odd is that instead of just
shaking
> your head or calling me a jerk and leaving it at that, you insist on
trying
> to keep the thread alive and "about Dennis", thereby giving credence to my
> points and showing that your putative desire to raise the level of
discussion
> is not true.
>
Gradwell:
Let me see if I understand this. Dennis complained that Tim Shuba was using
unreferenced and unspecific insults directed against LET supporters, instead of
addressing physics arguments. Shuba responds by saying that Dennis is
"spiteful, trite, innumerate, egotistical", etc., etc. Then, instead of
responding in kind and hurling insults at Shuba, Dennis documents Shuba's
insults and comments that they are personal. Shuba considers this to be
evidence that DENNIS is not interested in raising the level of discussion
(???). Matthew Nobes agrees with Tim Shuba.
Nobes even considers this exchange to be evidence that Dennis is lying - and it
is the only "evidence" that he provides. Presumably, if Dennis HAD hurled
insults at Shuba, both Shuba and Nobes would have considered this to be a
raising of the level of the discussion. Presumably the height of erudition,
scholarship and truthfulness would be a discussion that consisted entirely of
unsupported insults. Well, I suppose that's par for the course here.
**********************************
So now is the above an actual example of an "outright lie" by me?
Pesola:
Note also that their
>presentation appears to be viewed by your opponents as a scientific debate
>that
>they can enter into with little name calling and less derision.
Dennis: No, they insult other etherists like Van Flandern, Matter, O'Barr,
Nemesis, etc.
Pesola:
You, on the
>other hand, seem to use a 'debating' technique that is destined to make you
>look dishonest.
Dennis: No. My stance on the ether often leads to be called dishonest. There's
a difference. And the only way to determine if I am truly being dishonest is to
look at the examples that they themselves hold up as being illustrative of an
"outright lie." I provide one such example above. Do you think that post
does in fact make me dishonest?
Pesola: Your opponents can then only assume that you do it on
>purpose,
>to avoid true scientic discussion. Instead of concentrating on all of the
>vebosity that you have written in defense of yourself, maybe you should take
>the time to view your debating technique from the other's point of view. That
>is unless you can only defend your points with your suspect technique. Note
>also that it doesn't matter if you think your method of discourse is correct
>or
>incorrect, if a large number of others think that it is suspect, you will
>never
>be able to advance beyond that point of contention.
>
> <snip of a lot of stuff that probably won't change anybody's mind>
Dennis: Well, the stuff you snipped were my actual posts that were alleged to
include my dishonest techniques. The stuff you keep and harp on are just the
opinions of others.
>>Dennis: ? A recent and typical example of this is that when I was asked
>>"What
>>is the mass and radius of aether particles?" I responded, "What is the mass
>>of
>>dark matter particles?" The obvious point here, which is not written
>>explicitly, is the following: I don't know the radius and mass of aether
>>particles, but that point is not relevant to the validity of the theory
>>because
>>it is well known that throughout the history of science various substances
>>have
>>been hypothesized even without knowledge of the objects mass or radius.
>> I did not write all of the above because my point regarding dark matter
>>should have been obvious just by asking the question.
>> Unfortunately, it appears I have to be a little more detailed for some
>>readers.
>> But, let me help you out:
>> Do you have any specific question that you want to ask me that you would
>>like
>>directly answered?
>> Please feel free--and you will get a direct answer.
>> (This is not a deal that my relativist opponents ever offer.)
>
Pesola: >Ok... seems like a fair deal:
>
>Here is my first 'direct' questions that you can address with direct answers.
>
>*Why, when you were asked the question "What is the mass and radius of aether
>particles?" did you not just say "I don't know"?
Dennis; I thought I answered this above but I'll be more clear: It has been
well known by almost all my common debating opponents (of which the questioner
was one) that I do not know the mass or radius of aethrons. The fact that I
don't know the mass and radius of aetherons has been discussed at length many
times by me with others over the years. The reason I did not simply write
again, "I don't know" is because the point the person was making in that post
(and in other posts he has written) is that if I did not know the mass and
radius of ether particles, then the notion of the ether is not a valid theory.
If I just wrote, "I don't know" again (which I have written before and the
poster already knew anyway) then the poster's point remains uncontested.
The point here is that it is well known that throughout the history of science
various substances have been hypothesized even without knowledge of the
objects' mass or radius. A good example is dark matter.
Pesola:
>Why did you instead answer the question with your response "What is the mass
>of dark matter particles?"?
Dennis: Because by asking what is the mass and radius of dark matter particles,
it should be quite obvious that I am making the point that it is not unheard of
in physics theory to hypothesize a substance for which you do not know the mass
or radius. Dark matter is an example of a hypothetical substance of which
people don't know the mass or radius.
Pesola:
>Does not the answering of a fundamental question with another question appear
>to be 'no answer at all'? (In other words, it could imply 'I don't want to
>have
>to say "I don't know".)
Dennis: The poster, and almost all other frequenters of this newsgroup, know
that I do not know the mass and radius of ether particles. I have said it in
the past--and am saying it now. The person was trying to make the point that
the ether is not a valid theory if I did not know. The question that was used
in response should have clearly showed what point I was making.
Now, that I have answered your three direct questions, perhaps, you will
answer just one of mine:
Do you think the example I provided above, which a relativist held up as an
example of an "outright lie" is an actual "outright lie" or even dishonesty on
my part?
Pesola: >There are three simple, and direct questions.
>
>By the way, for your information, I do not know which of these camps is
>correct
>in their contentions about the existence or absence of an ether. I was just
>trying to learn. The problem for me is that your 'approach' to the debate,
>and
>methods used, suggest to my instinct that you are arguing from a position of
>weakness, because of methods that you use that have the appearance of being
>more political than scientific.
Dennis: But you have never once specified any particular argument, statement or
quote of mine as an example of my method. All you have done is rely on the
personal attacks of others.
************************************************
(From the beginning of post:)
A new poster, "John Pesola" who has not posted anywhere before writes:
>
Pesola:
>I am not really sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China.
Dennis: I am often attacked by new or anonymous names who have never posted
anywhere before or discussed anything else in newsgroups with anyone. In
another newsgroup, another poster showed evidence that a few of these posters
were all really the same person (though this was denied.) I apologize for the
implication if this is not true of you.
Pesola: Oh,
>wait. This does look familiar. It says to me: 'Just in case I can't make
>points
>in my following explanation I had better throw doubt on the credibility of
>the
>poster' did Dennis McCarthy think to himself. A very old debating technique,
>especially in the arena of politics. Obviously you think you need this
>defense;
>I have observed you doing it before.
Dennis: ? This entire sub-thread that was started by you concerns *your*
effort to "throw doubt" on *my* credibility. You are calling me dishonest and
stating that I use unfair debating tactics, right? Moreover, you are
attempting to do this without in any way discussing physics. If you feel that
it is disreputable to make such claims in a debate, then well, perhaps you
should stop making them.
Dennis McCarthy
Jackie & Barry
Clarke768 wrote:
> Barry
> >That is another of the reasons to react negatively to ether theory.
> >Resistance to change.
> I rather see it as opposite. Ether theory is _not new_.
> It is a reactionary attempt to avoid accepting relativity.
See below.
For me, ether theory would be an *explanation* for relativity.
> >1. "Fear of complications"
> > Discussed above
> "Fear"? That is rather a strong term to use.
> The opposite of finding simplicity a virtue is not
> "fear".
Fear, avoidance , choose your own word.
> >2. "Reluctance to change"
> > Discussed above
> This cuts both ways, see above.
The change from ether to relativity has been made.
Their is now a general reluctance to reconsider.
If you play chess, you know that you must sometimes face the need to
"undevelop" your pieces.
Psychologicall that can be much harder than developing them.
> >3. "Unfashionable, following the trend"
> > For example, in " Acceleration of Physics at the End of the
> >Millennium", the word "ether" does not appear once.
> Not sure what you mean. But the issue of rebellion,
> etc cuts both ways as well.
Historically, the ether concept has played a valuable role in the
development of physics. It used to be fashionable. Most texts now seem
to rarely mention the word. When it is mentioned, it is generally
treated as a "wrong turn".
> >4. "Authority"
> > For example, in "The Cambridge Encyclopedia", we read "The MMX was
> >important in demonstrating the absence of the ether".
> The MMX isn't all that complicated, not need to appeal to
> authority for explanation.
"Authority" tells us that the absence of ether has been demonstrated.
The MMX is indeed simple, nevertheless, simple as it is, I think that
the explanation of the results has been botched.
All that the MMX results tell us is that the light paths display a
symmetry.
> > [...] What the
> >MMX did was imply that we might have zero velocity wrt the local ether,
> >it did *not* "demonstrate the absence of the ether.
> Sure. And any theory that requires an ether that is pulled
> this way and that with respect to whatever you happen to
> be standing on is - well - complicated.
Oh! You think of the ether as being pulled. That idea had not occurred
to me. I always envisage the ether as doing the pulling.
As in...
> >Twig A is floating downstream, at zero velocity wrt the local water.
> >Twig B is floating downstream, at zero wrt the local water.
> >Twigs A and B have relative motion wrt each other.
> Sure. But this description entails TWO streams of local
> water intertwining with each other in some hard to imagine
> fashion.
Oh no! Did you never race twigs as a child? One stream.
By the way, did you know where the largest "river" in Canada is?
The answer might surprise you.
> >Ergo the water doesn't exist?
> Ergo it is hard to imagine how two streams of water
> can occupy the same place at the same time having
> different velocities.
Only one stream, but there again, why not two?
I've always been intrigued by how a body floating in the ether might
"turn on it's engines" and fight the current.
Last night I had an idea. I was watching "Damn the Defiant", about the
18th Century English Navy. How did those ships fight the current? They
used two streams one in the ocean, the other in the air. Maybe there is
more than one ether? Take one body (the hull) drifting in the first,
connect it to another body (the sails) drifting in the second. Each part
will then seem be acted on by a(n equal and opposite) force.
It was a good movie.
> >Mental laziness? The point is that what you accused me of *is* a low
> >blow, it doesn't matter what you call it.
> "Mental laziness" is your term, not mine. One could have
> a principle that physical theory be such that ordinary
> descriptions apply. This leads to mental contortions of two
> ether streams occupying the same place at same time or
> some such. This is complicated, not lazy.
Nevertheless, the English Navy used something similar to great effect.
> >I think that rejection of the ether is common sense (mental laziness).
> I've been know to tell students that mathematics is lazy.
> It could be argued athematics is about finding the shortest
> way to prove theorems, express things etc.
I readily admit to being lazy. They say, if you want a job done quickly,
ask a lazy man.
> >It's produced by unwillingness to get into complications, reluctance to
> >change, following (not leading) and unquestioning acceptance of
> >Authority.
> These are virtues of a theory?
No, those are the traits that maintain the status quo (whatever it is).
> >In such a complex, wonderful world, it is easy (lazy?) to follow the
> >well trodden tourist routes. Sometimes you just have to follow the path
> >less trodden.
> Sometimes. Science uses the criteria of successful prediction
> - and sometimes theoretical elegance - to determine when
> to leave the beaten path.
> Ether meets neither criteria.
Well, if if most scientists don't think it's there, they're unlikely to
make any predictions with it.
As for elegance, I think the idea that the Universe as an (invisible)
stream is a beautiful one.
I think the jet stream was found by the US accident, while trying to
bomb Japan.
The Japanese were already using it to float bombs to the US by balloon -
the US took some time to figure out how they could cross the Pacific so
quickly.
(Don't forget that Canadian River - and that Saharan river)
> >I don't see the ether as an everyday perception, I see it as an every
> >day rejection.
> Everday in that waves have to be waves in something.
I tend to think of a wave as a "special" kind of "number".
> >Maybe the ether *is* the dark matter. Light matter is the ether
> >condensed, dark matter is the ether uncondensed. Who knows.
> Could be. But dark matter doesn not necessarily have anything
> to do with EM propagation.
Does it necessarily *not* have... ?
> >Yes, he made that very assumption I think. But he was writing in 1884,
> >decades before the 4th spatial dimension was "mixed up with time". He
> >can be forgiven...
> Forgiven? Are you sure you are not Nemesis <grin>
I'm not "sure' of much.
> >In my thread "Why I need the Ether", that was my point the ether can be
> >at least, and maybe not "just", a visualization tool.
> Still seems complicated to me.
Football seems complicated to me, but I think it exists.
Barry
Clarke768
being attracted to ether theory or not.
>> >[B]That is another of the reasons to react negatively
>> > to ether theory. Resistance to change.
>>[C] I rather see it as opposite. Ether theory is _not new_.
>> It is a reactionary attempt to avoid accepting relativity.
>See below.
>For me, ether theory would be an *explanation* for relativity.
>> >1. "Fear of complications"
>> "Fear"? That is rather a strong term to use.
>> The opposite of finding simplicity a virtue is not
>> "fear".
>>Fear, avoidance , choose your own word.
How about "appreciation for simplicity"?
>> >2. "Reluctance to change"
>> > Discussed above
>> This cuts both ways, see above.
>The change from ether to relativity has been made.
Not by many posters on this newsgroup!
>Their is now a general reluctance to reconsider.
Sure. That is the conservatism of science.
But given data push, where there is not enough of yet,
current theory will change - probably into a new
channel and not back into an old one.
>If you play chess, you know that you must sometimes face the need to
>"undevelop" your pieces.
Can you give an example from the history of science
where this is the case?
>Psychologicall that can be much harder than developing them.
Sure. But that is chess, we are talking science.
>> >3. "Unfashionable, following the trend"
>> > For example, in " Acceleration of Physics at the End of the
>> >Millennium", the word "ether" does not appear once.
>> Not sure what you mean. But the issue of rebellion,
>> etc cuts both ways as well.
>Historically, the ether concept has played a valuable
>role in the development of physics. It used to be
>fashionable. Most texts now seem to rarely mention the
>word. When it is mentioned, it is generally
>treated as a "wrong turn".
Well it was. So were caloric and crystal spheres
and lots of other things. No need to
re-adopt these old ideas, even though it is useful
at times to think of heat as something flowing, or
of the fixed stars rotating around the observer, or
>> >4. "Authority"
>> > For example, in "The Cambridge Encyclopedia", we read "The MMX was
>> >important in demonstrating the absence of the ether".
>> The MMX isn't all that complicated, not need to
appeal to authority for explanation.
>"Authority" tells us that the absence of ether has been
>demonstrated.
So does my reason - except for very complicated
versions of ether theory.
>The MMX is indeed simple, nevertheless, simple as it is, I think that
>the explanation of the results has been botched.
>All that the MMX results tell us is that the light paths display a
>symmetry.
And that symmetry is a very important fact indeed!
>> > [...] What the
>> >MMX did was imply that we might have zero velocity wrt the local ether,
>> >it did *not* "demonstrate the absence of the ether.
>> Sure. And any theory that requires an ether that is pulled
>> this way and that with respect to whatever you happen to
>> be standing on is - well - complicated.
>Oh! You think of the ether as being pulled. That idea had not occurred
>to me. I always envisage the ether as doing the pulling.
Pull. push, doesn't matter. Either the ether is an
extra thing along for the ride with no physically observable
effects over those predicted by the non-ether theory or
else perhaps you can turn the table (as Nemesis and
Dennis seem to want to do) and say that space is
what goes along for the ride and that it is the ether that
does the work.
Seems simplest just to eliminate the extra player and
to call the result space as it has the properties of
a mathematical Minkowskian space.
>As in...
>> >Twig A is floating downstream, at zero velocity wrt the local water.
>> >Twig B is floating downstream, at zero wrt the local water.
>> >Twigs A and B have relative motion wrt each other.
>> Sure. But this description entails TWO streams of local
>> water intertwining with each other in some hard to imagine
>> fashion.
>Oh no! Did you never race twigs as a child? One stream.
Sure. But if two twigs are in the same place they
have the same velocity if they are floating at zero
velocity with respect to the local flow. Same place,
same local flow. In physics two things can pass
arbitrarily close to each other with relative velocities
up to c. This doesn't square with a simple flow model.
>By the way, did you know where the largest "river" in Canada is?
>The answer might surprise you.
No.
>> >Ergo the water doesn't exist?
>> Ergo it is hard to imagine how two streams of water
>> can occupy the same place at the same time having
>> different velocities.
>Only one stream, but there again, why not two?
Two is one too many. Too complicated.
If one space-time will do why have all this other
machinery?
>I've always been intrigued by how a body floating in the ether might
>"turn on it's engines" and fight the current.
Figure out how to do that and I would see a reason
to study ether theory. The complication would be
explaining something and have a reason.
[snip English Navy sail boat analogy]
>> >Mental laziness? The point is that what you accused me of *is* a low
>> >blow, it doesn't matter what you call it.
>> "Mental laziness" is your term, not mine. One could have
>> a principle that physical theory be such that ordinary
>> descriptions apply. This leads to mental contortions of two
>> ether streams occupying the same place at same time or
>> some such. This is complicated, not lazy.
>Nevertheless, the English Navy used something similar to great effect.
Wild speculation unless you can find an example
of this phenomena.
>> >I think that rejection of the ether is common sense (mental laziness).
>> I've been know to tell students that mathematics is lazy.
>> It could be argued athematics is about finding the shortest
>> way to prove theorems, express things etc.
>I readily admit to being lazy. They say, if you want a job done quickly,
>ask a lazy man.
That's the idea. Mathematicians are lazy.
>> >It's produced by unwillingness to get into complications, reluctance to
>> >change, following (not leading) and unquestioning acceptance of
>> >Authority.
>> These are virtues of a theory?
>No, those are the traits that maintain the status quo (whatever it is).
Science has come a long way in the last 300 years,
its stick and build up tension until theory slides to
a new understanding. The conservatism that sticks
and builds up tension provides the energy needed to
drive new theory building. I'm not sure a system
without conservative resistance would work as well.
>> >In such a complex, wonderful world, it is easy (lazy?) to follow the
>> >well trodden tourist routes. Sometimes you just have to follow the path
>> >less trodden.
>> Sometimes. Science uses the criteria of successful prediction
>> - and sometimes theoretical elegance - to determine when
>> to leave the beaten path.
>> Ether meets neither criteria.
>Well, if if most scientists don't think it's there, they're unlikely to
>make any predictions with it.
String theory is actually a marvelously complicated
but in a way simple ether sort of theory.
>As for elegance, I think the idea that the Universe as an (invisible)
>stream is a beautiful one.
Make space-time the stream and enjoy!
>I think the jet stream was found by the US accident,
>while trying to bomb Japan.
You may be right.
>> >I don't see the ether as an everyday perception, I see it as an every
>> >day rejection.
>> Everday in that waves have to be waves in something.
>I tend to think of a wave as a "special" kind of "number".
Why number? Why not element in space-time?
>> >Maybe the ether *is* the dark matter. Light matter is the ether
>> >condensed, dark matter is the ether uncondensed. Who knows.
>> Could be. But dark matter doesn not necessarily have anything
>> to do with EM propagation.
>Does it necessarily *not* have... ?
I tend to think so. Cosmic microwave photons
propagate in straight lines - or else there would be
observable effects - unperturbed by dark matter -
essentially across the entire universe.
>> >In my thread "Why I need the Ether", that was my point the ether can be
>> >at least, and maybe not "just", a visualization tool.
>> Still seems complicated to me.
>Football seems complicated to me, but I think it exists.
If it is soccer-football you are talking about I don't
care for it much.
Tom Clarke
Jackie & Barry
Clarke768 wrote:
> Barry and Clarke are discussing motivation for
> being attracted to ether theory or not.
> >>Fear, avoidance , choose your own word.
> How about "appreciation for simplicity"?
Ying/Yang
> >The change from ether to relativity has been made.
> Not by many posters on this newsgroup!
I was referring to the mainstream.
> >Their is now a general reluctance to reconsider.
> Sure. That is the conservatism of science.
> But given data push, where there is not enough of yet,
> current theory will change - probably into a new
> channel and not back into an old one.
Who can say where the tide will take us?
> >If you play chess, you know that you must sometimes face the need to
> >"undevelop" your pieces.
> Can you give an example from the history of science
> where this is the case?
Caloric?
Steady state?
Cosmological Constant?
Ether?
> >Psychologically that can be much harder than developing them.
>
> Sure. But that is chess, we are talking science.
I think the psychological point is general, it applies to most
endeavours.
> >Historically, the ether concept has played a valuable
> >role in the development of physics. It used to be
> >fashionable. Most texts now seem to rarely mention the
> >word. When it is mentioned, it is generally
> >treated as a "wrong turn".
> Well it was. So were caloric and crystal spheres
> and lots of other things. No need to
> re-adopt these old ideas, even though it is useful
> at times to think of heat as something flowing, or
> of the fixed stars rotating around the observer, or
Nor any need to think of "fixed stars".
Must be careful here, or I'll be talking about the Navy again.
> >"Authority" tells us that the absence of ether has been
> >demonstrated.
> So does my reason - except for very complicated
> versions of ether theory.
I take it you mean that you can't reason out a "simple" ether that would
not reveal itself in the MMX?
My point is that only a complex asymmetric ether could be discovered by
the MMX.
> >All that the MMX results tell us is that the light paths display a
> >symmetry.
> And that symmetry is a very important fact indeed!
Yes! It means that the Universe may be very simply constructed.
> >Oh! You think of the ether as being pulled. That idea had not occurred
> >to me. I always envisage the ether as doing the pulling.
> Pull. push, doesn't matter. Either the ether is an
> extra thing along for the ride with no physically observable
> effects over those predicted by the non-ether theory....
When I was about 2 years old, I thought that turning a switch was what
made the lights come on. That model worked for me. It still does most of
the time. One day, I looked behind the switch... Now I worry all the
time about all those wires and things.
> Seems simplest just to eliminate the extra player and
> to call the result space as it has the properties of
> a mathematical Minkowskian space.
But couldn't a simple ether account for time dilation, length
contraction, compton scattering, red shift... ?
> >> Sure. But this description entails TWO streams of local
> >> water intertwining with each other in some hard to imagine
> >> fashion.
> >Oh no! Did you never race twigs as a child? One stream.
> Sure. But if two twigs are in the same place they
> have the same velocity if they are floating at zero
> velocity with respect to the local flow. Same place,
> same local flow. In physics two things can pass
> arbitrarily close to each other with relative velocities
> up to c. This doesn't square with a simple flow model.
No two twigs can be in the same place, can they?
One of my correspondents suggested that geodesics could intersect. I
don't think they can, since that would mean two objects being in the
same place at the same time.
Is c fast?
It's the apparent fact that there is a *limit* to observed relative
velocities that I find most compelling.
Indeed, two particles can't get very close to each other. Don't you get
a repulsion or a double helix. And isn't that just a little like a
vortex in space time.
> >By the way, did you know where the largest "river" in Canada is?
> >The answer might surprise you.
> No.
The largest river in North Africa?
Big as they are, they're both tough to find.
> >Only one stream, but there again, why not two?
> Two is one too many. Too complicated.
> If one space-time will do why have all this other
> machinery?
I use a key to drive my car, I'm sure I don't need all the other
machinery that's up there at the front.
> >I've always been intrigued by how a body floating in the ether might
> >"turn on it's engines" and fight the current.
> Figure out how to do that and I would see a reason
> to study ether theory. The complication would be
> explaining something and have a reason.
> [snip English Navy sail boat analogy]
How could it be figured out without studying it in the first place.
What you seem to mean is that for you nothing is worth studying until
someone else has already figured things out.
> >Nevertheless, the English Navy used something similar to great effect.
> Wild speculation unless you can find an example
> of this phenomena.
Of course it's wild speculation.
> >> These are virtues of a theory?
>
> >No, those are the traits that maintain the status quo (whatever it is).
> Science has come a long way in the last 300 years,
> its stick and build up tension until theory slides to
> a new understanding. The conservatism that sticks
> and builds up tension provides the energy needed to
> drive new theory building. I'm not sure a system
> without conservative resistance would work as well.
I'm not sure that we've got that much to show for 350 - 400 (or is it a
million) years of effort. it embarrasses me a little. I hope nobody is
watching us.
> >> Ether meets neither criteria.
> >Well, if if most scientists don't think it's there, they're unlikely to
> >make any predictions with it.
> String theory is actually a marvelously complicated
> but in a way simple ether sort of theory.
Far too complicated. It's a camel, designed by a committee.
> >As for elegance, I think the idea that the Universe as an (invisible)
> >stream is a beautiful one.
> Make space-time the stream and enjoy!
I did make space time my stream that's my point.
> >I think the jet stream was found by the US accident,
> >while trying to bomb Japan.
> You may be right.
I believe that the bomber crews were surprised to find that they almost
completely stopped moving, relative to the islands below them.
A bit like the MMX in fact.
Invisible, unobservable, ineffectual [:)] streams in the sky, undreamed
of until discovered.
> >> Everday in that waves have to be waves in something.
> >I tend to think of a wave as a "special" kind of "number".
> Why number? Why not element in space-time?
Well I kind of meant an analogy. We originally used numbers to count
(apples) but eventually the numbers didn't need to be counting anything,
they just *are*.
We originally used waves to measure disturbances in something but
eventually the waves didn't have to be in anything, they just *are*.
> >> Could be. But dark matter doesn not necessarily have anything
> >> to do with EM propagation.
> >Does it necessarily *not* have... ?
> I tend to think so. Cosmic microwave photons
> propagate in straight lines - or else there would be
> observable effects - unperturbed by dark matter -
> essentially across the entire universe.
I'm not sure about the straight line bit. I'm not really sure how those
photons get here, but they do seem to travel in packs.
> >> Still seems complicated to me.
> >Football seems complicated to me, but I think it exists.
> If it is soccer-football you are talking about I don't
> care for it much.
No, soccer is simple. I meant North American football - I don't care for
it much. Every time I see it they seem to be standing around talking.
Barry
Ilja Schmelzer
> Although as I proof this I realize that your definition of "explained" is
> probably different than mine. I mean something like "predicts all observed
> phenomena". I think you might mean something like "provides a common
> sense model". If I am right in this, then I suppose the you would find the
> non-ether theories non-explanatory.
I think your notion of "explanation" is quite nonsensical. There
should be some difference between explanation and description. A
simple description is never an explanation. "Explanation" always
explains the observable effects by hidden causes.
Why do you think its useful to use "explanation" if "consistent
description" fits very well? The fundamental notions of theories are
always unexplained, they are postulated.
> > Can we say that the wave nature of light is therefor an "observable
> > effect" of the ether?
>
> No. There is a perfectly good theory that explains light *without* ether.
Hm, that means simply the fact that there is another theory changes
something? Quite strange. I would say the question if theory A
explains effect B by C is independent of any other theories.
Of course, the existence of other theories is important, but not in
this question.
> If there were a perfectly good theory that could account for galaxy
> rotation curves *without* dark matter, then I am sure that dark
> matter would not be postulated.
That's another question. Dark matter is quite ad hoc. The ether
hypothesis was never something invented ad hoc to fit some
observations. Instead it was invented to explain the Maxwell
equations.
> OK. So are there any effects of ether that are not explained
> *without* ether?
Of course, there are theories which rename the ether into "physical
vacuum", and in these theories all ether effects are explained as
effects of the "physical vacuum" ;-)
> Other than providing a "common sense" explanation of light?
Hm, how about explaining the Einstein equivalence principle?
Ilja
--
I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja Schmelzer
> > But, as a matter of fact, I thought it was the other way around. I would
> > think of the ether as something that "predicts all observed phenomena".
>
> Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX, alas it is not so,
You are not up to date about ether theory. See get.ilja-schmelzer.net.
> at least for the really common-sense stationary sort of ether.
> Moving ether theories are just too complicated for my taste.
ROTFL, GET math is quite the same as GR math. If GR math is too
complicate for you I recommend you to learn GR math.
> But the difference is that without ether, physical theory works.
With ether, physical theory works even better. You obtain local
energy and momentum of the gravitational field, less singularities,
and quantization becomes much easier.
> I cannot understand what other motivation there is for continuing
> to postulate an ether when it is not theoretically necessary.
We can almost derive it based on the simple axioms of EPR realism.
Ilja Schmelzer
> >>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX,
> >>alas it is not so, at least for the really common-sense stationary
> >>sort of ether. Moving ether theories are just too
> >>complicated for my taste.
Hm. The "really common-sense stationary sort of ether" certainly
includes a well-known stationary ether theory which is not refuted by
the failure of MMX, the classical Lorentz ether.
Tom Clarke
> Clarke768 wrote:
> > >>Fear, avoidance , choose your own word.
> > How about "appreciation for simplicity"?
> Ying/Yang
There used to be a columnist Sidney Harris (now dead)
He used to to triples like
I am cautious
You are fearful
He is cowardly
The difference is not so ying/yang whenn it comes to
social discourse.
> > >If you play chess, you know that you must sometimes face the need to
> > >"undevelop" your pieces.
>
> > Can you give an example from the history of science
> > where this is the case?
>
> Caloric?
Addressed already. Don't see it coming back.
> Steady state?
Inflation actually uses the same sort of equations as steady
state, but Big Bang inflation is rather not the same thing as
steady state cosmology.
> Cosmological Constant?
This might be an example.
> Ether?
That is what we are discussing. I don't see it coming back.
> > >Psychologically that can be much harder than developing them.
> >
> > Sure. But that is chess, we are talking science.
>
> I think the psychological point is general, it applies to most
> endeavours.
True. But science does not go on in the mind of a single
individual. Science involves sociology as much as psychology.
Considering the rewards that accrue to someone who successfully
solves an anomoly, there is incentive to consider evern unfashionable
solutions for each new generation of scientists.
> > Well it was. So were caloric and crystal spheres
> > and lots of other things. No need to
> > re-adopt these old ideas, even though it is useful
> > at times to think of heat as something flowing, or
> > of the fixed stars rotating around the observer, or
>
> Nor any need to think of "fixed stars".
Huh? It is useful to think of the stars as fixed - with slow
variation due to precession of equinoxes etc. As you allude
to below, navigationally, this is very useful.
> Must be careful here, or I'll be talking about the Navy again.
>
> > >"Authority" tells us that the absence of ether has been
> > >demonstrated.
>
> > So does my reason - except for very complicated
> > versions of ether theory.
>
> I take it you mean that you can't reason out a "simple" ether that would
> not reveal itself in the MMX?
Not any ether that is simpler than no-ether.
A stationary ether providing an absolute reference frame would
be simpler than special relativity - in effect the c-> infininty limit
of SR. But that theory is eliminated by MMX.
> My point is that only a complex asymmetric ether could be discovered by
> the MMX.
No. A simple stationary ether would be discovered by MMX
> > >All that the MMX results tell us is that the light paths display a
> > >symmetry.
>
> > And that symmetry is a very important fact indeed!
>
> Yes! It means that the Universe may be very simply constructed.
And relativity tells us how! Einstein's paper is really quite simple.
> > >Oh! You think of the ether as being pulled. That idea had not occurred
> > >to me. I always envisage the ether as doing the pulling.
>
> > Pull. push, doesn't matter. Either the ether is an
> > extra thing along for the ride with no physically observable
> > effects over those predicted by the non-ether theory....
>
> When I was about 2 years old, I thought that turning a switch was what
> made the lights come on. That model worked for me. It still does most of
> the time. One day, I looked behind the switch... Now I worry all the
> time about all those wires and things.
But the switch is what makes the light go on.
Why do there have to be wired behind the switch.
At some point we may hit the fundamental level - or maybe not.
> > Seems simplest just to eliminate the extra player and
> > to call the result space as it has the properties of
> > a mathematical Minkowskian space.
>
> But couldn't a simple ether account for time dilation, length
> contraction, compton scattering, red shift... ?
No. See above.
> > >> Sure. But this description entails TWO streams of local
> > >> water intertwining with each other in some hard to imagine
> > >> fashion.
>
> > >Oh no! Did you never race twigs as a child? One stream.
>
> > Sure. But if two twigs are in the same place they
> > have the same velocity if they are floating at zero
> > velocity with respect to the local flow. Same place,
> > same local flow. In physics two things can pass
> > arbitrarily close to each other with relative velocities
> > up to c. This doesn't square with a simple flow model.
>
> No two twigs can be in the same place, can they?
Since we are talking physics they can be arbitrarily close to
each other. As they get closer they would have to have
more and more equal velocities.
> One of my correspondents suggested that geodesics could intersect. I
> don't think they can, since that would mean two objects being in the
> same place at the same time.
You forget motion. No two objects can be in the same state (modulo
boson stuff in QM) but state includes position and velocity. They can
be at the same point moving at different velocities. Or state this in
terms of limits to make it classically rigorous.
> Is c fast?
The fastest, apparently.
> It's the apparent fact that there is a *limit* to observed relative
> velocities that I find most compelling.
Explained nicely by Minkowski geometry.
> Indeed, two particles can't get very close to each other. Don't you get
> a repulsion or a double helix. And isn't that just a little like a
> vortex in space time.
This makes no sense to me. I think you are assuming your ether
(that is what the word "vortex" seems to imply) to argue for your
ether.
> > >By the way, did you know where the largest "river" in Canada is?
> > >The answer might surprise you.
>
> > No.
>
> The largest river in North Africa?
>
> Big as they are, they're both tough to find.
Vaguely remember something about a subterranean flow in
North Africa. Sounds like you might be angling toward
making an analogy involving surface flows and subterranean
flows. If so, what is your analogy for drilling a well and
actually sampling subterranean water?
> > >Only one stream, but there again, why not two?
>
> > Two is one too many. Too complicated.
> > If one space-time will do why have all this other
> > machinery?
>
> I use a key to drive my car, I'm sure I don't need all the other
> machinery that's up there at the front.
Not a good analogy. I can pop the hood and see the complexity.
Where is the hood to pop in physics?
> > >I've always been intrigued by how a body floating in the ether might
> > >"turn on it's engines" and fight the current.
>
> > Figure out how to do that and I would see a reason
> > to study ether theory. The complication would be
> > explaining something and have a reason.
> > [snip English Navy sail boat analogy]
>
> How could it be figured out without studying it in the first place.
As is always done in science. You measure everything to the
umpteenth decimal place and when the anomolies pile up
you try to modify/overthrow theory to account for the
anomalies.
Do you have specific anomalies in mind?
> What you seem to mean is that for you nothing is worth studying until
> someone else has already figured things out.
No. Nothing is worth studying in physics unless there is data to guide
the study. String theory for this reason is suspicious among mainstream
physicists since there is no guiding data. The energies at which string
theory makes a real difference as very far removed from what is
experimentally achievable today.
> > >Nevertheless, the English Navy used something similar to great effect.
>
> > Wild speculation unless you can find an example
> > of this phenomena.
>
> Of course it's wild speculation.
Yes.
> > >> These are virtues of a theory?
>
> > >No, those are the traits that maintain the status quo (whatever it is).
>
> > Science has come a long way in the last 300 years,
> > its stick and build up tension until theory slides to
> > a new understanding. The conservatism that sticks
> > and builds up tension provides the energy needed to
> > drive new theory building. I'm not sure a system
> > without conservative resistance would work as well.
>
> I'm not sure that we've got that much to show for 350 - 400 (or is it a
> million) years of effort. it embarrasses me a little. I hope nobody is
> watching us.
You _are_ a pessimist. What do you expect, something like one
of Ayn Rand's superheroes who can invent all of science in a cabin
in the woods with a spoon and a toothpick?
> > >> Ether meets neither criteria.
>
> > >Well, if if most scientists don't think it's there, they're unlikely to
> > >make any predictions with it.
>
> > String theory is actually a marvelously complicated
> > but in a way simple ether sort of theory.
>
> Far too complicated. It's a camel, designed by a committee.
And a complex flowing ether is simpler?!
> > >As for elegance, I think the idea that the Universe as an (invisible)
> > >stream is a beautiful one.
>
> > Make space-time the stream and enjoy!
>
> I did make space time my stream that's my point.
Then your theory is not really an ether theory!
> > >I think the jet stream was found by the US accident,
> > >while trying to bomb Japan.
>
> > You may be right.
>
> I believe that the bomber crews were surprised to find that they almost
> completely stopped moving, relative to the islands below them.
>
> A bit like the MMX in fact.
Not a bit.
> Invisible, unobservable, ineffectual [:)] streams in the sky, undreamed
> of until discovered.
Physics is not concerend with ineffectual things.
> > >> Everday in that waves have to be waves in something.
>
> > >I tend to think of a wave as a "special" kind of "number".
>
> > Why number? Why not element in space-time?
>
> Well I kind of meant an analogy. We originally used numbers to count
> (apples) but eventually the numbers didn't need to be counting anything,
> they just *are*.
Depends on what philosophy of mathematics you subscribe to.
> We originally used waves to measure disturbances in something but
> eventually the waves didn't have to be in anything, they just *are*.
OK. That is how I see it, although you really need the QFT viewpoint.
> > >> Could be. But dark matter doesn not necessarily have anything
> > >> to do with EM propagation.
>
> > >Does it necessarily *not* have... ?
>
> > I tend to think so. Cosmic microwave photons
> > propagate in straight lines - or else there would be
> > observable effects - unperturbed by dark matter -
> > essentially across the entire universe.
>
> I'm not sure about the straight line bit. I'm not really sure how those
> photons get here, but they do seem to travel in packs.
They are busy measuring the small scale angular structure of the
CMBR to test models of the early universe. Were the CMBR propagation
disturbed in a non-gravitational way by dark matter (dark matter gravitates
by definition) then I think it would be noticed.
> > >> Still seems complicated to me.
>
> > >Football seems complicated to me, but I think it exists.
>
> > If it is soccer-football you are talking about I don't
> > care for it much.
>
> No, soccer is simple. I meant North American football - I don't care for
> it much. Every time I see it they seem to be standing around talking.
Matter of taste, I guess. American football has drama, the development
of strategies etc. Soccer is supposed to have that but I can't see it;
I don't much like basketball either. Run up and down the playing field
sports leave me cold.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > Although as I proof this I realize that your definition of "explained" is
> > probably different than mine. I mean something like "predicts all observed
> > phenomena". I think you might mean something like "provides a common
> > sense model". If I am right in this, then I suppose the you would find the
> > non-ether theories non-explanatory.
>
> I think your notion of "explanation" is quite nonsensical. There
> should be some difference between explanation and description. A
> simple description is never an explanation. "Explanation" always
> explains the observable effects by hidden causes.
I think we are not communicating.
What do you mean by "hidden causes"?
> Why do you think its useful to use "explanation" if "consistent
> description" fits very well? The fundamental notions of theories are
> always unexplained, they are postulated.
But "unexplained" is different from "hidden".
Which do you mean?
> > > Can we say that the wave nature of light is therefor an "observable
> > > effect" of the ether?
>
> > No. There is a perfectly good theory that explains light *without* ether.
>
> Hm, that means simply the fact that there is another theory changes
> something? Quite strange. I would say the question if theory A
> explains effect B by C is independent of any other theories.
It changes everything. If there are two competing theories then there
is no single explanation. Often as in matrix mechanics/wave mechanics
the two theories can be shown to be mathematically equivalent so that
there is in fact a single theory.
If theory E explains event M, and theory R explains event M also,
then there is no unique explanation of M and you cannot claim
that M is an observable consequence of E since E
would be expected (via theory R) even if E is false.
> Of course, the existence of other theories is important, but not in
> this question.
It bears on whether a theory can be said to have observable
consequences.
> > If there were a perfectly good theory that could account for galaxy
> > rotation curves *without* dark matter, then I am sure that dark
> > matter would not be postulated.
>
> That's another question. Dark matter is quite ad hoc.
So is ether.
> The ether
> hypothesis was never something invented ad hoc to fit some
> observations.
Sure it was. Apparently all the way back in Huyghen's time.
> Instead it was invented to explain the Maxwells equations.
Dennis McCarthy has corrected me on this. It was Huyghens
apparently.
> > OK. So are there any effects of ether that are not explained
> > *without* ether?
>
> Of course, there are theories which rename the ether into "physical
> vacuum", and in these theories all ether effects are explained as
> effects of the "physical vacuum" ;-)
But the physical vacuum has no rest frame. If a substance, ether,
could be moving in all possible ways to all possible observers
it would be a most strange substance.
> > Other than providing a "common sense" explanation of light?
>
> Hm, how about explaining the Einstein equivalence principle?
I don't think the ether explains that. That is explained by
geodesic motion.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> clar...@aol.com (Clarke768) writes:
> > >>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX,
> > >>alas it is not so, at least for the really common-sense stationary
> > >>sort of ether. Moving ether theories are just too
> > >>complicated for my taste.
>
> Hm. The "really common-sense stationary sort of ether" certainly
> includes a well-known stationary ether theory which is not refuted by
> the failure of MMX, the classical Lorentz ether.
Depends on one's sense of what is common.
Some would say that time dilation is a load of nonsense.
Personally Lorentz trasnforms + ether
is more complicated than Lorentz transforms - ether,
so the etherless theory is to be preferred.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > > But, as a matter of fact, I thought it was the other way around. I would
> > > think of the ether as something that "predicts all observed phenomena".
>
> > Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX, alas it is not so,
>
> You are not up to date about ether theory. See get.ilja-schmelzer.net.
>
> > at least for the really common-sense stationary sort of ether.
> > Moving ether theories are just too complicated for my taste.
>
> ROTFL, GET math is quite the same as GR math. If GR math is too
> complicate for you I recommend you to learn GR math.
GR math + ether is more complicated than GR math - ether.
Very simple.
> > But the difference is that without ether, physical theory works.
>
> With ether, physical theory works even better. You obtain local
> energy and momentum of the gravitational field, less singularities,
> and quantization becomes much easier.
Really? Are there any experimental consequences?
> > I cannot understand what other motivation there is for continuing
> > to postulate an ether when it is not theoretically necessary.
>
> We can almost derive it based on the simple axioms of EPR realism.
Really? Is this almost derivation on your web page?
Tom Clarke
rbw...@rmi.net
<il...@ilja-schmelzer.net> writes
>
>Hm, how about explaining the Einstein equivalence principle?
>
>Ilja
>--
>I. Schmelzer, <il...@ilja-schmelzer.net>, http://ilja-schmelzer.net
Ilja,
The principle of equivalence relates to the experiment conducted by
Galilleo from the leaning tower of Pisa, in which he dropped two rocks of
different sizes, and they hit the ground at the same time. Isaac Newton used
this principle as a basis for his principle of equivalence for gravitation in
which he viewed the moon as falling toward earth and showed that a satellite
of a different size would have the same velocity in its orbit as the moon if
it were orbiting the earth at the same altitude. Now this is very
interesting with respect to relativity because it points to a different way
of viewing time than scientists use today. Scientific time is defined as a
certain number of transitions of a cesium isotope, etc., whereas, a cesium
atom on the moon would be oscillating at a different rate than a cesium atom
on earth.
However, it is also possible to measure time by rotation of the earth. We
know this because 24 hours was once thought to be the time of one rotation,
whereas, now it is a certain number of transitions of the cesium isotope.
But considering equivalence, if we take a certain number of degrees of the
earth's rotation as the time of an orbit of the moon around the earth, then
we see that the number of degrees would be the same whether measured from
earth or from the moon. In other words, t'=t, just as the Galillean
transformation equations show.
Applying this principle to the problem that Einstein was trying to solve
when he substituted in the Lorentz equations,
x'=x-vt
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t
x=ct
x'=c(t2) not x'=ct' as Einstein says. t'already
equals t using the rotation of earth
as t
Notice that x' remains the same distance as x' in the Galillean
transformation equation.
Now to solve for time on a clock in K' for an event in K' on the x axis as
Einstein was trying to do, we just use another Galillean expression
c(t3) = x - v(t3),
where t3 is the time on a clock in K' and c(t3) is the distance from the
origin of K' to the event, and x is the distance from the origin of K to the
event, as Einstein describes in his example.
Now it may be possible to work this same problem using two different rates
of time as Einstein claimed to have done, but I am not convinced he did it.
At any rate, the above example satisfies the conditions of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without a time dilation, or relativity of
simultaneity except in the case of photons, and there is no distance
contraction. The only problem seems to be finding a scientist who can
understand it.
Robert B. Winn
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Ilja Schmelzer
>> I think your notion of "explanation" is quite nonsensical. There
>> should be some difference between explanation and description. A
>> simple description is never an explanation. "Explanation" always
>> explains the observable effects by hidden causes.
>
> I think we are not communicating.
> What do you mean by "hidden causes"?
There are always two parts of an explanation: the part which is
explained - which is usually something observable - and the
construction which explains it, which is not directly observable.
Maybe, some times later it becomes observable, like atoms, elementary
particles. Quarks are already close to this too. If more and more
observable effects are explained by the same unobservable explanation,
we start to "see" them: the explanation becomes accepted, default,
and the previously unexplained effects, then explained by unobservable
fundamental objects, now become observations of these objects.
>> Why do you think its useful to use "explanation" if "consistent
>> description" fits very well? The fundamental notions of theories are
>> always unexplained, they are postulated.
>
> But "unexplained" is different from "hidden".
> Which do you mean?
I mean "unexplained" for the fundamental items of a theory. Sometimes
they are observable, like temperature in thermodynamics, sometimes
hidden, like atoms or quarks in the earlier variants of these
theories. I think its reasonable to name the first type of theories
phenomenological, they only describe observable phenomena, while the
second type explaines observable phenomena by yet unobservable things.
>> Hm, that means simply the fact that there is another theory changes
>> something? Quite strange. I would say the question if theory A
>> explains effect B by C is independent of any other theories.
> It changes everything. If there are two competing theories then there
> is no single explanation. Often as in matrix mechanics/wave mechanics
> the two theories can be shown to be mathematically equivalent so that
> there is in fact a single theory.
>
> If theory E explains event M, and theory R explains event M also,
> then there is no unique explanation of M
but theory E nonetheless explains M.
> and you cannot claim that M is an observable consequence of E since
> E would be expected (via theory R) even if E is false.
????????????????????? Sorry, that's complete nonsense. Of course M
remains an observable consequence of E. Its also an observable
consequence of R.
>> Of course, the existence of other theories is important, but not in
>> this question.
>
> It bears on whether a theory can be said to have observable
> consequences.
Not at all. What is an observable consequence of a theory is clearly
well-defined by this theory alone.
The existence of competing theories is very important, but not in this
question.
>> That's another question. Dark matter is quite ad hoc.
>
> So is ether.
Not at all. Ether was not invented to make a theory fit with
observation. You mingle something: The properties of the Lorentz
ether (length contraction, time dilation) have been ad hoc, not the
ether itself.
>> The ether
>> hypothesis was never something invented ad hoc to fit some
>> observations.
>
> Sure it was. Apparently all the way back in Huyghen's time.
>
>> Instead it was invented to explain the Maxwells equations.
>
> Dennis McCarthy has corrected me on this. It was Huyghens
> apparently.
My point is not the inventer, I don't care much. The point is that
the intention was different. There was no dark matter problem with
Maxwell's equations, nonetheless people have tried to invent ether
models.
>>> OK. So are there any effects of ether that are not explained
>>> *without* ether?
>> Of course, there are theories which rename the ether into "physical
>> vacuum", and in these theories all ether effects are explained as
>> effects of the "physical vacuum" ;-)
> But the physical vacuum has no rest frame. If a substance, ether,
> could be moving in all possible ways to all possible observers
> it would be a most strange substance.
Not very much.
>>> Other than providing a "common sense" explanation of light?
>> Hm, how about explaining the Einstein equivalence principle?
> I don't think the ether explains that. That is explained by
> geodesic motion.
I have an explanation, see get.ilja-schmelzer.net. Geodesic motion
does not explain the EEP, instead, it is a consequence of the EEP.
The EEP is fundamental, unexplained, in GR.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
Not if the stationary ether and its structure is the cause of the
Lorentz transforms.
Ken Seto
Ilja Schmelzer
> > You are not up to date about ether theory. See get.ilja-schmelzer.net.
> >
> > > at least for the really common-sense stationary sort of ether.
> > > Moving ether theories are just too complicated for my taste.
> >
> > ROTFL, GET math is quite the same as GR math. If GR math is too
> > complicate for you I recommend you to learn GR math.
>
> GR math + ether is more complicated than GR math - ether.
> Very simple.
Seems you judge about a theory you don't know. And you have a notion
of simplicity which has not much to do with the real mathematical
problems related with GR.
It may be useful and interesting for you to find out how local
existence and uniqueness theorems for GR have been proven.
Essentially, an additional equation (which is a physical equation of
GET) is introduced as a coordinate condition, then in the resulting
(much simpler) theory the theorem can be proven.
> > > But the difference is that without ether, physical theory works.
> >
> > With ether, physical theory works even better. You obtain local
> > energy and momentum of the gravitational field, less singularities,
> > and quantization becomes much easier.
>
> Really? Are there any experimental consequences?
Yep, we have a "big bounce" instead of a big bang, and some
homogeneous dark-matter-like effect.
> > > I cannot understand what other motivation there is for continuing
> > > to postulate an ether when it is not theoretically necessary.
> >
> > We can almost derive it based on the simple axioms of EPR realism.
>
> Really? Is this almost derivation on your web page?
Yep, its in gr-qc/0001101.
Roughly, the logic is the following:
EPR-realism + classical causality + SR = EPR-realism +
Einstein-causality = Bell's inequality = falsified. Thus, EPR-realism
+ classical causality requires a preferred frame.
Once we accept a preferred frame, we are already back to the Lorentz
ether in SR. In GR, my GET appears in a quite natural way, not in
form of an exact derivation, but using some "simplest choices" (with
reference to Occam's razor) to choose between possible GR-like
theories with preferred frames.
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
>
We seem to have arrived at the essence of our difference in terminology.
> > If theory E explains event M, and theory R explains event M also,
> > then there is no unique explanation of M
>
> but theory E nonetheless explains M.
>
> > and you cannot claim that M is an observable consequence of E since
> > E would be expected (via theory R) even if E is false.
>
> ????????????????????? Sorry, that's complete nonsense. Of course M
> remains an observable consequence of E. Its also an observable
> consequence of R.
I guess taking the words at exactly face value what you say is true.
However, I will resist quite strongly the next step which would be to
say that M is evidence for theory E when there is another theory R
which also explains the very same data. But I suppose that can be
argued as well.
Searching for words ....
In this schematic situation, M does not discriminate between the
two theories E and R, so in that sense M is evidence for neither
theory. Of course I suppose M could show that
either E or R should be true while eliminating theory A or N.
> >> Of course, the existence of other theories is important, but not in
> >> this question.
>
> > It bears on whether a theory can be said to have observable
> > consequences.
>
> Not at all. What is an observable consequence of a theory is clearly
> well-defined by this theory alone.
But the conclusions you can draw from the observable consequence
cannot ignore the context of other theories.
> The existence of competing theories is very important, but not in this
> question.
OK. But you will have folks like me insisting that lots of caveats should
be added to every statement where you say M is a consequence of
E (or R) and espcially if you want to say M is evidence _for_
E (or R). So much easier just to limit discourse to evidence that
in uniquely a result of E so that the (or R) can be dropped.
> >> That's another question. Dark matter is quite ad hoc.
>
> > So is ether.
>
> Not at all. Ether was not invented to make a theory fit with
> observation. You mingle something: The properties of the Lorentz
> ether (length contraction, time dilation) have been ad hoc, not the
> ether itself.
Lorentz transformation is quite natural in the context of Minkowski
space time. Within the context of ether, yes they are ad hoc.
> >> The ether
> >> hypothesis was never something invented ad hoc to fit some
> >> observations.
>
> > Sure it was. Apparently all the way back in Huyghen's time.
>
> >> Instead it was invented to explain the Maxwells equations.
> >
> > Dennis McCarthy has corrected me on this. It was Huyghens
> > apparently.
>
> My point is not the inventer, I don't care much. The point is that
> the intention was different. There was no dark matter problem with
> Maxwell's equations, nonetheless people have tried to invent ether
> models.
Yes there was a dark matter problem of sorts. People could not
imagine how waves could propagate in vacuum. The needed ether
to fill a gap of imagination.
> >>> OK. So are there any effects of ether that are not explained
> >>> *without* ether?
> >> Of course, there are theories which rename the ether into "physical
> >> vacuum", and in these theories all ether effects are explained as
> >> effects of the "physical vacuum" ;-)
>
> > But the physical vacuum has no rest frame. If a substance, ether,
> > could be moving in all possible ways to all possible observers
> > it would be a most strange substance.
>
> Not very much.
I find it highly strange. But that is one of our differences.
> >>> Other than providing a "common sense" explanation of light?
>
> >> Hm, how about explaining the Einstein equivalence principle?
>
> > I don't think the ether explains that. That is explained by
> > geodesic motion.
>
> I have an explanation, see get.ilja-schmelzer.net. Geodesic motion
> does not explain the EEP, instead, it is a consequence of the EEP.
> The EEP is fundamental, unexplained, in GR.
I don't see it that way.
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer
>> Hm. The "really common-sense stationary sort of ether" certainly
>> includes a well-known stationary ether theory which is not refuted by
>> the failure of MMX, the classical Lorentz ether.
>
> Depends on one's sense of what is common.
> Some would say that time dilation is a load of nonsense.
Confronted with experiments not. (Except some cranks.) People with
common sense do not tend to deny the results of experiments.
> Personally Lorentz trasnforms + ether is more complicated than
> Lorentz transforms - ether, so the etherless theory is to be
> preferred.
There is no such simple counting. You know, people have invented
something named "effective field theory". Later people have
recognized that Lorentz' theory of the electron is the first example
of such an effective field theory.
Feel free to argue that modern physics without effective field theory
is easier and to be preferred.
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > > ROTFL, GET math is quite the same as GR math. If GR math is too
> > > complicate for you I recommend you to learn GR math.
> >
> > GR math + ether is more complicated than GR math - ether.
> > Very simple.
>
> Seems you judge about a theory you don't know.
I'm just taking your words at face value
"GET math is quite the same as GR math"
> And you have a notion
> of simplicity which has not much to do with the real mathematical
> problems related with GR.
Then GET math is NOT the same as GR math?
> It may be useful and interesting for you to find out how local
> existence and uniqueness theorems for GR have been proven.
> Essentially, an additional equation (which is a physical equation of
> GET) is introduced as a coordinate condition, then in the resulting
> (much simpler) theory the theorem can be proven.
When I get some time I'll try to go to your web page.
> > > > But the difference is that without ether, physical theory works.
>
> > > With ether, physical theory works even better. You obtain local
> > > energy and momentum of the gravitational field, less singularities,
> > > and quantization becomes much easier.
>
> > Really? Are there any experimental consequences?
>
> Yep, we have a "big bounce" instead of a big bang, and some
> homogeneous dark-matter-like effect.
"big bounce" isn't likely to happen in my lifetime or have observational
consequences in my lifetime. An explanation of the missing mass would
be useful, though.
> > > > I cannot understand what other motivation there is for continuing
> > > > to postulate an ether when it is not theoretically necessary.
>
> > > We can almost derive it based on the simple axioms of EPR realism.
>
> > Really? Is this almost derivation on your web page?
>
> Yep, its in gr-qc/0001101.
>
> Roughly, the logic is the following:
>
> EPR-realism + classical causality + SR = EPR-realism +
> Einstein-causality = Bell's inequality = falsified. Thus, EPR-realism
> + classical causality requires a preferred frame.
What exactly do you mean by classical causality?
I've printed the paper and no time to read it now, but
looking at TOC I don't see where the EPR discussion
comes. Can you point to the section?
One can of course throw out classical causality and keep SR.
> Once we accept a preferred frame, we are already back to the Lorentz
> ether in SR. In GR, my GET appears in a quite natural way, not in
> form of an exact derivation, but using some "simplest choices" (with
> reference to Occam's razor) to choose between possible GR-like
> theories with preferred frames.
I'll take a look.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
I don't see how that could work, exactly. The ether would
have to couple to strong/weak forces as well as being the EM
medium. I think that way may lie string theory which so
bruises many people's sense of what is plain sense.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > Personally Lorentz trasnforms + ether is more complicated than
> > Lorentz transforms - ether, so the etherless theory is to be
> > preferred.
>
> There is no such simple counting. You know, people have invented
> something named "effective field theory". Later people have
> recognized that Lorentz' theory of the electron is the first example
> of such an effective field theory.
>
> Feel free to argue that modern physics without effective field theory
> is easier and to be preferred.
The modern concept of effective field theory has nothing to do with ether.
Tom Clarke
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>> Can we say that the wave nature of light is therefor an "observable
>> effect" of the ether?
>
>No. There is a perfectly good theory that explains light *without* ether.
>If there were a perfectly good theory that could account for galaxy rotation
>curves *without* dark matter, then I am sure that dark matter would not
>be postulated.
>
>> > [Should reinstitute the original title, it seems]
>>
>> Done.
>
>OK. So are there any effects of ether that are not explained
>*without* ether?
Yes dark matter and it's effect on galactic rotation is posited in my
ether theory. The observed accelerated expansion is predicted by my
ether theroy before they discover the effect---Paul Stowe will testify
to this claim.
Ken Seto
Ilja Schmelzer
> > Of course M
> > remains an observable consequence of E. Its also an observable
> > consequence of R.
>
> I guess taking the words at exactly face value what you say is true.
> However, I will resist quite strongly the next step which would be to
> say that M is evidence for theory E when there is another theory R
> which also explains the very same data. But I suppose that can be
> argued as well.
I do not argue this way.
> In this schematic situation, M does not discriminate between the
> two theories E and R, so in that sense M is evidence for neither
> theory. Of course I suppose M could show that
> either E or R should be true while eliminating theory A or N.
Yep.
> > The existence of competing theories is very important, but not in this
> > question.
>
> OK. But you will have folks like me insisting that lots of caveats should
> be added to every statement where you say M is a consequence of
> E (or R) and espcially if you want to say M is evidence _for_
> E (or R).
I think we have found agreement on this. I usually like to argue
against the (quite distributed) position that M is evidence for R, and
that E has no observable consequences.
And, once you have pointed out the importance of competing theories,
I like to point you to my own ether theory, which competes with GR ;-).
> > > So is ether.
> >
> > Not at all. Ether was not invented to make a theory fit with
> > observation. You mingle something: The properties of the Lorentz
> > ether (length contraction, time dilation) have been ad hoc, not the
> > ether itself.
>
> Lorentz transformation is quite natural in the context of Minkowski
> space time. Within the context of ether, yes they are ad hoc.
They have been ad hoc at the time of Lorentz. They are no longer ad
hoc today, because we know today how to derive them from simple ether
postulates.
> > My point is not the inventer, I don't care much. The point is that
> > the intention was different. There was no dark matter problem with
> > Maxwell's equations, nonetheless people have tried to invent ether
> > models.
>
> Yes there was a dark matter problem of sorts. People could not
> imagine how waves could propagate in vacuum. The needed ether
> to fill a gap of imagination.
"Gap of imagination" is different from a problem of fit between theory
and experiment. BTW, I disagree that there was such a gap.
> > > But the physical vacuum has no rest frame. If a substance, ether,
> > > could be moving in all possible ways to all possible observers
> > > it would be a most strange substance.
> >
> > Not very much.
>
> I find it highly strange. But that is one of our differences.
You simply have not seen yet the derivation of the EEP in my theory, I
guess.
But in general, from philosophical point of view, its also not strange
that an "observer" which is not an independent external observer but
himself part of the game cannot observe as much as he wants.
> > > I don't think the ether explains that. That is explained by
> > > geodesic motion.
> >
> > I have an explanation, see get.ilja-schmelzer.net. Geodesic motion
> > does not explain the EEP, instead, it is a consequence of the EEP.
> > The EEP is fundamental, unexplained, in GR.
>
> I don't see it that way.
Explanation can never be circular. You can choose axioms, and then
the axioms are unexplained. Always. Then you derive something else
from these axioms, and the derived stuff is already explained.
The EEP is part of the usual axioms of GR, and therefore not
explained. Instead, the geodesic equation is already derived. Or do
you choose another axiomatisation where the geodesic equation is an
axiom and the EEP derived?
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
>
Little to amplify until I look at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0001101
so BIG SNIP,
however,
> > > I have an explanation, see get.ilja-schmelzer.net. Geodesic motion
> > > does not explain the EEP, instead, it is a consequence of the EEP.
> > > The EEP is fundamental, unexplained, in GR.
>
> > I don't see it that way.
>
> Explanation can never be circular.
I didn't mean to imply circularity. I think geodesic motion explains
EEP. Geodesic motion - motion along generalized straight lines
seems like a good axiom to me.
> You can choose axioms, and then
> the axioms are unexplained. Always. Then you derive something else
> from these axioms, and the derived stuff is already explained.
>
> The EEP is part of the usual axioms of GR, and therefore not
> explained. Instead, the geodesic equation is already derived. Or do
> you choose another axiomatisation where the geodesic equation is an
> axiom and the EEP derived?
You got it.
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > > ROTFL, GET math is quite the same as GR math. If GR math is too
> > > > complicate for you I recommend you to learn GR math.
> > >
> > > GR math + ether is more complicated than GR math - ether.
> > > Very simple.
> >
> > Seems you judge about a theory you don't know.
>
> I'm just taking your words at face value
> "GET math is quite the same as GR math"
There are some differences. But the math apparatus is quite similar,
its a metric theory of gravity and so on.
> > And you have a notion
> > of simplicity which has not much to do with the real mathematical
> > problems related with GR.
>
> Then GET math is NOT the same as GR math?
It gives the Einstein equations in some limit. But it is a theory
with some additional terms, on a flat background, with preferred
frame.
> > Yep, we have a "big bounce" instead of a big bang, and some
> > homogeneous dark-matter-like effect.
>
> "big bounce" isn't likely to happen in my lifetime or have observational
> consequences in my lifetime.
If there is no big bang singularity but a big bounce we don't have the
"cosmological horizon problem" - the main justification for inflation
theory.
> > EPR-realism + classical causality + SR = EPR-realism +
> > Einstein-causality = Bell's inequality = falsified. Thus, EPR-realism
> > + classical causality requires a preferred frame.
>
> What exactly do you mean by classical causality?
No closed causal loops.
> I've printed the paper and no time to read it now, but
> looking at TOC I don't see where the EPR discussion
> comes. Can you point to the section?
15, violation of Bell's inequality. Also app. E. 14 and F are also
closely related.
> One can of course throw out classical causality and keep SR.
I know. But why?
Ilja Schmelzer
Are you sure? Heard about Wilson? He has applied renormalization
techniques in condensed matter theory and won a Nobel for this.
Ether theories may be examples of effective field theories.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> Explanation can never be circular.
>
> I didn't mean to imply circularity. I think geodesic motion explains
> EEP. Geodesic motion - motion along generalized straight lines
> seems like a good axiom to me.
Ok. Waiting for an interesting discussion about GET.
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > > EPR-realism + classical causality + SR = EPR-realism +
> > > Einstein-causality = Bell's inequality = falsified. Thus, EPR-realism
> > > + classical causality requires a preferred frame.
>
> > What exactly do you mean by classical causality?
>
> No closed causal loops.
>
Nothing about quantum mechanics? Bell's inequality is falsified by
QM phenomena.
> > I've printed the paper and no time to read it now, but
> > looking at TOC I don't see where the EPR discussion
> > comes. Can you point to the section?
>
> 15, violation of Bell's inequality. Also app. E. 14 and F are also
> closely related.
>
Thanks.
> > One can of course throw out classical causality and keep SR.
>I know. But why?
I was thinking in terms of not-"classical causality" being some sort
of "quantum causality". In this case you would expect classical
causality to not hold, but apparently you mean "classical"
in a different sense from "non-quantum".
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > The modern concept of effective field theory has nothing to do with
> > ether.
>
> Are you sure? Heard about Wilson? He has applied renormalization
> techniques in condensed matter theory and won a Nobel for this.
Sure. What does that have to do with ether?
> Ether theories may be examples of effective field theories.
Maybe. Maybe not. I would need to be convinced.
Tom Clarke
Dennis McCarthy
>Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
>
>> clar...@aol.com (Clarke768) writes:
>> > >>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX,
>> > >>alas it is not so, at least for the really common-sense stationary
>> > >>sort of ether. Moving ether theories are just too
>> > >>complicated for my taste.
>>
>> Hm. The "really common-sense stationary sort of ether" certainly
>> includes a well-known stationary ether theory which is not refuted by
>> the failure of MMX, the classical Lorentz ether.
>
>Some would say that time dilation is a load of nonsense.
>
>Personally Lorentz trasnforms + ether
>is more complicated than Lorentz transforms - ether,
>so the etherless theory is to be preferred.
Dennis: And following the same logic:
Boyle's law + medium of molecules is more complicated than Boyle's law -
medium of molecules--so the mediumless theory is to be preferred.
Anyone still wonder why Waterston and Herapath couldn't get published--or
Boltzmann caused such controversy?
Who needs a material cause when the equations work?
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Clarke
> Clarke:
> >Depends on one's sense of what is common.
> >Some would say that time dilation is a load of nonsense.
>
> >Personally Lorentz trasnforms + ether
> >is more complicated than Lorentz transforms - ether,
> >so the etherless theory is to be preferred.
>
> Dennis: And following the same logic:
> Boyle's law + medium of molecules is more complicated than Boyle's law -
> medium of molecules--so the mediumless theory is to be preferred.
It would be if that were the only issue. But there is lots of other data
and evidence. Brownian motion, Rayleigh scattering, data that departs
from Boyle's law, all point to existence of molecules. It is simpler to take
molecular theory and to derive everything, including Boyle's law from it.
There just is no comparable data bearing on EM phenomena.
> Anyone still wonder why Waterston and Herapath couldn't get published--or
> Boltzmann caused such controversy?
> Who needs a material cause when the equations work?
But the simple equations do _not_ work for gases.
The simple equations _do_ work for electromagnetism.
I don't know why you can't see the difference.
Tom Clarke
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>
>> Clarke:
>> >Depends on one's sense of what is common.
>> >Some would say that time dilation is a load of nonsense.
>>
>> >Personally Lorentz trasnforms + ether
>> >is more complicated than Lorentz transforms - ether,
>> >so the etherless theory is to be preferred.
>>
>> Dennis: And following the same logic:
>> Boyle's law + medium of molecules is more complicated than Boyle's law -
>> medium of molecules--so the mediumless theory is to be preferred.
>
Dennis: I know you believe that way and that's the problem. That's the way many
mainstream physicists, past and present, think as well. This is why the person
with the correct analysis, Waterston, couldn't get published and died unknown.
This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
acceptance. This is why, some say, Boltzmann committed suicide. This is why
De Rerum Natura and atomic theory was suppressed and ignored during the Dark
Ages.
It doesn't matter how many hundreds of times the principle of material
causality is confirmed, physicists always abandon it for the next
phenomenon--and always end up rejecting the theory that eventually succeeds.
Clarke: But there is lots of other data
>and evidence. Brownian motion, Rayleigh scattering, data that departs
>from Boyle's law, all point to existence of molecules.
Dennis: The thing is materialists new about molecular structure of matter and
gases centuries before that. Then they had to wait till everyone else caught
up.
Clarke: It is simpler to take
>molecular theory and to derive everything, including Boyle's law from it.
Dennis: No, you can still use all the equations--and derive them from bodiless
force fields.
Clarke: >There just is no comparable data bearing on EM phenomena.
Dennis: Like what, Brownian motion? If there's a comparable phenomenon to
Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>> Anyone still wonder why Waterston and Herapath couldn't get published--or
>> Boltzmann caused such controversy?
>> Who needs a material cause when the equations work?
>
Clarke: >But the simple equations do _not_ work for gases.
>
>The simple equations _do_ work for electromagnetism.
Dennis: 1) No, we have equations that work for gases. So why do we need
molecules. Why not just use the equations?
2) No again, the SM equations do not always work. In fact, the theory has
recently been refuted, physicists are 99% sure.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>> >If you play chess, you know that you must sometimes face the need to
>> >"undevelop" your pieces.
>
>> Can you give an example from the history of science
>> where this is the case?
Barry:
>Caloric?
>
>Steady state?
>
>Cosmological Constant?
>
>Ether?
Dennis: Yup, and:
continental fixism?
Boscovich theory?
Old quantum theory?
Copenhagen interpretation?
Standard model?
Spontaneous generation?
abhorence of vacuums?
etc....
With Boscovich theory, continental fixism, spontaneous generation, abhorence
of vacuums etc., scientists were forced to actually accept an old theory that
they had been rejecting for decades or in some cases centuries.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>> I cannot understand what other motivation there is for continuing
>> to postulate an ether when it is not theoretically necessary.
>
Dennis: That's a profound and interesting point. In fact, Huygens *did* derive
it from material local realism ( which is similar to EPR realism)--i.e.,
material local realism is a significant subset of EPR realism.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>> E would be expected (via theory R) even if E is false.
Ilja:
>????????????????????? Sorry, that's complete nonsense. Of course M
>remains an observable consequence of E. Its also an observable
>consequence of R.
Dennis: This seems an obvious point but many people fight it. Simply because
people can imagine alternate theories which predict phenomenon M, obviously
this has nothing to do with whether phenomenon M is an observable consequence
of E.
It's a psychological thing: Since many relativists have already accepted the
relativity explanation of various phenomena, they do not consider these
observable consequences of the ether. Of course, these phenomena are not
caused by the ether as they already know the real reason for the phenomena.
What they want is some other phenomena for which there is no other possible
explanation--but of course that is practically impossible as there always other
possible explanations for any phenomenon: hidden dark matter, gas leaks, etc.
For continental fixism: It was vanished land bridges, long distance
dispersal, etc.
Dennis McCarthy
Clarke768
>This is why the person
>with the correct analysis, Waterston, couldn't get published and died
>unknown.
I like Carr's idea that he wasn't a good
writer.
He died because he was a human being.
>This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
>acceptance.
Nah. I blame Aristotle.
> It doesn't matter how many hundreds of times the principle of material
>causality is confirmed, physicists always abandon it for the next
>phenomenon--and always end up rejecting the theory that eventually succeeds.
You have this very narrow view of materialism.
You have a very strange understanding of the
history of science.
>Clarke: It is simpler to take
>>molecular theory and to derive everything, including Boyle's law from it.
>Dennis: No, you can still use all the equations--and derive them from
>bodiless
>force fields.
No Boyle's law is an approximation. It is the ideal
gas formula that only works for non-existent ideal
gases.
>Clarke: >There just is no comparable data bearing on EM phenomena.
>Dennis: Like what, Brownian motion? If there's a comparable phenomenon to
>Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
I'd lilke to hear about it.
[...]
>Clarke: >But the simple equations do _not_ work for gases.
>>The simple equations _do_ work for electromagnetism.
>Dennis: 1) No, we have equations that work for gases.
No you don't. Boyles law etc are all approximations.
Maxwells equations work from the limit of detectability
in noise up to the point where you start pulling
electron/positron pairs out of the vacuum.
Many dozens of orders of magnitude.
>So why do we need
>molecules. Why not just use the equations?
The equations are not accurate.
> 2) No again, the SM equations do not always work. In fact, the theory has
>recently been refuted, physicists are 99% sure.
We've been over this before. The SM has
been modified. The modifications fit within
the standard _Model_. Model which is a combination
of other theories.
Tom Clarke
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy
>
>>This is why the person
>>with the correct analysis, Waterston, couldn't get published and died
>>unknown.
>
>writer.
Dennis: 1) Carr's was an absurd effort to condone his rejection. He was a great
writer in fact. And I have never heard any other historian or scientist (like
Rayleigh) who ever described his rejection as anything other than an unjust
tragedy.
2) But that's all irrelevant. The point is that **you** would have also
rejected his theory because as you have claimed, Boyle's Law - medium is
simpler than Boyle's Law + medium.
Clarke: >He died because he was a human being.
Dennis: ? The point was he died unknown.
>>This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
>>acceptance.
>
Clarke: >Nah. I blame Aristotle.
Dennis: The point again was that, if I read your writings correctly: you would
have rejected the atomic theory until there was evidence like Brownian motion,
etc.
>> It doesn't matter how many hundreds of times the principle of material
>>causality is confirmed, physicists always abandon it for the next
>>phenomenon--and always end up rejecting the theory that eventually succeeds.
>
Clarke: >You have this very narrow view of materialism.
Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that was
shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes, etc.
Clarke: >You have a very strange understanding of the
>history of science.
Dennis: Hmmm. After I have corrected a few of your misconceptions already, I am
curious as to what view I have that you think is incorrect.
>>Clarke: It is simpler to take
>>>molecular theory and to derive everything, including Boyle's law from it.
>
>>Dennis: No, you can still use all the equations--and derive them from
>>bodiless
>>force fields.
>
Clarke: >No Boyle's law is an approximation. It is the ideal
>gas formula that only works for non-existent ideal
>gases.
Dennis: There exist accurate equations describing the effects of gases today.
>>Clarke: >There just is no comparable data bearing on EM phenomena.
>
>>Dennis: Like what, Brownian motion? If there's a comparable phenomenon to
>>Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>
Clarke: >I'd lilke to hear about it.
Dennis: That's not what I asked. I asked if there's a comparable phenomenon to
Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>[...]
>
>>Clarke: >But the simple equations do _not_ work for gases.
>
>>>The simple equations _do_ work for electromagnetism.
>
>>Dennis: 1) No, we have equations that work for gases.
>
Clarke: >No you don't. Boyles law etc are all approximations.
Dennis: I am not talking about Boyle's law but the far more detailed equations
of statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, acoustics, etc. We have equations
that are accurate for gases.
Clarke: >Maxwells equations work from the limit of detectability
>in noise up to the point where you start pulling
>electron/positron pairs out of the vacuum. >Many dozens of orders of
magnitude.
Dennis: There are equations of EM which are only approximate. The Hafele
Keating results were all over the board, for example. Also, Standard Model is
now known to be wrong (phys. are 99% sure.)
>>So why do we need
>>molecules. Why not just use the equations?
>
Clarke: >The equations are not accurate.
Dennis: Your opinion that there are no accurate equations for gases is
interesting.
>> 2) No again, the SM equations do not always work. In fact, the theory has
>>recently been refuted, physicists are 99% sure.
>
Clarke: >We've been over this before. The SM has
>been modified. The modifications fit within
>the standard _Model_. Model which is a combination
>of other theories.
Dennis: ?? When has SM been modified to explain the most recent refutation?
>Tom Clarke
>
>
Dennis McCarthy
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:28:27 -0500, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Personally Lorentz trasnforms + ether
>> >is more complicated than Lorentz transforms - ether,
>> >so the etherless theory is to be preferred.
>>
>> Not if the stationary ether and its structure is the cause of the
>> Lorentz transforms.
>
>I don't see how that could work, exactly. The ether would
>have to couple to strong/weak forces as well as being the EM
>medium.
The ether is in the form of elastic strings (called the E-Strings).
Light exists as wave-packets in neighboring E-Strings. All matters are
made from one fundamental particle called the S-Particle. The
S-Particles moves freely between the E-Strings. Those S-Particles
orbit around the E-Strings become the visible matter ( electrons and
quarks) of the universe. Those S-Particles do not orbit around the
E-Strings become the dark matters of the universe. This description of
the current universe gives rise to the Lorentz transforms because
light in the E-Strings is detected only when the detector is
associating with the E-Strings that carry the wave-packets. This
description of the universe also explains the strong and weak forces.
Pleaser visit my website for a detail description of my model.
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
Ken Seto
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > > EPR-realism + classical causality + SR = EPR-realism +
> > > > Einstein-causality = Bell's inequality = falsified. Thus, EPR-realism
> > > > + classical causality requires a preferred frame.
> >
> > > What exactly do you mean by classical causality?
> >
> > No closed causal loops.
> >
>
> Nothing about quantum mechanics? Bell's inequality is falsified by
> QM phenomena.
Nothing special about quantum mechanics. Bell's inequality can be
formulated and proven without even mentioning quantum effects.
> > > One can of course throw out classical causality and keep SR.
>
> >I know. But why?
>
> I was thinking in terms of not-"classical causality" being some sort
> of "quantum causality". In this case you would expect classical
> causality to not hold, but apparently you mean "classical"
> in a different sense from "non-quantum".
Of course this would be a possibility. But I intentionally use a
classical common sense notion of causality, defined on a realistic
background.
Last not least, I don't want to find a loophole in the assumptions of
Bell's inequality. I'm quite comfortable with blaming Einstein
causality for the violation of Bell's inequality ;-).
As the result, I can base my theory on a quite general common sense
notion of classical realism and classical causality and obtain a
classical preferred frame as the result of the violation of Bell's
inequality.
The other way remains possible - to reject classical realism and/or
classical causality to avoid the introduction of a preferred frame.
But why? There is no other argument against classical realism and/or
classical causality.
Ilja Schmelzer
>>> The modern concept of effective field theory has nothing to do with
>>> ether.
>>
>> Are you sure? Heard about Wilson? He has applied renormalization
>> techniques in condensed matter theory and won a Nobel for this.
>
> Sure. What does that have to do with ether?
Last not least, continuous condensed matter theory, as a large scale
limit of atomic matter theory, is an effective field theory. And to
name Lorentz' theory of the electron an effective field theory was not
my idea.
Wilson is one example that there is more behind this analogy. Even
without the ether paradigm the analogy between condensed matter theory
and fundamental physics has given a lot of interesting ideas in above
fields. There could have been much more such interaction without the
rejection of the ether paradigm.
>> Ether theories may be examples of effective field theories.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. I would need to be convinced.
An appropriate atomic ether theory would be a regularization of a
continuous ether theory.
Bilge
Re: Ether, observability to usenet:
>>
>>> clar...@aol.com (Clarke768) writes:
>>> > >>Yes that is the desire. But since the failure of MMX,
>>> > >>alas it is not so, at least for the really common-sense stationary
>>> > >>sort of ether. Moving ether theories are just too
>>> > >>complicated for my taste.
>>>
>>> Hm. The "really common-sense stationary sort of ether" certainly
>>> includes a well-known stationary ether theory which is not refuted by
>>> the failure of MMX, the classical Lorentz ether.
>>
>>Some would say that time dilation is a load of nonsense.
>>
>>is more complicated than Lorentz transforms - ether,
>>so the etherless theory is to be preferred.
>
>Not if the stationary ether and its structure is the cause of the
>Lorentz transforms.
Gee. So you go to the effort of carefully constructing layer upon
layer of intricate mechanisms, to avoid relativity, then the first
thing you do when it comes time to actually obtain a number, is to
immediately abandon your model and use relativity. I'm a little
baffled by the logic that would lead one to conclude that a desirable
feature in a physical theory is that the portion of it that is most
crucial to "reality" is also the portion that is totally superfluous
when any calculation is needed and when numbers are needed, your
"reality" based description, plays absolutely no role. Believing that
an orgainism can empploy such logic and not have died out in the
cambrian era, is frightening.
Tom Clarke
[regarding Waterston]
> 2) But that's all irrelevant. The point is that **you** would have also
> rejected his theory because as you have claimed, Boyle's Law - medium is
> simpler than Boyle's Law + medium.
And how many times do I have to say, and you have to ignore, the
fact that I can tell the difference between gases and electromagnetism.
That Boyles law is not exact, it is flawed, it breaks down for high
pressures, high temperatures, low pressures, low temperatures etc.
But Maxwell's equations work over dozens of orders of magnitude
to a very high precision.
If you can't tell the difference between these two cases, then you
are dumber than I think you are.
> Clarke: >He died because he was a human being.
>
> Dennis: ? The point was he died unknown.
The point is you are making an emotional argument.
> >>This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
> >>acceptance.
> >
> Clarke: >Nah. I blame Aristotle.
>
> Dennis: The point again was that, if I read your writings correctly: you would
> have rejected the atomic theory until there was evidence like Brownian motion,
> etc.
You read my writings incorrectly. I tell you again.
> >> It doesn't matter how many hundreds of times the principle of material
> >>causality is confirmed, physicists always abandon it for the next
> >>phenomenon--and always end up rejecting the theory that eventually succeeds.
>
> Clarke: >You have this very narrow view of materialism.
>
> Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that was
> shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes, etc.
Well they were wrong as well. I thought you didn't like kow-towing to authority.
> Clarke: >You have a very strange understanding of the
> >history of science.
>
> Dennis: Hmmm. After I have corrected a few of your misconceptions already, I am
> curious as to what view I have that you think is incorrect.
In this case I was specifically reacting to your statements:
"This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
acceptance."
"This is why De Rerum Natura and atomic theory was suppressed and
ignored during the Dark Ages. "
I don't see the reason as some sort of authority-based rejection. These
events were caused by the dynamics of society as a whole.
Why did the Greeks not build machines and hence precision instruments?
[I've heard that culture of slavery was at fault]
Without precsion instruments atomic theory is just speculation as is most
science.
The religionists during the Middle ages rejected a lot of books, not
just Lucretius'
> >>Clarke: It is simpler to take
> >>>molecular theory and to derive everything, including Boyle's law from it.
>
> >>Dennis: No, you can still use all the equations--and derive them from
> >>bodiless
> >>force fields.
>
> Clarke: >No Boyle's law is an approximation. It is the ideal
> >gas formula that only works for non-existent ideal
> >gases.
>
> Dennis: There exist accurate equations describing the effects of gases today.
And what are those equations based on? How were they derived?
You mentioned Boyles law if you want to include formulae derived using
atomic theory then I think you are "cheating".
> >>Clarke: >There just is no comparable data bearing on EM phenomena.
>
> >>Dennis: Like what, Brownian motion? If there's a comparable phenomenon to
> >>Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>
> Clarke: >I'd lilke to hear about it.
>
> Dennis: That's not what I asked. I asked if there's a comparable phenomenon to
> Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
I am very cautious in responding to you. I have been burned in the past.
If I say "yes" I fear you will come up with some obscure, difficult to intrepret
experiment that might be construed as Brownian motion in EM and then
start crowing about how I agree with your ether theory.
Hence my response. I am curious as to what you have in mind, but I won't
committ to yes or no in conversation with you before finding out what you
have in mind.
[To speculate you may be thinking of some quantum effect. And I would
find it interesting if you have a means whereby kT could somehow be used
to rigorously explain h-nu.]
> >[...]
>
> >>Clarke: >But the simple equations do _not_ work for gases.
>
> >>>The simple equations _do_ work for electromagnetism.
>
> >>Dennis: 1) No, we have equations that work for gases.
>
> Clarke: >No you don't. Boyles law etc are all approximations.
>
> Dennis: I am not talking about Boyle's law but the far more detailed equations
> of statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, acoustics, etc. We have equations
> that are accurate for gases.
STATISTICAL MECHANICS. This is based on atomic theory.
You are being circular.
> Clarke: >Maxwells equations work from the limit of detectability
> >in noise up to the point where you start pulling
> >electron/positron pairs out of the vacuum. >Many dozens of orders of
> magnitude.
>
> Dennis: There are equations of EM which are only approximate. The Hafele
> Keating results were all over the board, for example. Also, Standard Model is
> now known to be wrong (phys. are 99% sure.)
Lay off the standard model. You are being ridiculously out of context to pull
it into the conversation.
> >>So why do we need
> >>molecules. Why not just use the equations?
>
> Clarke: >The equations are not accurate.
>
> Dennis: Your opinion that there are no accurate equations for gases is
> interesting.
You yourself say that the accurate euqations are statistical mechanical.
Statistical mechanics requires molecules. I rest my case.
> >> 2) No again, the SM equations do not always work. In fact, the theory has
> >>recently been refuted, physicists are 99% sure.
>
> Clarke: >We've been over this before. The SM has
> >been modified. The modifications fit within
> >the standard _Model_. Model which is a combination
> >of other theories.
>
> Dennis: ?? When has SM been modified to explain the most recent refutation?
Since before the experiment that you call a refutation. The standard model
has lots of free parameters and the fact that some allowed anomalous moments
for muons is what prompted the experiments in the first place. Of course lots
of free parameters is not considered a good thing for a theory, physicists like
the simplicity of a theory with a few parameters. I think these latest results may
be supporting the supersymmetric version of the SM which I think actually may
have fewer parameters - and that's a good thing.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > > > What exactly do you mean by classical causality?
> > >
> > > No closed causal loops.
>
> > Nothing about quantum mechanics? Bell's inequality is falsified by
> > QM phenomena.
>
> Nothing special about quantum mechanics. Bell's inequality can be
> formulated and proven without even mentioning quantum effects.
>
Yes. But it takes quantum mechanics to violate Bell's inequality.
> > > > One can of course throw out classical causality and keep SR.
>
> > >I know. But why?
>
> > I was thinking in terms of not-"classical causality" being some sort
> > of "quantum causality". In this case you would expect classical
> > causality to not hold, but apparently you mean "classical"
> > in a different sense from "non-quantum".
>
> Of course this would be a possibility. But I intentionally use a
> classical common sense notion of causality, defined on a realistic
> background.
I shall have to read your paper which is sitting about three feet from
me.
> Last not least, I don't want to find a loophole in the assumptions of
> Bell's inequality. I'm quite comfortable with blaming Einstein
> causality for the violation of Bell's inequality ;-).
To me this sounds backward. Bell's inequality's are supposed to
provide another version of the EPR argument against quantum
mechanics as usually formulated. Bell said here are some
inequalities that local, causal, realistic theories must obey;
but these inequalities are violated by quantum mechanics.
Hence QM is either non-local, non-causal or non-realistic.
> As the result, I can base my theory on a quite general common sense
> notion of classical realism and classical causality and obtain a
> classical preferred frame as the result of the violation of Bell's
> inequality.
But if your theory is classical-causal, and local and realistic then
it MUST obey Bell's inequality.
Are you postulating the violation of Bell's inequality?
If so, that might be an interesting approach to QM.
Start with violation of Bell and then derive the rest of QM?
> The other way remains possible - to reject classical realism and/or
> classical causality to avoid the introduction of a preferred frame.
> But why?
Why include a prefered frame? Once you are used to thinking about
a preferred-frameless universe, a preferred frame seems quite
superfluous.
> There is no other argument against classical realism and/or
> classical causality.
I'll have to look at your paper.
Tom Clarke
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:28:27 -0500, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Personally Lorentz trasnforms + ether
>> >is more complicated than Lorentz transforms - ether,
>> >so the etherless theory is to be preferred.
>>
>> Not if the stationary ether and its structure is the cause of the
>> Lorentz transforms.
>
>I don't see how that could work, exactly. The ether would
>have to couple to strong/weak forces as well as being the EM
>medium.
The ether is in the form of elastic strings (called the E-Strings).
Light exists as wave-packets in neighboring E-Strings. All matters are
made from one fundamental particle called the S-Particle. The
S-Particles moves freely between the E-Strings. Those S-Particles
orbit around the E-Strings become the visible matter ( electrons and
quarks) of the universe. Those S-Particles do not orbit around the
E-Strings become the dark matters of the universe. This description of
the current universe gives rise to the Lorentz transforms because
light in the E-Strings is detected only when the detector is
associating with the E-Strings that carry the wave-packets. This
description of the universe also explains the strong and weak forces.
Pleaser visit my website for a detail description of my model.
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
Ken Seto
Hi Tom,
After you have had a chance to read my website and if you are still
interested in my theory I would be welling to send you a copy of my
book free of charge.
Ken Seto
Tom Clarke
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:18:14 -0500, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not if the stationary ether and its structure is the cause of the
> >> Lorentz transforms.
>
> >I don't see how that could work, exactly. The ether would
> >have to couple to strong/weak forces as well as being the EM
> >medium.
>
> The ether is in the form of elastic strings (called the E-Strings).
> Light exists as wave-packets in neighboring E-Strings.
As I speculated. It sounds like string theory could be viewed
as an ether theory. I don't think Ken has conventional string
theory in mind, but it wouldn't suprise me if his theory is driven
towards something like conventional string theory in order to
bring in all the physical effects he wants to include.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> >>> The modern concept of effective field theory has nothing to do with
> >>> ether.
>
> >> Are you sure? Heard about Wilson? He has applied renormalization
> >> techniques in condensed matter theory and won a Nobel for this.
>
> > Sure. What does that have to do with ether?
>
> Last not least, continuous condensed matter theory, as a large scale
> limit of atomic matter theory, is an effective field theory.
Oh. So you are sort of arguing like Dennis does when he cites the paper
by Maramis that shows how statistical mechanics which becomes
Navier Stokes can become Maxwell's equations.
Yes, this sort of thing happens. It makes it plausible that everything is
particles, but it does not prove that all is particles.
> And to
> name Lorentz' theory of the electron an effective field theory was not
> my idea.
But this is a continuous/continuous theory as far as I know. I'm not
sure what it has to do with a particulate ether if that is where you are
going.
> Wilson is one example that there is more behind this analogy. Even
> without the ether paradigm the analogy between condensed matter theory
> and fundamental physics has given a lot of interesting ideas in above
> fields. There could have been much more such interaction without the
> rejection of the ether paradigm.
I agree with all but your last sentence.
> >> Ether theories may be examples of effective field theories.
>
> > Maybe. Maybe not. I would need to be convinced.
>
> An appropriate atomic ether theory would be a regularization of a
> continuous ether theory.
As I said, you atomic etherists have some plausible arguments, but
they are far from convincing to me.
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > > > What exactly do you mean by classical causality?
> > > >
> > > > No closed causal loops.
> >
> > > Nothing about quantum mechanics? Bell's inequality is falsified by
> > > QM phenomena.
> >
> > Nothing special about quantum mechanics. Bell's inequality can be
> > formulated and proven without even mentioning quantum effects.
>
> Yes. But it takes quantum mechanics to violate Bell's inequality.
But quantum mechanics alone is no reason to modify fundamental
assumptions about reality and causality.
> > Last not least, I don't want to find a loophole in the assumptions of
> > Bell's inequality. I'm quite comfortable with blaming Einstein
> > causality for the violation of Bell's inequality ;-).
>
> To me this sounds backward. Bell's inequality's are supposed to
> provide another version of the EPR argument against quantum
> mechanics as usually formulated. Bell said here are some
> inequalities that local, causal, realistic theories must obey;
> but these inequalities are violated by quantum mechanics.
> Hence QM is either non-local, non-causal or non-realistic.
I would say non-Einstein-causal or non-realistic. And the obvious
choice for a realist is non-Einstein-causal.
> But if your theory is classical-causal, and local and realistic then
> it MUST obey Bell's inequality.
Bohmian mechanics and Nelson's stochastics (hidden variable theories
of QM) violate Bell's inequality. They have a preferred frame, and in
this preferred frame we have superluminal causal influences. Almost
the same type of non-locality as in Newtonian mechanics. Nothing
which looks very disturbing for a realist.
> Are you postulating the violation of Bell's inequality?
I take it from experiment.
It is IMHO the best imaginable indirect observation of superluminal
causal effects. The only difference between a direct observation of
FLT effects and the violation of Bell's inequality is that the second
is indirect observation, we observe "A->B or B->A" but are unable to
observe the direction of this causal influence.
> If so, that might be an interesting approach to QM.
> Start with violation of Bell and then derive the rest of QM?
No, that seems impossible. You can violate Bell's inequality
classically without problem if you have some causal influence
A->B or B->A.
> > The other way remains possible - to reject classical realism and/or
> > classical causality to avoid the introduction of a preferred frame.
> > But why?
> Why include a prefered frame? Once you are used to thinking about a
> preferred-frameless universe, a preferred frame seems quite
> superfluous.
Simply because you see no reason to reject realism or causality. They
are not only simple, common sense principles, but have been quite
successful in all domains of science, and I argue that they are,
essentially, part of the scientific method. The search for realistic
explanations has been always part of science. Without realism and
causality as fundamental assumptions this search seems no longer
justified. Thus, we give up some part of the scientific endavour.
Once you accept realism and causality, the violation of Bell's
inequality gives you A->B or B->A for space-like events A, B where a
violation of Bell's inequality has been observed. Once there should
be no causal loops, only one of them may be true. A->B xor B->A, and
this result does not depend on our failure to observe which of the two
claims is true.
Once we accept that reality has made a choice here, we simply have to
look at all pairs, consider all these choices, and that all they have
to be compatible with the axioms of causality (no causal loops) and
obtain a preferred foliation.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> Last not least, continuous condensed matter theory, as a large scale
>> limit of atomic matter theory, is an effective field theory.
>
> Oh. So you are sort of arguing like Dennis does when he cites the paper
> by Maramis that shows how statistical mechanics which becomes
> Navier Stokes can become Maxwell's equations.
In some sense, yes. The (much larger) class of effective field
theories includes the class of classical condensed matter theories
(which can be understood as field theories too, simply by ignoring
the physical interpretation of densities, velocities and so on).
> Yes, this sort of thing happens. It makes it plausible that
> everything is particles, but it does not prove that all is
> particles.
Indeed. I do not claim to have a proof. But I think if the
universality class of current physics contains a reasonably simple
atomic ether model it is reasonable to prefer this model, based on
Occam's razor, even if we cannot distinguish the theories in this
universality class by observation.
>> And to name Lorentz' theory of the electron an effective field
>> theory was not my idea.
> But this is a continuous/continuous theory as far as I know. I'm not
> sure what it has to do with a particulate ether if that is where you
> are going.
Its more against another common argument, that Lorentz' theory of the
electron is not beautiful enough in comparison to special relativity.
And it is quite funny that we are doing the same non-beautiful things
today, out of necessity.
>> Wilson is one example that there is more behind this analogy. Even
>> without the ether paradigm the analogy between condensed matter theory
>> and fundamental physics has given a lot of interesting ideas in above
>> fields. There could have been much more such interaction without the
>> rejection of the ether paradigm.
>
> I agree with all but your last sentence.
Of course there can never be any proof for such a thesis. But I think
the argumentation is quite natural.
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > > Nothing special about quantum mechanics. Bell's inequality can be
> > > formulated and proven without even mentioning quantum effects.
>
> > Yes. But it takes quantum mechanics to violate Bell's inequality.
>
> But quantum mechanics alone is no reason to modify fundamental
> assumptions about reality and causality.
Quantum mechanics was necessitated by crisis in classical physics.
The ultraviolet problem of black body radiation, the problem of
explaining the stability of atoms etc. The solution found violates
Bell inequalities. Whether any solution to BB radiation/atom stability/etc
must violate Bell inequalities is an interesting question.
> > > Last not least, I don't want to find a loophole in the assumptions of
> > > Bell's inequality. I'm quite comfortable with blaming Einstein
> > > causality for the violation of Bell's inequality ;-).
> >
> > To me this sounds backward. Bell's inequality's are supposed to
> > provide another version of the EPR argument against quantum
> > mechanics as usually formulated. Bell said here are some
> > inequalities that local, causal, realistic theories must obey;
> > but these inequalities are violated by quantum mechanics.
> > Hence QM is either non-local, non-causal or non-realistic.
>
> I would say non-Einstein-causal or non-realistic. And the obvious
> choice for a realist is non-Einstein-causal.
Non-realism is intellectually stimulating, though. :-)
> > But if your theory is classical-causal, and local and realistic then
> > it MUST obey Bell's inequality.
>
> Bohmian mechanics and Nelson's stochastics (hidden variable theories
> of QM) violate Bell's inequality.
Bohmian mechanics is non-local.
I'm not familiar with Nelson's stochastics but they have violate
one of the above. Mathematics says so.
> They have a preferred frame, and in
> this preferred frame we have superluminal causal influences.
There you go. They both violate locality.
> Almost
> the same type of non-locality as in Newtonian mechanics. Nothing
> which looks very disturbing for a realist.
Well Newtonian mechanics went out to solve the problem of
fram independence of Maxwell's equations. I wonder if any
solution to this problem must be local?
> > Are you postulating the violation of Bell's inequality?
>
> I take it from experiment.
Experiments that are quantum in nature, then.
> It is IMHO the best imaginable indirect observation of superluminal
> causal effects. The only difference between a direct observation of
> FLT effects and the violation of Bell's inequality is that the second
> is indirect observation, we observe "A->B or B->A" but are unable to
> observe the direction of this causal influence.
Usually termed correlations.
> > If so, that might be an interesting approach to QM.
> > Start with violation of Bell and then derive the rest of QM?
>
> No, that seems impossible. You can violate Bell's inequality
> classically without problem if you have some causal influence
> A->B or B->A.
Well then violate Bell but respect locality or Einstein-causality as
you call it. Might the two lead uniquely to QM etc ?
> > > The other way remains possible - to reject classical realism and/or
> > > classical causality to avoid the introduction of a preferred frame.
> > > But why?
>
> > Why include a prefered frame? Once you are used to thinking about a
> > preferred-frameless universe, a preferred frame seems quite
> > superfluous.
>
> Simply because you see no reason to reject realism or causality.
Rejecting realism is fun!
> They
> are not only simple, common sense principles, but have been quite
> successful in all domains of science, and I argue that they are,
> essentially, part of the scientific method.
It does challenge the mind to do science without realism.
Actually it brings in the mind of the observer. Something that
science will have to do if it is to explain consciousness.
I kind of like Henry Stapp and Roger Penrose's ideas that
the mind/consciousness are somehow mixed up with physics.
> The search for realistic
> explanations has been always part of science. Without realism and
> causality as fundamental assumptions this search seems no longer
> justified. Thus, we give up some part of the scientific endavour.
Or you could see it as extending scientific endeavour to the nature
of the mind itself.
> Once you accept realism and causality, the violation of Bell's
> inequality gives you A->B or B->A for space-like events A, B where a
> violation of Bell's inequality has been observed. Once there should
> be no causal loops, only one of them may be true. A->B xor B->A, and
> this result does not depend on our failure to observe which of the two
> claims is true.
I'll have to wait until I read your paper.
> Once we accept that reality has made a choice here, we simply have to
> look at all pairs, consider all these choices, and that all they have
> to be compatible with the axioms of causality (no causal loops) and
> obtain a preferred foliation.
But which choice?
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> ...I think if the
> universality class of current physics contains a reasonably simple
> atomic ether model it is reasonable to prefer this model, based on
> Occam's razor, even if we cannot distinguish the theories in this
> universality class by observation.
"reasonably simple". There's the rub.
> >> And to name Lorentz' theory of the electron an effective field
> >> theory was not my idea.
>
> > But this is a continuous/continuous theory as far as I know. I'm not
> > sure what it has to do with a particulate ether if that is where you
> > are going.
>
> Its more against another common argument, that Lorentz' theory of the
> electron is not beautiful enough in comparison to special relativity.
> And it is quite funny that we are doing the same non-beautiful things
> today, out of necessity.
Physics covers so much more today. Strong/weak etc.
Ugliness is building up, time for a young turk to think up a new beautiful
theory that will offend all the old foggies - and I think whatever the new
theory is, it will offend etherists and relativists alike. Just as
relativity
no doubt offends Aristotelians as well as etherists.
[Although I do recall seeing a paper where someone was claiming that
Aristotle's physics was really relativistic.]
> >> Wilson is one example that there is more behind this analogy. Even
> >> without the ether paradigm the analogy between condensed matter theory
> >> and fundamental physics has given a lot of interesting ideas in above
> >> fields. There could have been much more such interaction without the
> >> rejection of the ether paradigm.
>
> > I agree with all but your last sentence.
>
> Of course there can never be any proof for such a thesis. But I think
> the argumentation is quite natural.
Not I. I don't think any paradigm is ever truly rejected. It is there in
the literature and history of science for all to see. When faced with
new unexplainable data, even old techniques will be tried.
Tom Clarke
Dennis McCarthy
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>[regarding Waterston]
>
>> 2) But that's all irrelevant. The point is that **you** would have also
>> rejected his theory because as you have claimed, Boyle's Law - medium is
>> simpler than Boyle's Law + medium.
>
>fact that I can tell the difference between gases and electromagnetism.
>That Boyles law is not exact, it is flawed, it breaks down for high
>pressures, high temperatures, low pressures, low temperatures etc.
>But Maxwell's equations work over dozens of orders of magnitude
>to a very high precision.
Dennis: Argument loop: 1) Standard Model has already broken down (phys. are 99%
sure.)
2) Boyle's law is not the only gas law. There are accurate equations of gases
now--despite your persistent denials that this is so. And so, as you believe,
equations of gases - medium is simpler than equations of gases + medium.
Clarke:
>If you can't tell the difference between these two cases, then you
>are dumber than I think you are.
Dennis: Well, the problem is you don't realize SM has recently broken down--and
that there are accurate gas equations.
>> Clarke: >He died because he was a human being.
>>
>> Dennis: ? The point was he died unknown.
>
Clarke: >The point is you are making an emotional argument.
Dennis: Well, the rejection of Waterston's kinetic theory had consequences that
are emotional. But the point is that Waterston's materialist argument was
correct--and the people who thought that gas equations would be simpler without
such an hypothesis were wrong.
>> >>This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
>> >>acceptance.
>> >
>> Clarke: >Nah. I blame Aristotle.
>>
>> Dennis: The point again was that, if I read your writings correctly: you
>would
>> have rejected the atomic theory until there was evidence like Brownian
>motion,
>> etc.
>
Clarke: >You read my writings incorrectly. I tell you again.
Dennis: ????????????????????? Whooooa. THEN TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU WOULD
CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF THE MOLECULAR THEORY OF GASES (OR ATOMIC THEORY).
And do not include Brownian motion or anything post 1905--because NOW you
seem to be implying that you would have accepted atomic (molecular) theory
before Brownian motion
>> >> It doesn't matter how many hundreds of times the principle of material
>> >>causality is confirmed, physicists always abandon it for the next
>> >>phenomenon--and always end up rejecting the theory that eventually
>succeeds.
>>
>> Clarke: >You have this very narrow view of materialism.
>>
>> Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that was
>> shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes, etc.
>
Clarke: >Well they were wrong as well. I thought you didn't like kow-towing to
>authority.
Dennis: We are talking about whether my definition is wrong (i.e., too narrow.)
It's not. It's the classical definition--and I reference this fact by pointing
to the people who defined the philosophy.
>> Clarke: >You have a very strange understanding of the
>> >history of science.
>>
>> Dennis: Hmmm. After I have corrected a few of your misconceptions already,
>I am
>> curious as to what view I have that you think is incorrect.
>
Clarke: >In this case I was specifically reacting to your statements:
>"This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
>acceptance."
>"This is why De Rerum Natura and atomic theory was suppressed and
>ignored during the Dark Ages. "
>
>I don't see the reason as some sort of authority-based rejection.
>These
>events were caused by the dynamics of society as a whole.
>Why did the Greeks not build machines and hence precision instruments?
>[I've heard that culture of slavery was at fault]
>Without precsion instruments atomic theory is just speculation as is most
>science.
>
>The religionists during the Middle ages rejected a lot of books, not
>just Lucretius'
Dennis: How does that in any way contradict what I wrote? Again, is there
something you think I have written that is incorrect?
>> >>Clarke: It is simpler to take
>> >>>molecular theory and to derive everything, including Boyle's law from
>it.
>>
>> >>Dennis: No, you can still use all the equations--and derive them from
>> >>bodiless
>> >>force fields.
>>
>> Clarke: >No Boyle's law is an approximation. It is the ideal
>> >gas formula that only works for non-existent ideal
>> >gases.
>>
>> Dennis: There exist accurate equations describing the effects of gases
>today.
>
Clarke: >And what are those equations based on? How were they derived?
Dennis: LOL. Well, the equations of EM and Fizeau's equation and Sagnac were
all derived using the ether. Your point USED TO BE that it does not matter
that they were derived that way--because you can use the equations without the
ether.
Well, we can use gas equations without thinking about molecules.
Clarke: >You mentioned Boyles law if you want to include formulae derived using
>atomic theory then I think you are "cheating".
Dennis: LOL, are you unaware that EM uses formulas derived using ether theory.
>> >>Clarke: >There just is no comparable data bearing on EM phenomena.
>>
>> >>Dennis: Like what, Brownian motion? If there's a comparable phenomenon
>to
>> >>Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>>
>> Clarke: >I'd lilke to hear about it.
>>
>> Dennis: That's not what I asked. I asked if there's a comparable
>phenomenon to
>> Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
Clarke:
>I am very cautious in responding to you. I have been burned in the past.
>If I say "yes" I fear you will come up with some obscure, difficult to
>intrepret
>experiment that might be construed as Brownian motion in EM and then
>start crowing about how I agree with your ether theory.
Dennis: No I would start crowing that you must accept this phenomenon as
evidence of an ether --(although I would try to come up with an observation
that is easy to interpret as a type of EM Brownian motion.)
It's taken me weeks and weeks trying to pin you down on what you think would
be evidence of a medium. And when you wrote something like: "Stick your hand
out the window silly" you later had to clarify (retract?) that, saying wind
alone was not evidence of a medium.
Up above, I claimed that you would not have accepted atomic molecular theory
until Brownian motion--and you claimed that wasn't true. So what before
Brownian motion would you have accepted as evidence?
See it's obvious you are just trying to move the goal posts. You won't be
specific about what you think is evidence of a particulate material medium
because you know that EM has a lot of effects that are analogous and even
unique to effects of particulate material media. So you vaguely refer to a
"package" of phenomena that is required before any particular phenomenon is
evidence--and then refuse to give the list in full detail.
(...)
>> >[...]
>>
>> >>Clarke: >But the simple equations do _not_ work for gases.
>>
>> >>>The simple equations _do_ work for electromagnetism.
>>
>> >>Dennis: 1) No, we have equations that work for gases.
>>
>> Clarke: >No you don't. Boyles law etc are all approximations.
>>
>> Dennis: I am not talking about Boyle's law but the far more detailed
>equations
>> of statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, acoustics, etc. We have
>equations
>> that are accurate for gases.
>
Clarke: >STATISTICAL MECHANICS. This is based on atomic theory.
>You are being circular.
Dennis: FIZEAU, MAXWELL, SAGNAC EQUATIONS. They were derived using ether.
It's a very simply thing to do to get rid of the medium that some loopy
Materialist uses to derive equations. Just pretend it isn't there--and use the
equations without mentioning the medium.
Don't you realize that Boltzmann couldn't get his atomic view of statistical
mechanics widely accepted?
>> Clarke: >Maxwells equations work from the limit of detectability
>> >in noise up to the point where you start pulling
>> >electron/positron pairs out of the vacuum. >Many dozens of orders of
>> magnitude.
>>
>> Dennis: There are equations of EM which are only approximate. The Hafele
>> Keating results were all over the board, for example. Also, Standard Model
>is
>> now known to be wrong (phys. are 99% sure.)
>
Clarke: >Lay off the standard model. You are being ridiculously out of context
to
>pull
>it into the conversation.
Dennis: 1) ?? SM includes EM equations. You are arguing that since Boyle's law
breaks down, this is evidence of a medium (if that's not your argument please
clarify.) Well, now we know SM breaks down.
2) You didn't comment on the fact that HK results were only approximated by
Lorentz equations.
>> >>So why do we need
>> >>molecules. Why not just use the equations?
>>
>> Clarke: >The equations are not accurate.
>>
>> Dennis: Your opinion that there are no accurate equations for gases is
>> interesting.
>
Clarke: >You yourself say that the accurate euqations are statistical
mechanical.
>Statistical mechanics requires molecules. I rest my case.
Dennis: THIS IS WHAT BOLTZMANN'S DEBATES WERE ALL ABOUT! Other mathematicians
derived various kinetic theory results without the use of molecules. The
equations of stat. mech. require molecules as much as Sagnac's equation
requires an ether.
>> >> 2) No again, the SM equations do not always work. In fact, the theory
>has
>> >>recently been refuted, physicists are 99% sure.
>>
>> Clarke: >We've been over this before. The SM has
>> >been modified. The modifications fit within
>> >the standard _Model_. Model which is a combination
>> >of other theories.
>>
>> Dennis: ?? When has SM been modified to explain the most recent refutation?
>
Clarke: >Since before the experiment that you call a refutation. The standard
model
>has lots of free parameters and the fact that some allowed anomalous moments
>for muons is what prompted the experiments in the first place. Of course
>lots
>of free parameters is not considered a good thing for a theory, physicists
>like
>the simplicity of a theory with a few parameters. I think these latest
>results may
Dennis: Well, obviously, and I mean obviously, a bodiless gas theory with a lot
of free parameters can implement all the gas equations--and so provide all the
predictions --just without the medium.
Do you really not understand this?
Dennis McCarthy
Luc Bourhis
> Argument loop: 1) Standard Model has already broken down (phys. are 99%
> sure.)
You should not believe everything you read in newspapers, in this case
the g-2 measurement at Brookheaven I suppose. In their article they
stated only that "This difference [between the prediction of the
standard model and the experimental value] may be due to physics beyond
the standard model." Note the "may be".
One should note that the experimental collaboration at Brookheaven has
chosen the hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the
muon which maximises the disagreement between their measurement and the
prediction of the Standard Model, 2.6 sigmas. I know at least one
calculation which gives only 2 sigmas. One should then remember that
particle physicists are used to ask for 5 sigmas to announce the
discovery of new physics. Recently there have been a signal for the
Higgs at LEP at about 3 sigmas but the discovery of this particle has
nevertheless not been announced because the evidences were seen as too
weak. The same is true for Brookheaven measurements.
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Luc Bourhis
> Dennis McCarthy <djm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Argument loop: 1) Standard Model has already broken down (phys. are 99%
> > sure.)
>
> You should not believe everything you read in newspapers, in this case
> the g-2 measurement at Brookheaven I suppose. In their article they
> stated only that "This difference [between the prediction of the
> standard model and the experimental value] may be due to physics beyond
> the standard model." Note the "may be".
>
> One should note that the experimental collaboration at Brookheaven has
> chosen the hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the
> muon which maximises the disagreement between their measurement and the
> prediction of the Standard Model, 2.6 sigmas. I know at least one
> calculation which gives only 2 sigmas.
Forgot to give a reference worth reading: hep- ph/ 0102122
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:18:14 -0500, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Not if the stationary ether and its structure is the cause of the
>> >> Lorentz transforms.
>>
>> >I don't see how that could work, exactly. The ether would
>> >have to couple to strong/weak forces as well as being the EM
>> >medium.
>>
>> The ether is in the form of elastic strings (called the E-Strings).
>> Light exists as wave-packets in neighboring E-Strings.
>
>As I speculated. It sounds like string theory could be viewed
>as an ether theory.
My theory is completely different than the conventional string theory.
In the conventioal string theory, matter particle are made from tiny
loops of vibrating strings and there is no background ether. In my
theory, the ether is composed of the E-Strings. These E-Strings are
three dimensional. The diameter of the string is probably planck
length and the length of the strings is not defined. All visible
matter particles are made from one type of fundamental particle
called the S-Particles. Orbital motion of an S-Particle (around an
E-Srtring) in the counterclockwise direction gives rise to a
negatively charged particle (such as an electron). Orbital motion of
an S-Particle in the clockwise direction give rise to a positively
charged particle (such as an up quark). This description of a charged
particle means that the charge is not an intrinsic property of the
particle. This eliminates the infinity problem encountered by the
physicists during the formulation of QED.
> I don't think Ken has conventional string
>theory in mind, but it wouldn't suprise me if his theory is driven
>towards something like conventional string theory in order to
>bring in all the physical effects he wants to include.
My theory is already advanced beyond the string theory in so far as
modeling is concerned. It includes a completely new theory of motion
call the Doppler Relativity Theory DRT. DRT includes SR/GR as
subsets. The equations of DRT are valid in all
environments---including gravity. A complete description of DRT is in
my website. Also my theory provides the frame work to explain and
unite all the forces of nature.
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
Ken Seto
David Evens
wrote:
You forgot to previously mention the fact that you assumed your
assumed ether has a definite direction to its rigid rods.
>> I don't think Ken has conventional string
>>theory in mind, but it wouldn't suprise me if his theory is driven
>>towards something like conventional string theory in order to
>>bring in all the physical effects he wants to include.
>
>My theory is already advanced beyond the string theory in so far as
>modeling is concerned. It includes a completely new theory of motion
>call the Doppler Relativity Theory DRT. DRT includes SR/GR as
>subsets. The equations of DRT are valid in all
>environments---including gravity. A complete description of DRT is in
>my website. Also my theory provides the frame work to explain and
>unite all the forces of nature.
You keep DEMANDING that DiRT includes reality as a subset, but you
ALSO state that you are INCAPABLE of DERIVING anything WHATSOEVER
about DiRT or USING DiRT.
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > > Nothing special about quantum mechanics. Bell's inequality can be
> > > > formulated and proven without even mentioning quantum effects.
> >
> > > Yes. But it takes quantum mechanics to violate Bell's inequality.
> >
> > But quantum mechanics alone is no reason to modify fundamental
> > assumptions about reality and causality.
>
> Quantum mechanics was necessitated by crisis in classical physics.
> The ultraviolet problem of black body radiation, the problem of
> explaining the stability of atoms etc. The solution found violates
> Bell inequalities. Whether any solution to BB radiation/atom stability/etc
> must violate Bell inequalities is an interesting question.
So what? I agree not only that the solution found violates Bell's
inequality. I agree that nature violates Bell's inequality.
And this proves the existence of some direct causal influence, A->B or
B->A.
> > I would say non-Einstein-causal or non-realistic. And the obvious
> > choice for a realist is non-Einstein-causal.
>
> Non-realism is intellectually stimulating, though. :-)
Solipcism is also intellectually stimulating, though. :-)
> > Bohmian mechanics and Nelson's stochastics (hidden variable theories
> > of QM) violate Bell's inequality.
>
> Bohmian mechanics is non-local.
> I'm not familiar with Nelson's stochastics but they have violate
> one of the above. Mathematics says so.
Yep, it is non-local in the same way.
> > They have a preferred frame, and in
> > this preferred frame we have superluminal causal influences.
>
> There you go. They both violate locality.
>
> > Almost
> > the same type of non-locality as in Newtonian mechanics. Nothing
> > which looks very disturbing for a realist.
>
> Well Newtonian mechanics went out to solve the problem of
> fram independence of Maxwell's equations. I wonder if any
> solution to this problem must be local?
I don't understand this question. Locality is a restriction. If you
omit the restriction, the class of possible solutions becomes usually
greater. It may be that the solution of some problem must violate
some restriction, for example must be non-local. But reverse?
> > > Are you postulating the violation of Bell's inequality?
> >
> > I take it from experiment.
>
> Experiments that are quantum in nature, then.
So what?
> > It is IMHO the best imaginable indirect observation of superluminal
> > causal effects. The only difference between a direct observation of
> > FLT effects and the violation of Bell's inequality is that the second
> > is indirect observation, we observe "A->B or B->A" but are unable to
> > observe the direction of this causal influence.
>
> Usually termed correlations.
I don't understand.
> > > Start with violation of Bell and then derive the rest of QM?
> >
> > No, that seems impossible. You can violate Bell's inequality
> > classically without problem if you have some causal influence
> > A->B or B->A.
>
> Well then violate Bell but respect locality or Einstein-causality as
> you call it. Might the two lead uniquely to QM etc ?
I see no reason to believe this.
> > Simply because you see no reason to reject realism or causality.
>
> Rejecting realism is fun!
Rejecting science is also fun! (Read Feyerabend if you doubt, he has
had a lot of fun debunking science and advocating astrology ;-), just
for fun.)
> It does challenge the mind to do science without realism.
To do science without science is even more challenging ;-).
> Actually it brings in the mind of the observer. Something that
> science will have to do if it is to explain consciousness. I kind
> of like Henry Stapp and Roger Penrose's ideas that the
> mind/consciousness are somehow mixed up with physics.
The mind of the observer is a completely legitime part of realism.
> > The search for realistic
> > explanations has been always part of science. Without realism and
> > causality as fundamental assumptions this search seems no longer
> > justified. Thus, we give up some part of the scientific endavour.
>
> Or you could see it as extending scientific endeavour to the nature
> of the mind itself.
Giving up some part of science is the reverse of extending. QM has
not yet given a single bit of understanding the mind itself.
> > Once we accept that reality has made a choice here, we simply have to
> > look at all pairs, consider all these choices, and that all they have
> > to be compatible with the axioms of causality (no causal loops) and
> > obtain a preferred foliation.
>
> But which choice?
Here we can speculate, and use Occam's razor to favour the simplest
speculation. Not really hard, take the CMBR frame as a first guess,
harmonic time with CMBR as the boundary condition as the second guess.
Ilja Schmelzer
> > ...I think if the
> > universality class of current physics contains a reasonably simple
> > atomic ether model it is reasonable to prefer this model, based on
> > Occam's razor, even if we cannot distinguish the theories in this
> > universality class by observation.
>
> "reasonably simple". There's the rub.
We will see.
> > Its more against another common argument, that Lorentz' theory of the
> > electron is not beautiful enough in comparison to special relativity.
> > And it is quite funny that we are doing the same non-beautiful things
> > today, out of necessity.
>
> Physics covers so much more today. Strong/weak etc.
> Ugliness is building up, time for a young turk to think up a new beautiful
> theory that will offend all the old foggies - and I think whatever the new
> theory is, it will offend etherists and relativists alike.
Its hard. If it has a background, I will be not very much offended,
because one of my main arguments holds. If it is background-free,
relativists will be happy enough ;-).
> [Although I do recall seeing a paper where someone was claiming that
> Aristotle's physics was really relativistic.]
Yep.
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy <djm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Argument loop: 1) Standard Model has already broken down (phys. are 99%
>> sure.)
>
>You should not believe everything you read in newspapers, in this case
>the g-2 measurement at Brookheaven I suppose. In their article they
>stated only that "This difference [between the prediction of the
>standard model and the experimental value] may be due to physics beyond
>the standard model." Note the "may be".
Dennis: Well, there's something else you also stated above--and that there's a
"difference [between the prediction of the standard model and the experimental
value]"--notice there's no "may be" about it.
Although there really should have been. There's a 1% chance it was a
statistical fluke.
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Clarke
> Clarke: >And how many times do I have to say, and you have to ignore, the
> >fact that I can tell the difference between gases and electromagnetism.
> >That Boyles law is not exact, it is flawed, it breaks down for high
> >pressures, high temperatures, low pressures, low temperatures etc.
> >But Maxwell's equations work over dozens of orders of magnitude
> >to a very high precision.
>
> Dennis: Argument loop:
Yes you definitely are in a loop.
> 1) Standard Model has already broken down (phys. are 99%
> sure.)
I see below that you are including Maxwell's equations in the standard model.
This is like including the phenomena of superfluidity in Boyle's law.
>
> 2) Boyle's law is not the only gas law. There are accurate equations of gases
> now--despite your persistent denials that this is so. And so, as you believe,
> equations of gases - medium is simpler than equations of gases + medium.
Can you site a gas law as simple and elegant as Maxwell's equations that
holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)?
> Clarke:
> >If you can't tell the difference between these two cases, then you
> >are dumber than I think you are.
>
> Dennis: Well, the problem is you don't realize SM has recently broken down--and
> that there are accurate gas equations.
You are just making this up. SM has not broken down, it has been extended.
I was just in the library and came across a book - copyright 2000 -
title escapes me now, it had "Symmetry" in the title - with a chapter
discussing ways that the standard model was expected to change e.g.
through the detection of supersymmetric partners etc. The muon moment
measurements are not a crisis for standard physics as you would have
us believe.
Can you point me to these accurate gas equations that work over 36
orders of magnitude?
> >> >>This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
> >> >>acceptance.
>
> >> Clarke: >Nah. I blame Aristotle.
>
> >> Dennis: The point again was that, if I read your writings correctly: you
> >would
> >> have rejected the atomic theory until there was evidence like Brownian
> >motion,
> >> etc.
>
> Clarke: >You read my writings incorrectly. I tell you again.
>
> Dennis: ????????????????????? Whooooa. THEN TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU WOULD
> CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF THE MOLECULAR THEORY OF GASES (OR ATOMIC THEORY).
> And do not include Brownian motion or anything post 1905--because NOW you
> seem to be implying that you would have accepted atomic (molecular) theory
> before Brownian motion
Well if you exclude the data that are conclusive to the majority of scientists you
are asking me to extrapolate to what I would have thought had I been alive in 1904.
I'm not sure I can project that. Brownian motion was known before 1905 - just look
through a microscope - but in 1905 Einstein saw the clear connection between atomic
theory and Brownian motion. Maybe I would have been as smart as Einstein and
have seen the connection (but I don't think I am that clever, honestly) if you allow
evidence of looking through a microscope.
Wilson's cloud chamber and Rutherford's experiments came after 1905.
Kinetic/statistical mechanics was a pretty good theoretical argument for the
existence of atoms and that goes back to Maxwell and Waterston.
Maybe that would have done it for me, I really can't extrapolate.
> >> >> It doesn't matter how many hundreds of times the principle of material
> >> >>causality is confirmed, physicists always abandon it for the next
> >> >>phenomenon--and always end up rejecting the theory that eventually
> >succeeds.
>
> >> Clarke: >You have this very narrow view of materialism.
>
> >> Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that was
> >> shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes, etc.
>
> Clarke: >Well they were wrong as well. I thought you didn't like kow-towing to
> >authority.
>
> Dennis: We are talking about whether my definition is wrong (i.e., too narrow.)
> It's not. It's the classical definition--and I reference this fact by pointing
> to the people who defined the philosophy.
So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be revised?
You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your ideas
are definitely outdated.
> >> Clarke: >You have a very strange understanding of the
> >> >history of science.
>
> >> Dennis: Hmmm. After I have corrected a few of your misconceptions already,
> >I am
> >> curious as to what view I have that you think is incorrect.
>
> Clarke: >In this case I was specifically reacting to your statements:
> >"This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
> >acceptance."
> >"This is why De Rerum Natura and atomic theory was suppressed and
> >ignored during the Dark Ages. "
>
> >I don't see the reason as some sort of authority-based rejection.
> >These
> >events were caused by the dynamics of society as a whole.
> >Why did the Greeks not build machines and hence precision instruments?
> >[I've heard that culture of slavery was at fault]
> >Without precsion instruments atomic theory is just speculation as is most
> >science.
>
> >The religionists during the Middle ages rejected a lot of books, not
> >just Lucretius'
>
> Dennis: How does that in any way contradict what I wrote? Again, is there
> something you think I have written that is incorrect?
You implied that it was scientists who rejected scientific ideas.
There was barely such a thing as a scientist before the 1600's.
It was theologians and clerics who did the rejecting.
[back to]
> >> Dennis: There exist accurate equations describing the effects of gases
> >today.
>
> Clarke: >And what are those equations based on? How were they derived?
>
> Dennis: LOL. Well, the equations of EM and Fizeau's equation and Sagnac were
> all derived using the ether. Your point USED TO BE that it does not matter
> that they were derived that way--because you can use the equations without the
> ether.
That is my point still. They can be derived without the ether. That is how I
was taught them in school. The derivations I learned used no ether. In fact
I learned that the magnetic field is a relativistic side effect of the electric field!
> Well, we can use gas equations without thinking about molecules.
But you can't derive them whithout molecules. Not even now with a modern
viewpoing could you view gas as come sort of continuous gas-stuff and
derive equations that are much more accurate than Boyle's law. It would
all be ad hoc. How would you account for the difference of diatomic and
monatomic (and tri- etc) gases without the concept of atoms?
> Clarke: >You mentioned Boyles law if you want to include formulae derived using
> >atomic theory then I think you are "cheating".
>
> Dennis: LOL, are you unaware that EM uses formulas derived using ether theory.
EM can be consistently derived WITHOUT ether. I have done problem sets
to that effect.
> >> >>Clarke: >There just is no comparable data bearing on EM phenomena.
>
> >> >>Dennis: Like what, Brownian motion? If there's a comparable phenomenon
> >to
> >> >>Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>
> >> Clarke: >I'd lilke to hear about it.
>
> >> Dennis: That's not what I asked. I asked if there's a comparable
> >phenomenon to
> >> Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>
> Clarke:
> >I am very cautious in responding to you. [...]
>
> Dennis: No I would start crowing that you must accept this phenomenon as
> evidence of an ether --(although I would try to come up with an observation
> that is easy to interpret as a type of EM Brownian motion.)
That is why I am cautious. I don't want to go down that hypothetical
argument path unless there is some real phenomena to discuss.
> It's taken me weeks and weeks trying to pin you down on what you think would
> be evidence of a medium. And when you wrote something like: "Stick your hand
> out the window silly" you later had to clarify (retract?) that, saying wind
> alone was not evidence of a medium.
Well of course I had to clarify when you persist in misrepresenting what I said.
"Stick youu hand out the window silly" is obviously an appeal to common sense.
I am saying there is immediate perceptual data that bears on the question of the
existence of air. No more, no less. If you want this to go further into the real
of scientific discussion, then instruments and precise measurements and so on
need to be brought in.
> Up above, I claimed that you would not have accepted atomic molecular theory
> until Brownian motion--and you claimed that wasn't true. So what before
> Brownian motion would you have accepted as evidence?
You leave out the "etc" again. I amplified what I meant above, I think.
Maxwell/Waterston might even have done it for me.
> See it's obvious you are just trying to move the goal posts. You won't be
> specific about what you think is evidence of a particulate material medium
> because you know that EM has a lot of effects that are analogous and even
> unique to effects of particulate material media.
No. I know that Dennis will try to argue that there are a lot of atmospheric
effects that are analogous to his ether theory, and I don't want to have to
refute such obviously bad analogies. So I resist letting the argument do that
way.
> So you vaguely refer to a
> "package" of phenomena that is required before any particular phenomenon is
> evidence--and then refuse to give the list in full detail.
Vaguely? I think I have written quite a lot of words explaining my position
in this and other posts
> (...)
> >> >[...]
>
> >> >>Clarke: >But the simple equations do _not_ work for gases.
>
> >> >>>The simple equations _do_ work for electromagnetism.
>
> >> >>Dennis: 1) No, we have equations that work for gases.
>
> >> Clarke: >No you don't. Boyles law etc are all approximations.
>
> >> Dennis: I am not talking about Boyle's law but the far more detailed
> >equations
> >> of statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, acoustics, etc. We have
> >equations
> >> that are accurate for gases.
>
> Clarke: >STATISTICAL MECHANICS. This is based on atomic theory.
> >You are being circular.
>
> Dennis: FIZEAU, MAXWELL, SAGNAC EQUATIONS.
Capitalizing back won't work. Maxwell's equations can be understood in
the absence of ether. Statistical mechanics makes no sense without atoms.
I'm not sure why you bring in Fizeau and Sagnac.
> They were derived using ether.
Irrelevant as the equations are perfectly consistent and understandable
without ether.
> It's a very simply thing to do to get rid of the medium that some loopy
> Materialist uses to derive equations. Just pretend it isn't there--and use the
> equations without mentioning the medium.
Yes works for Maxwell.
Doesn't work for statistical mechanics. Without atoms there is nothing to
have statistics of.
> Don't you realize that Boltzmann couldn't get his atomic view of statistical
> mechanics widely accepted?
Yes. That was one of the transition times in physics.
That view is widely accepted now, is it not?
> >> Clarke: >Maxwells equations work from the limit of detectability
> >> >in noise up to the point where you start pulling
> >> >electron/positron pairs out of the vacuum. >Many dozens of orders of
> >> magnitude.
>
> >> Dennis: There are equations of EM which are only approximate. The Hafele
> >> Keating results were all over the board, for example. Also, Standard Model
> >>is now known to be wrong (phys. are 99% sure.)
>
> Clarke: >Lay off the standard model. You are being ridiculously
> >out of context to pull it into the conversation.
>
> Dennis: 1) ?? SM includes EM equations. You are arguing that since Boyle's law
> breaks down, this is evidence of a medium (if that's not your argument please
> clarify.) Well, now we know SM breaks down.
Are we discussing hypothetically whether the medium exists or whether it is
particulate? Many posts back I said buoyancy phenomena and pressure phenomena
would be enough to prove existence of air to me. But of course that leaves
open the question of whether air is particulate or continuous.
I am arguing that since Boyle's law breaks down, it is evidence that something
is wrong with the simple model of air as a continuous gas-stuff.
SM is a model. Made of combining electro-weak theory with chromodynamic theory
as Carr has explained. The SM attempts to unify the two at high energies.
How that unification happens is subject to change/experiment. The muon
measurements seem to support the supersymmetric version.
> 2) You didn't comment on the fact that HK results were only approximated by
> Lorentz equations.
They seem to be wiithin error-bars to me:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
> >> >>So why do we need
> >> >>molecules. Why not just use the equations?
>
> >> Clarke: >The equations are not accurate.
>
> >> Dennis: Your opinion that there are no accurate equations for gases is
> >> interesting.
>
> Clarke: >You yourself say that the accurate euqations are statistical
> mechanical.
> >Statistical mechanics requires molecules. I rest my case.
>
> Dennis: THIS IS WHAT BOLTZMANN'S DEBATES WERE ALL ABOUT! Other mathematicians
> derived various kinetic theory results without the use of molecules. The
> equations of stat. mech. require molecules as much as Sagnac's equation
> requires an ether.
Oh. Well any pre-quantum era formula will only be approximate.
I am talking about using results derived without benefit of the atomic
theory. They may have been good enough for instrumentation at the
turn of the last century, but would clearly be in error today.
> >> >> 2) No again, the SM equations do not always work. In fact, the theory
> >has
> >> >>recently been refuted, physicists are 99% sure.
>
> >> Clarke: >We've been over this before. The SM has
> >> >been modified. The modifications fit within
> >> >the standard _Model_. Model which is a combination
> >> >of other theories.
>
> >> Dennis: ?? When has SM been modified to explain the most recent refutation?
>
> Clarke: >Since before the experiment that you call a refutation. The standard
> model
> >has lots of free parameters and the fact that some allowed anomalous moments
> >for muons is what prompted the experiments in the first place. Of course
> >lots
> >of free parameters is not considered a good thing for a theory, physicists
> >like
> >the simplicity of a theory with a few parameters. I think these latest
> >results may
>
> Dennis: Well, obviously, and I mean obviously, a bodiless gas theory with a lot
> of free parameters can implement all the gas equations--and so provide all the
> predictions --just without the medium.
That would be a rather ugly ad hoc theory with little
real explanatory power, then.
> Do you really not understand this?
Of course I understand it. But you seem to miss the point.
Tom Clarke
Daryl McCullough
>>You should not believe everything you read in newspapers, in this case
>>the g-2 measurement at Brookheaven I suppose. In their article they
>>stated only that "This difference [between the prediction of the
>>standard model and the experimental value] may be due to physics beyond
>>the standard model." Note the "may be".
>
>Dennis: Well, there's something else you also stated above--and that there's a
>"difference [between the prediction of the standard model and the experimental
>value]"--notice there's no "may be" about it.
What is the ether theory prediction for the gyromagnetic ratio of
an electron?
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Ilja Schmelzer
> > 2) Boyle's law is not the only gas law. There are accurate equations of gases
> > now--despite your persistent denials that this is so. And so, as you believe,
> > equations of gases - medium is simpler than equations of gases + medium.
>
> Can you site a gas law as simple and elegant as Maxwell's equations that
> holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)?
Hm, we use usual condensed matter equations to describe the CMB radiation.
There are usually lower bounds for applicability of statistical laws,
but no upper bounds.
> > >> Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that was
> > >> shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes, etc.
> So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be revised?
> You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your ideas
> are definitely outdated.
Of course philosophy can be wrong, but it remains to be shown that
materialism is outdated.
> > Dennis: LOL. Well, the equations of EM and Fizeau's equation and Sagnac were
> > all derived using the ether. Your point USED TO BE that it does not matter
> > that they were derived that way--because you can use the equations without the
> > ether.
> That is my point still. They can be derived without the ether.
> That is how I was taught them in school. The derivations I learned
> used no ether. In fact I learned that the magnetic field is a
> relativistic side effect of the electric field!
> > Well, we can use gas equations without thinking about molecules.
>
> But you can't derive them whithout molecules.
AFAI have learned there is not much derivation of Maxwell equations.
They are postulated. You can derive them from Lagrange formalism,
and postulate the Lagrangian. Not much of a derivation.
> Not even now with a modern viewpoing could you view gas as come sort
> of continuous gas-stuff and derive equations that are much more
> accurate than Boyle's law.
You can postulate them without a problem.
> It would all be ad hoc. How would you account for the difference of
> diatomic and monatomic (and tri- etc) gases without the concept of
> atoms?
Do you think you need much more fitting parameters than in the SM?
> > It's taken me weeks and weeks trying to pin you down on what you think would
> > be evidence of a medium. And when you wrote something like: "Stick your hand
> > out the window silly" you later had to clarify (retract?) that, saying wind
> > alone was not evidence of a medium.
> Well of course I had to clarify when you persist in misrepresenting
> what I said. "Stick youu hand out the window silly" is obviously an
> appeal to common sense.
Hm, if I refer to common sense, a common response is something like
"common sense is out of date, rejected by relativity and quantum
theory".
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
>
> > Can you site a gas law as simple and elegant as Maxwell's equations that
> > holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)?
>
> Hm, we use usual condensed matter equations to describe the CMB radiation.
Is that in your paper?
> There are usually lower bounds for applicability of statistical laws,
> but no upper bounds.
The scale I mentioned above was size-related and I uess that
statistics does apply over a large range of sizes - but in the context
of my discussions with Dennis McCarthy, statistics brings in atoms
which negates the point.
The EM equations are also valid over fields from microgauss to
10^15 gauss (Neutron stars). That is 21 orders of magnitude.
Do simple gas laws cover such a range of densities or pressures?
> > > >> Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that was
> > > >> shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes, etc.
>
> > So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be revised?
> > You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your ideas
> > are definitely outdated.
>
> Of course philosophy can be wrong, but it remains to be shown that
> materialism is outdated.
I don't think it is outdated in general, just the narrow view that limits
material reality to particles alone. I find nothing philosophically wrong
with the idea of material fields.
> [...]
> > > Well, we can use gas equations without thinking about molecules.
>
> > But you can't derive them whithout molecules.
>
> AFAI have learned there is not much derivation of Maxwell equations.
> They are postulated. You can derive them from Lagrange formalism,
> and postulate the Lagrangian. Not much of a derivation.
I have in mind something like going from Faradays laws of induction to the
full partial differential equation formulation of Maxwell. That involves going
from ideas like lines of force to equations for fields of force.
> > Not even now with a modern viewpoing could you view gas as come sort
> > of continuous gas-stuff and derive equations that are much more
> > accurate than Boyle's law.
>
> You can postulate them without a problem.
But they are ugly and would involve a gazillion ad hoc things to account for
different mono/di/tri-atomic sorts of gases. For gas condensation at high
pressures for ionization at high temperatures for ...
Not at all analogous to the simple structure of Maxwell's equations that
works for such a large range of data.
> > It would all be ad hoc. How would you account for the difference of
> > diatomic and monatomic (and tri- etc) gases without the concept of
> > atoms?
>
> Do you think you need much more fitting parameters than in the SM?
Lots more. How many elements are there? The gaseous behavior of
each is different. How many molecules?
> > > It's taken me weeks and weeks trying to pin you down on what you think would
> > > be evidence of a medium. And when you wrote something like: "Stick your hand
> > > out the window silly" you later had to clarify (retract?) that, saying wind
> > > alone was not evidence of a medium.
>
> > Well of course I had to clarify when you persist in misrepresenting
> > what I said. "Stick youu hand out the window silly" is obviously an
> > appeal to common sense.
>
> Hm, if I refer to common sense, a common response is something like
> "common sense is out of date, rejected by relativity and quantum
> theory".
And that would have been a appropriate response for Dennis.
Not this continous citing of my easily refuted appeal to common
sense as evidence for what I would and would not take as
proof of the existence of air - and now apparently of atoms.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Ilja Schmelzer wrote:
> > AFAI have learned there is not much derivation of Maxwell equations.
> > They are postulated. You can derive them from Lagrange formalism,
> > and postulate the Lagrangian. Not much of a derivation.
>
> I have in mind something like going from Faradays laws of induction to the
> full partial differential equation formulation of Maxwell. That involves going
> from ideas like lines of force to equations for fields of force.
Oh, I forgot the approach taken in my undergrad physics course.
Start with Coloumb's law in stationary frames - in analogy to gravity.
Assume special relativity and Lorentz transforms.
Then derive magnetism and Maxwell's equations from
Coloumb+Lorentz.
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer
> > > Can you site a gas law as simple and elegant as Maxwell's equations that
> > > holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)?
> >
> > Hm, we use usual condensed matter equations to describe the CMB radiation.
>
> Is that in your paper?
No, completely unrelated. But matter is handled in usual FRW
cosmologies as homogeneous, continuous.
> > There are usually lower bounds for applicability of statistical laws,
> > but no upper bounds.
>
> The scale I mentioned above was size-related and I uess that
> statistics does apply over a large range of sizes - but in the context
> of my discussions with Dennis McCarthy, statistics brings in atoms
> which negates the point.
>
> The EM equations are also valid over fields from microgauss to
> 10^15 gauss (Neutron stars). That is 21 orders of magnitude.
> Do simple gas laws cover such a range of densities or pressures?
Hm, in standard FRW cosmology p = 1/3 epsilon is used for the matter
of the early universe, p = 0 (dust) later. That's the largest
distance available.
> > > So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be revised?
> > > You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your ideas
> > > are definitely outdated.
> >
> > Of course philosophy can be wrong, but it remains to be shown that
> > materialism is outdated.
> I don't think it is outdated in general, just the narrow view that
> limits material reality to particles alone. I find nothing
> philosophically wrong with the idea of material fields.
There is also nothing philosophically wrong with "particles alone". I
don't have such a physical model, but, on the other hand, I'm also
unable to prove that its wrong.
> > AFAI have learned there is not much derivation of Maxwell equations.
> > They are postulated. You can derive them from Lagrange formalism,
> > and postulate the Lagrangian. Not much of a derivation.
> I have in mind something like going from Faradays laws of induction
> to the full partial differential equation formulation of Maxwell.
> That involves going from ideas like lines of force to equations for
> fields of force.
Ok, that means more or less the mathematics of PDE's.
> > > It would all be ad hoc. How would you account for the difference of
> > > diatomic and monatomic (and tri- etc) gases without the concept of
> > > atoms?
> >
> > Do you think you need much more fitting parameters than in the SM?
>
> Lots more. How many elements are there? The gaseous behavior of
> each is different. How many molecules?
You have to compare this with one gas. The ether is also one (at
least in my theory).
> > > Well of course I had to clarify when you persist in misrepresenting
> > > what I said. "Stick youu hand out the window silly" is obviously an
> > > appeal to common sense.
> >
> > Hm, if I refer to common sense, a common response is something like
> > "common sense is out of date, rejected by relativity and quantum
> > theory".
>
> And that would have been a appropriate response for Dennis.
I don't think its appropriate.
Tom Clarke
> Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> writes:
> > > Hm, we use usual condensed matter equations to describe the CMB radiation.
>
> > Is that in your paper?
>
> No, completely unrelated. But matter is handled in usual FRW
> cosmologies as homogeneous, continuous.
>
> > The EM equations are also valid over fields from microgauss to
> > 10^15 gauss (Neutron stars). That is 21 orders of magnitude.
> > Do simple gas laws cover such a range of densities or pressures?
>
> Hm, in standard FRW cosmology p = 1/3 epsilon is used for the matter
> of the early universe, p = 0 (dust) later. That's the largest
> distance available.
Oh I see where you are going. Cosmological models where the mater is
treated as a fluid.
That is a large range, but its not clear to me that some sort of idealization
or approximation is not going on in this situation.
> > > > So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be revised?
> > > > You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your ideas
> > > > are definitely outdated.
>
> > > Of course philosophy can be wrong, but it remains to be shown that
> > > materialism is outdated.
>
> > I don't think it is outdated in general, just the narrow view that
> > limits material reality to particles alone. I find nothing
> > philosophically wrong with the idea of material fields.
>
> There is also nothing philosophically wrong with "particles alone". I
> don't have such a physical model, but, on the other hand, I'm also
> unable to prove that its wrong.
Particles alone is OK as well, I just don't think it works for the
phyiscs of EM fields.
> > > AFAI have learned there is not much derivation of Maxwell equations.
> > > They are postulated. You can derive them from Lagrange formalism,
> > > and postulate the Lagrangian. Not much of a derivation.
>
> > I have in mind something like going from Faradays laws of induction
> > to the full partial differential equation formulation of Maxwell.
> > That involves going from ideas like lines of force to equations for
> > fields of force.
>
> Ok, that means more or less the mathematics of PDE's.
Yes. I think I said more or less that in another post.
> > > > It would all be ad hoc. How would you account for the difference of
> > > > diatomic and monatomic (and tri- etc) gases without the concept of
> > > > atoms?
>
> > > Do you think you need much more fitting parameters than in the SM?
>
> > Lots more. How many elements are there? The gaseous behavior of
> > each is different. How many molecules?
>
> You have to compare this with one gas. The ether is also one (at
> least in my theory).
In that context, OK. But I was in part discussing with Dennis McCarthy
why I accept air but not ether. Air is lots of gases. I know this.
It is part of the "package" for why I accept the theory of air as a
(molecular) material medium.
> > > > Well of course I had to clarify when you persist in misrepresenting
> > > > what I said. "Stick youu hand out the window silly" is obviously an
> > > > appeal to common sense.
>
> > > Hm, if I refer to common sense, a common response is something like
> > > "common sense is out of date, rejected by relativity and quantum
> > > theory".
>
> > And that would have been a appropriate response for Dennis.
>
> I don't think its appropriate.
But it wouldn't make me angry to the point of calling
the poster dishonest. It would have been a response
answerable by an argued response instead of by
having to correct a misrepresentation.
Tom Clarke
Daryl McCullough
>Oh, I forgot the approach taken in my undergrad physics course.
>Start with Coloumb's law in stationary frames - in analogy to gravity.
>Assume special relativity and Lorentz transforms.
>Then derive magnetism and Maxwell's equations from
>Coloumb+Lorentz.
In Jackson's book on Classical Electrodynamics, he explains
that that approach doesn't really work. You need to know how
charge densities transform. There are other force laws that
look like Coulomb's law in the static case.
For example, you don't know from the static case whether the
electric potential is a scalar, or one component of a 4-vector
(or one component of a tensor).
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Ithaca, NY
Tom Clarke
May be. It was a long time ago and they may have pulled
the wool over the eyes of us freshmen. I do recall being
impressed that electrostatics+relativity => all of EMism.
I can't recall the name of the book. It was blue and
one of the Berkeley Physics series I think.
Tom Clarke
I do find this at the library web site:
Vol 2 sounds right:
Berkeley physics course. Edition:
Published: New York, McGraw-Hill [1973-
Contents:
v.1. Mechanics--v.2. Electricity and magnetism
v.3. Waves and oscillations--v.4. Quantum physics--
v.5.-- Statistical physics.
Ilja Schmelzer
>> Hm, in standard FRW cosmology p = 1/3 epsilon is used for the matter
>> of the early universe, p = 0 (dust) later. That's the largest
>> distance available.
> Oh I see where you are going. Cosmological models where the mater
> is treated as a fluid. That is a large range, but its not clear to
> me that some sort of idealization or approximation is not going on
> in this situation.
Of course, continuous matter is an approximation.
> Particles alone is OK as well, I just don't think it works for the
> phyiscs of EM fields.
I think there is enough room for the universality class of EM to
contain "particles alone"-models too.
>>> Lots more. How many elements are there? The gaseous behavior of
>>> each is different. How many molecules?
>>
>> You have to compare this with one gas. The ether is also one (at
>> least in my theory).
>
> In that context, OK. But I was in part discussing with Dennis McCarthy
> why I accept air but not ether. Air is lots of gases. I know this.
> It is part of the "package" for why I accept the theory of air as a
> (molecular) material medium.
Ok.
>>>> Hm, if I refer to common sense, a common response is something like
>>>> "common sense is out of date, rejected by relativity and quantum
>>>> theory".
>>
>>> And that would have been a appropriate response for Dennis.
>>
>> I don't think its appropriate.
>
> But it wouldn't make me angry to the point of calling
> the poster dishonest.
Of course. Its a common mainstream response, and the poster of such a
response is simply following some mainstream argumentation. The
"founding fathers" of quantum theory have fabricated a lot of
philosophical nonsense.
http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/sokalhoax.html
Dennis McCarthy
>> >> >been modified. The modifications fit within
>> >> >the standard _Model_. Model which is a combination
>> >> >of other theories.
>>
>> >> Dennis: ?? When has SM been modified to explain the most recent
>refutation?
>>
>> Clarke: >Since before the experiment that you call a refutation. The
>standard
>> model
>> >has lots of free parameters and the fact that some allowed anomalous
>moments
>> >for muons is what prompted the experiments in the first place. Of course
>> >lots
>> >of free parameters is not considered a good thing for a theory, physicists
>> >like
>> >the simplicity of a theory with a few parameters. I think these latest
>> >results may
>>
>> Dennis: Well, obviously, and I mean obviously, a bodiless gas theory with a
>lot
>> of free parameters can implement all the gas equations--and so provide all
>the
>> predictions --just without the medium.
>
Dennis: And you think the Standard Model is pretty?
Clarke: with little
>real explanatory power, then.
Dennis: "Explanatory power"??? You sound like a etherist. According to modern
physicists, all you have to do is predict the correct results. That's what
"explaining" is according to people who post on these newsgroups.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>
>> Clarke: >And how many times do I have to say, and you have to ignore, the
>> >fact that I can tell the difference between gases and electromagnetism.
>> >That Boyles law is not exact, it is flawed, it breaks down for high
>> >pressures, high temperatures, low pressures, low temperatures etc.
>> >But Maxwell's equations work over dozens of orders of magnitude
>> >to a very high precision.
>>
>> Dennis: Argument loop:
>
>Yes you definitely are in a loop.
>
>> 1) Standard Model has already broken down (phys. are 99%
>> sure.)
Clarke:
>I see below that you are including Maxwell's equations in the standard model.
>This is like including the phenomena of superfluidity in Boyle's law.
>
>>
>> 2) Boyle's law is not the only gas law. There are accurate equations of
>gases
>> now--despite your persistent denials that this is so. And so, as you
>believe,
>> equations of gases - medium is simpler than equations of gases + medium.
>
Clarke: >Can you site a gas law as simple and elegant as Maxwell's equations
that
>holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)?
Dennis: Sure. Media theory (gas laws, hydrodynamics) are used to describe quark
gluon plasma--and there is no upper limit to the size range that it will
describe (including the interstellar medium).
>> Clarke:
>> >If you can't tell the difference between these two cases, then you
>> >are dumber than I think you are.
>>
>> Dennis: Well, the problem is you don't realize SM has recently broken
>down--and
>> that there are accurate gas equations.
>
Clarke: >You are just making this up.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/science/09PHYS.html
"If the findings are confirmed, the heart of subatomic theory, called the
Standard Model, will be "insufficient to describe our universe," said Dr.
Thomas B. Kirk, Brookhaven's associate director for high energy and nuclear
physics"
Perhaps, Kirk is making this up as well.
Clarke: SM has not broken down, it has been extended.
>I was just in the library and came across a book - copyright 2000 -
>title escapes me now, it had "Symmetry" in the title - with a chapter
>discussing ways that the standard model was expected to change e.g.
>through the detection of supersymmetric partners etc.
Dennis: If you include every possible theory that people want to invoke to
change the standard model, like super symmetry, as part of the standard model,
then I'm not sure how one could falsify it.
Some want to change the standard model to incorporate an ether theory. Is that
part of the standard model too?
You obviously can't refute an amorphous collection of theories that include
all theoretical variations.
Clarke: The muon moment
>measurements are not a crisis for standard physics as you would have
>us believe.
Dennis: Or Kirk at Brookhaven?
Clarke: : >Can you point me to these accurate gas equations that work over 36
>orders of magnitude?
Dennis: QGP --> no size range
>> >> >>This is why the atomic theory took 2000 years for eventual widespread
>> >> >>acceptance.
>>
>> >> Clarke: >Nah. I blame Aristotle.
>>
>> >> Dennis: The point again was that, if I read your writings correctly:
>you
>> >would
>> >> have rejected the atomic theory until there was evidence like Brownian
>> >motion,
>> >> etc.
>>
>> Clarke: >You read my writings incorrectly. I tell you again.
>>
>> Dennis: ????????????????????? Whooooa. THEN TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU
>WOULD
>> CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF THE MOLECULAR THEORY OF GASES (OR ATOMIC THEORY).
>> And do not include Brownian motion or anything post 1905--because NOW you
>> seem to be implying that you would have accepted atomic (molecular) theory
>> before Brownian motion
>
Clarke: >Well if you exclude the data that are conclusive to the majority of
>scientists you
>are asking me to extrapolate to what I would have thought had I been alive in
>1904.
>I'm not sure I can project that.
Dennis: Well, anti-etherists always seem to have a very well-developed sense of
evedentiary criteria for hypothetical material media--and are willing to
discount publicly various phenomena as evidence of a material medium (when the
hypothetical medium is the ether.)
Yet for some strange reason when they are asked to apply this same criteria to
other hypothetical media, they have difficulty. Why?
Do you have a well developed sense of what is and is not evidence of a medium
or don't you?
Clarke:
Brownian motion was known before 1905 -
>just look
>through a microscope - but in 1905 Einstein saw the clear connection between
>atomic
>theory and Brownian motion. Maybe I would have been as smart as Einstein and
>have seen the connection (but I don't think I am that clever, honestly) if
>you allow
>evidence of looking through a microscope.
>
>Wilson's cloud chamber and Rutherford's experiments came after 1905.
>Kinetic/statistical mechanics was a pretty good theoretical argument for the
>existence of atoms and that goes back to Maxwell and Waterston.
Dennis; No, many physicists were still rejecting these arguments in the early
1900's. It's why Boltzmann committed suicide allegedly (that and his bad
health.)
After all, why posit a medium when you don't have to?
>Maybe that would have done it for me, I really can't extrapolate.
>
>> >> >> It doesn't matter how many hundreds of times the principle of
>material
>> >> >>causality is confirmed, physicists always abandon it for the next
>> >> >>phenomenon--and always end up rejecting the theory that eventually
>> >succeeds.
>>
>> >> Clarke: >You have this very narrow view of materialism.
>>
>> >> Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that
>was
>> >> shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes, etc.
>>
>> Clarke: >Well they were wrong as well. I thought you didn't like
>kow-towing to
>> >authority.
>>
>> Dennis: We are talking about whether my definition is wrong (i.e., too
>narrow.)
>> It's not. It's the classical definition--and I reference this fact by
>pointing
>> to the people who defined the philosophy.
>
Clarke: >So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be revised?
Dennis; Of course it can. But my definition of the philosophy is correct.
Clarke: >You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your ideas
>are definitely outdated.
Dennis: No. Standard model is now outdated. Ether theory is still alive.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>[back to]
>
>> >> Dennis: There exist accurate equations describing the effects of gases
>> >today.
>>
>> Clarke: >And what are those equations based on? How were they derived?
>>
>> Dennis: LOL. Well, the equations of EM and Fizeau's equation and Sagnac
>were
>> all derived using the ether. Your point USED TO BE that it does not matter
>> that they were derived that way--because you can use the equations without
>the
>> ether.
>
is how
>I
>was taught them in school. The derivations I learned used no ether. In fact
>I learned that the magnetic field is a relativistic side effect of the
>electric field!
>
>> Well, we can use gas equations without thinking about molecules.
>
>But you can't derive them whithout molecules. Not even now with a modern
>viewpoing could you view gas as come sort of continuous gas-stuff and
>derive equations that are much more accurate than Boyle's law. It would
>all be ad hoc.
Dennis: As Marmanis has shown we can derive the ether analogue to Maxwell
equations from fundamental hydrodynamics, but modern physics does not really
derive the Maxwell equations. In modern physics, they are postulated (or the
Lagrangian is postulated) in an ad hoc manner to explain EM results that are
well known.
This seems to be the exact situation that you are describing as to why you
would reject the postulating of gas equations without a medium.
Clarke: How would you account for the difference of diatomic and
>monatomic (and tri- etc) gases without the concept of atoms?
Dennis: Different types of fields. And if you need specific types of particles,
just have them be virtual--popping out of the gas-field.
How many dozens of particles does SM utilize?
>> Clarke: >You mentioned Boyles law if you want to include formulae derived
>using
>> >atomic theory then I think you are "cheating".
>>
>> Dennis: LOL, are you unaware that EM uses formulas derived using ether
>theory.
>
Clarke: >EM can be consistently derived WITHOUT ether. I have done problem
sets
>to that effect.
Dennis: No, the Maxwell equautions (or the Lagrangian) is not derived in modern
physics. It is assumed.
However, one can *derive* the ether analogue to Maxwell equations from basic
hydrodynamics.
Plus, this view has "explanatory power."
And most of important of all: It's consistent with the principle of Material
causality--which is a principle that binds all other phenomena outside the
subject of our dispute.
>
>> >> >>Clarke: >There just is no comparable data bearing on EM phenomena.
>>
>> >> >>Dennis: Like what, Brownian motion? If there's a comparable
>phenomenon
>> >to
>> >> >>Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>>
>> >> Clarke: >I'd lilke to hear about it.
>>
>> >> Dennis: That's not what I asked. I asked if there's a comparable
>> >phenomenon to
>> >> Brownian motion in EM will you accept that as evidence?
>>
>> Clarke:
>> >I am very cautious in responding to you. [...]
>>
>> Dennis: No I would start crowing that you must accept this phenomenon as
>> evidence of an ether --(although I would try to come up with an observation
>> that is easy to interpret as a type of EM Brownian motion.)
>
>That is why I am cautious. I don't want to go down that hypothetical
>argument path unless there is some real phenomena to discuss.
Dennis: One could say that you are cautious because you don't want to admit
*anything* is evidence of an ether. That's you why you studiously avoid
answering such questions.
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Clarke
regarding
>>a bodiless gas theory with a lot
>> of free parameters can implement all the gas equations"
> Clarke: >That would be a rather ugly ad hoc theory...
>
> Dennis: And you think the Standard Model is pretty?
Yes. Gauge theory is very elegant.
> Clarke: with little
> >real explanatory power, then.
>
> Dennis: "Explanatory power"??? You sound like a etherist. According to modern
> physicists, all you have to do is predict the correct results. That's what
> "explaining" is according to people who post on these newsgroups.
Explaining is more than predicting results. It is producing predictions from
a more compact theory with fewer parameters that has virtues of
"beauty" and "naturalness" and the like.
As near as I can tell, for some reason you think that only billiard ball
models are explanatory when there is a whole mathematical universe
of possibilities.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Clarke: >Can you site a gas law as simple and elegant as Maxwell's equations
> that
> >holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)?
>
> Dennis: Sure. Media theory (gas laws, hydrodynamics) are used to describe quark
> gluon plasma--and there is no upper limit to the size range that it will
> describe (including the interstellar medium).
Uh er, ah. Quarks? Gluons? When cometh these.
Are they not products of the standard model that you claim has
been recently refuted?
Further the description of plasmas over such a wide range of sizes
is not subject to a single equation or set of equations comparable
in simplicity and elegance to Maxwell's.
> >> Dennis: Well, the problem is you don't realize SM has recently broken
> >down--and
> >> that there are accurate gas equations.
>
> Clarke: >You are just making this up.
>
> From: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/science/09PHYS.html
>
> "If the findings are confirmed, the heart of subatomic theory, called the
> Standard Model, will be "insufficient to describe our universe," said Dr.
> Thomas B. Kirk, Brookhaven's associate director for high energy and nuclear
> physics"
I was more responding to "there are accurate gas equations", but with regard
to the recent muon experiments the NYT articles goes on to say:
"Though the results announced today throw cherished ideas into question,
particle physicists have been waiting for such a development for years
because it opens a door into new worlds of theory and experimentation."
and
"The Standard Model shows scientists how to calculate the effect that all
known particles ... should have on the wobble frequency; those
predicted shifts have been measured and verified with great precision.
But the new measurements differ from those predictions, suggesting that
previously unknown particles [exist], said
Dr. Lee Roberts, a professor of physics at Boston University who is one
of the spokesmen for the experiment."
and
"While those particles are not predicted by the Standard Model and have
never been seen directly in an experiment, their existence would not
surprise theorists. Despite the model's success in explaining decades of
experimental data, theorists believe it has logical and aesthetic flaws and
that its complicated structure is unlikely to represent natural law at its
most fundamental level. "
Hardly the crisis in physics that you seem to imply.
> Perhaps, Kirk is making this up as well.
You are merely quoting out of context.
> Clarke: SM has not broken down, it has been extended.
> >I was just in the library and came across a book - copyright 2000 -
> >title escapes me now, it had "Symmetry" in the title - with a chapter
> >discussing ways that the standard model was expected to change e.g.
> >through the detection of supersymmetric partners etc.
>
> Dennis: If you include every possible theory that people want to invoke to
> change the standard model, like super symmetry, as part of the standard model,
> then I'm not sure how one could falsify it.
Lots of ways. But the muon experiment results do "not surprise theorists".
> Some want to change the standard model to incorporate an ether theory. Is that
> part of the standard model too?
Can you provide a citation? I haven't come across that proposal.
> You obviously can't refute an amorphous collection of theories that include
> all theoretical variations.
Not all. Just those consistence with electroweak theory, and
chromodyamic gauge theories.
> Clarke: The muon moment
> >measurements are not a crisis for standard physics as you would have
> >us believe.
>
> Dennis: Or Kirk at Brookhaven?
Not Lee Roberts at BU or Gerald Gabrielse at Harvard. and
I strongly suspect Kirk at Brookhaven might be a little miffed
at the lack of context of that snippet of a quote:
"insufficient to describe our universe,"
> Clarke: : >Can you point me to these accurate gas equations that work over 36
> >orders of magnitude?
>
> Dennis: QGP --> no size range
You are not being very consistent. Invoking standard model to argue against
standard model. And can you point me to a location where these equations
are writtein down in four lines?
> [jumpt to question]
> >> ... THEN TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU
> >WOULD
> >> CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF THE MOLECULAR THEORY OF GASES (OR ATOMIC THEORY).
> >> And do not include Brownian motion or anything post 1905--because NOW you
> >> seem to be implying that you would have accepted atomic (molecular) theory
> >> before Brownian motion
>
> Clarke: >Well if you exclude the data that are conclusive to the majority of
> >scientists you
> >are asking me to extrapolate to what I would have thought had I been alive in
> >1904.
> >I'm not sure I can project that.
>
> Dennis: Well, anti-etherists always seem to have a very well-developed sense of
> evedentiary criteria for hypothetical material media--and are willing to
> discount publicly various phenomena as evidence of a material medium (when the
> hypothetical medium is the ether.)
Ether is an old disproved idea as far as mainstream science is concerned.
Naturally I am suspicious of it.
> Yet for some strange reason when they are asked to apply this same criteria to
> other hypothetical media, they have difficulty. Why?
> Do you have a well developed sense of what is and is not evidence of a medium
> or don't you?
I guess I don't by your criteria.
> Clarke:
> Brownian motion was known before 1905 -
> >just look
> >through a microscope - but in 1905 Einstein saw the clear connection between
> >atomic
> >theory and Brownian motion. Maybe I would have been as smart as Einstein and
> >have seen the connection (but I don't think I am that clever, honestly) if
> >you allow
> >evidence of looking through a microscope.
>
> >Wilson's cloud chamber and Rutherford's experiments came after 1905.
> >Kinetic/statistical mechanics was a pretty good theoretical argument for the
> >existence of atoms and that goes back to Maxwell and Waterston.
>
> Dennis; No, many physicists were still rejecting these arguments in the early
> 1900's. It's why Boltzmann committed suicide allegedly (that and his bad
> health.)
> After all, why posit a medium when you don't have to?
Eventually you have to. When you reach the "have to" point then
that is the point of evidence for the medium or whatever
existent is being considered.
> [snip]
> >> >> Clarke: >You have this very narrow view of materialism.
>
> >> >> Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that
> >was
> >> >> shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes, etc.
>
> >> Clarke: >Well they were wrong as well. I thought you didn't like
> >kow-towing to
> >> >authority.
>
> >> Dennis: We are talking about whether my definition is wrong (i.e., too
> >narrow.)
> >> It's not. It's the classical definition--and I reference this fact by
> >pointing
> >> to the people who defined the philosophy.
>
> Clarke: >So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be revised?
>
> Dennis; Of course it can. But my definition of the philosophy is correct.
And it is old fashioned and outmoded. Get with the times!
> Clarke: >You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your ideas
> >are definitely outdated.
>
> Dennis: No. Standard model is now outdated. Ether theory is still alive.
See above. You are wrong.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
> Clarke: >That is my point still. They [Maxwell's equations] can be
> derived without the ether. ...
>
> >> Well, we can use gas equations without thinking about molecules.
>
> >But you can't derive them whithout molecules. Not even now with a modern
> >viewpoint could you view gas as come sort of continuous gas-stuff and
> >derive equations that are much more accurate than Boyle's law. It would
> >all be ad hoc.
>
> Dennis: As Marmanis has shown we can derive the ether analogue to Maxwell
> equations from fundamental hydrodynamics, but modern physics does not really
> derive the Maxwell equations. In modern physics, they are postulated (or the
> Lagrangian is postulated) in an ad hoc manner to explain EM results that are
> well known.
Sure that is the quickest approach. They are simple: 4 lines, or one line in
tensorial
notation. What simpler thing to postulate? Of course saying U(1) gauge theory
if you have the machinery of differnetial geometry and connections etc around
is arguably a simple viewpoint.
> This seems to be the exact situation that you are describing as to why you
> would reject the postulating of gas equations without a medium.
I see the situations as very different. You seem this a closely similar.
So I guess we are at impass.
> Clarke: How would you account for the difference of diatomic and
> >monatomic (and tri- etc) gases without the concept of atoms?
>
> Dennis: Different types of fields. And if you need specific types of particles,
> just have them be virtual--popping out of the gas-field.
Very complicated. Very ad hoc.
> How many dozens of particles does SM utilize?
4 e-w gauge, 6 leptons(+6 anti), 6 hadrons (+6 anti), 3 gluons (?)
So I guess 19 (or 31 with anti's). I'm rusty feel free to correct me
anyone.
Of course if you take the group theoretic view then
There is just SU(2) and SU(3) - maybe unified into SU(5).
> Clarke: >EM can be consistently derived WITHOUT ether. I have done problem
> sets
> >to that effect.
>
> Dennis: No, the Maxwell equautions (or the Lagrangian) is not derived in modern
> physics. It is assumed.
That is the approach. But there are strong arguments for why Maxwell's equations
must be the way they are. They are simplest covariant field etc. U(1) gauge
theory
etc.
> However, one can *derive* the ether analogue to Maxwell equations from basic
> hydrodynamics.
And hydrodynamics, Navier Stokes, is inexact. So I find this an unconvincing
approach.
> Plus, this view has "explanatory power."
What power? I guess you find it nice as it reduced fields to billiard balls?
I find little to choose between fields and billiard balls as primitives.
Since the field equations are already as simple as they can be, then
it seems natural to make the fields primitive
> And most of important of all: It's consistent with the principle of Material
> causality--which is a principle that binds all other phenomena outside the
> subject of our dispute.
You keep saying this without proof other than some pre-scientific
philosophy.
[with regard to stating before hand what I would consider evidence of
particulate material media]
> >That is why I am cautious. I don't want to go down that hypothetical
> >argument path unless there is some real phenomena to discuss.
>
> Dennis: One could say that you are cautious because you don't want to admit
> *anything* is evidence of an ether. That's you why you studiously avoid
> answering such questions.
Well considering past newsgroup history, I certainly don't want to
say what evidence would be before hand here.
Tom Clarke
Ilja Schmelzer
> > However, one can *derive* the ether analogue to Maxwell equations from basic
> > hydrodynamics.
>
> And hydrodynamics, Navier Stokes, is inexact. So I find this an unconvincing
> approach.
Hm, the aim of ether is to derive current fundamental physics as some
continuous large scale inexact approximation of some atomic ether
model. If this is done in several approximation steps, via some
inexact intermediate steps like Navier Stokes, whats the problem?
> > Plus, this view has "explanatory power."
>
> What power? I guess you find it nice as it reduced fields to billiard balls?
> I find little to choose between fields and billiard balls as primitives.
> Since the field equations are already as simple as they can be, then
> it seems natural to make the fields primitive
Hm, but the current field theory cannot be a primitive. Its effective
field theory. Primitive theories are, I hope, without infinities.
[agreements snipped]
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>
>> Clarke: >That is my point still. They [Maxwell's equations] can be
>
>> derived without the ether. ...
>>
>> >> Well, we can use gas equations without thinking about molecules.
>>
>> >
modern
>> >viewpoint could you view gas as come sort of continuous gas-stuff and
>> >derive equations that are much more accurate than Boyle's law. It would
>> >all be ad hoc.
>>
>> Dennis: As Marmanis has shown we can derive the ether analogue to Maxwell
>> equations from fundamental hydrodynamics, but modern physics does not
>really
>> derive the Maxwell equations. In modern physics, they are postulated (or
>the
>> Lagrangian is postulated) in an ad hoc manner to explain EM results that
>are
>> well known.
>
line in
>tensorial
>notation. What simpler thing to postulate? Of course saying U(1) gauge
>theory
>if you have the machinery of differnetial geometry and connections etc around
>is arguably a simple viewpoint.
Dennis: You have just jumped arguments:
Up above you are implying that the theory of molecules must be preferred
because one can *derive* the gas equations from the notion of molecules. If you
don't use molecules, you would have to postulate gas equations.
So what's preferable? Postulating the Lagrangian (or the equations) --or
deriving the equations from fundamental entities?
>> This seems to be the exact situation that you are describing as to why
>you
>> would reject the postulating of gas equations without a medium.
>
>I see the situations as very different. You seem this a closely similar.
>So I guess we are at impass.
Dennis: Well, you prefer postulation of equations in one circumstance--and then
derivation of equations from material entities in another.
>> Clarke: How would you account for the difference of diatomic and
>> >monatomic (and tri- etc) gases without the concept of atoms?
>>
>> Dennis: Different types of fields. And if you need specific types of
>particles,
>> just have them be virtual--popping out of the gas-field.
>
Clarke: >Very complicated. Very ad hoc.
Dennis: LOL. Well, if you think after the fact hypotheses of virtual particles
popping out of fields is complicated and ad hoc, I agree with you.
So now why do you like the Standard Model?
>> How many dozens of particles does SM utilize?
>
>4 e-w gauge, 6 leptons(+6 anti), 6 hadrons (+6 anti), 3 gluons (?)
>So I guess 19 (or 31 with anti's). I'm rusty feel free to correct me
>anyone.
Dennis: To quote you: "Very complicated. Very ad hoc."
>Of course if you take the group theoretic view then
>There is just SU(2) and SU(3) - maybe unified into SU(5).
>
>> Clarke: >EM can be consistently derived WITHOUT ether. I have done problem
>> sets
>> >to that effect.
>>
>> Dennis: No, the Maxwell equautions (or the Lagrangian) is not derived in
>modern
>> physics. It is assumed.
>
Clarke: >That is the approach. But there are strong arguments for why
Maxwell's
>equations
>must be the way they are. They are simplest covariant field etc. U(1) gauge
>theory
>etc.
Dennis: So what's preferable? Postulating the Lagrangian (or the equations)
--or deriving the equations from fundamental entities?
D:
>> However, one can *derive* the ether analogue to Maxwell equations from
>basic
>> hydrodynamics.
Clarke:
>And hydrodynamics, Navier Stokes, is inexact. So I find this an unconvincing
>approach.
Dennis: ?? An convincing approach to what? Gases or fluids or the ether?
And why do you find it not acceptable in one circumstance and not the other?
>> Plus, this view has "explanatory power."
>
Clarke: >What power? I guess you find it nice as it reduced fields to billiard
balls?
>I find little to choose between fields and billiard balls as primitives.
Dennis: Then, at least as of 1900, you would be for the postulation of
equations due to bodiless fields as the explanation of gases. Who needs
molecules, right?
>Since the field equations are already as simple as they can be, then
>it seems natural to make the fields primitive
>
>> And most of important of all: It's consistent with the principle of
>Material
>> causality--which is a principle that binds all other phenomena outside the
>> subject of our dispute.
>
Clarke: >You keep saying this without proof other than some pre-scientific
>philosophy.
Dennis: "Without proof"? It's an uncontrovsial fact regarding biology,
evolution, kinetic theory, ballistics, agriculture, medicine, etc. You
certainly agree all these fields are based on material causality right?
>[with regard to stating before hand what I would consider evidence of
>particulate material media]
>
>> >That is why I am cautious. I don't want to go down that hypothetical
>> >argument path unless there is some real phenomena to discuss.
>>
>> Dennis: One could say that you are cautious because you don't want to admit
>> *anything* is evidence of an ether. That's you why you studiously avoid
>> answering such questions.
>
Clarke: >Well considering past newsgroup history, I certainly don't want to
>say what evidence would be before hand here.
Dennis: Like I said.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>Dennis McCarthy wrote:
>
>> Clarke: >Can you site a gas law as simple and elegant as Maxwell's
>equations
>> that
>> >holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)?
>>
>> Dennis: Sure. Media theory (gas laws, hydrodynamics) are used to describe
>quark
>> gluon plasma--and there is no upper limit to the size range that it will
>> describe (including the interstellar medium).
>
>Are they not products of the standard model that you claim has
>been recently refuted?
Dennis: 1) You asked for me to "cite a gas law as simple and elegant as
Maxwell's
equations that holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)"
I did that.
2) Ether theory, of course, predicts sub atomic constituents. SM is not
wrong about everything.
Clarke:
>Further the description of plasmas over such a wide range of sizes
>is not subject to a single equation or set of equations comparable
>in simplicity and elegance to Maxwell's.
Dennis: Yes they are subject to the same equations, either inelastic of
elastic.
>> >> Dennis: Well, the problem is you don't realize SM has recently broken
>> >down--and
>> >> that there are accurate gas equations.
>>
>> Clarke: >You are just making this up.
>>
>> From: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/science/09PHYS.html
>>
>> "If the findings are confirmed, the heart of subatomic theory, called the
>> Standard Model, will be "insufficient to describe our universe," said Dr.
>> Thomas B. Kirk, Brookhaven's associate director for high energy and nuclear
>> physics"
>
Clarke: >I was more responding to "there are accurate gas equations",
Dennis::? You think I"m "making up" the fact that there are accurate gas
equations?
Clarke: but with regard
>to the recent muon experiments the NYT articles goes on to say:
>
>"Though the results announced today throw cherished ideas into question,
>particle physicists have been waiting for such a development for years
>because it opens a door into new worlds of theory and experimentation."
>and
>"The Standard Model shows scientists how to calculate the effect that all
>known particles ... should have on the wobble frequency; those
>predicted shifts have been measured and verified with great precision.
>But the new measurements differ from those predictions, suggesting that
>previously unknown particles [exist], said
>Dr. Lee Roberts, a professor of physics at Boston University who is one
>of the spokesmen for the experiment."
>and
>"While those particles are not predicted by the Standard Model and have
>never been seen directly in an experiment, their existence would not
>surprise theorists. Despite the model's success in explaining decades of
>experimental data, theorists believe it has logical and aesthetic flaws and
>that its complicated structure is unlikely to represent natural law at its
>most fundamental level. "
>
Clarke: >Hardly the crisis in physics that you seem to imply.
Dennis: Well, I didn't use the word "crisis"--as quibblers will quibble about
the meaning of that word. But I can hardly see how your quote that "theorists
believe it [standard model] has logical and aesthetic flaws and that its
complicated structure is unlikely to represent natural law at its most
fundamental level" supports your strange position that everything is perfectly
fine with SM.
I said SM has broken down (physicists are 99% sure.)
That's a fact. It may be irritating but it's a fact nonetheless.
>> Perhaps, Kirk is making this up as well.
>
Clarke: >You are merely quoting out of context.
Dennis: No. Kirk wrote that if the findings are confirmed (an they have a 99%
likelihood) then the standard model is "insufficient to describe our universe,"
That's what I mean by "broken down."
>> Clarke: SM has not broken down, it has been extended.
>> >I was just in the library and came across a book - copyright 2000 -
>> >title escapes me now, it had "Symmetry" in the title - with a chapter
>> >discussing ways that the standard model was expected to change e.g.
>> >through the detection of supersymmetric partners etc.
>>
>> Dennis: If you include every possible theory that people want to invoke to
>> change the standard model, like super symmetry, as part of the standard
>model,
>> then I'm not sure how one could falsify it.
>
Clarke: >Lots of ways. But the muon experiment results do "not surprise
theorists".
Dennis: Super symmetry is not part of the standard model-despite your
implications.
And given confirmation of these experimental results, the Standard Model is no
longer sufficient.
>> Some want to change the standard model to incorporate an ether theory. Is
>that
>> part of the standard model too?
>
Clarke: >Can you provide a citation? I haven't come across that proposal.
Dennis: Look at Ilja's work.
>> You obviously can't refute an amorphous collection of theories that
>include
>> all theoretical variations.
>
>Not all. Just those consistence with electroweak theory, and
>chromodyamic gauge theories.
>
>> Clarke: The muon moment
>> >measurements are not a crisis for standard physics as you would have
>> >us believe.
>>
>> Dennis: Or Kirk at Brookhaven?
>
Clarke: >Not Lee Roberts at BU or Gerald Gabrielse at Harvard. and
>I strongly suspect Kirk at Brookhaven might be a little miffed
>at the lack of context of that snippet of a quote:
>"insufficient to describe our universe,"
Dennis: Do you think he said it is sufficient afterward?
>> Clarke: : >Can you point me to these accurate gas equations that work over
>36
>> >orders of magnitude?
>>
>> Dennis: QGP --> no size range
>
Clarke: >You are not being very consistent. Invoking standard model to argue
against
>standard model.
Dennis: ?? No. Subatomic constituents and QGP is perfectly consistent with
ether theory. Also , if you want to me include a small size range for accurate
gas equations, I have to include atomic and subatomic constituents.
Clarke: And can you point me to a location where these equations
>are writtein down in four lines?
Dennis: Check QGP under an internet search.
>> [jumpt to question]
>> >> ... THEN TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU
>> >WOULD
>> >> CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF THE MOLECULAR THEORY OF GASES (OR ATOMIC THEORY).
>> >> And do not include Brownian motion or anything post 1905--because NOW
>you
>> >> seem to be implying that you would have accepted atomic (molecular)
>theory
>> >> before Brownian motion
>>
>> Clarke: >Well if you exclude the data that are conclusive to the majority
>of
>> >scientists you
>> >are asking me to extrapolate to what I would have thought had I been alive
>in
>> >1904.
>> >I'm not sure I can project that.
>>
>> Dennis: Well, anti-etherists always seem to have a very well-developed
>sense of
>> evedentiary criteria for hypothetical material media--and are willing to
>> discount publicly various phenomena as evidence of a material medium (when
>the
>> hypothetical medium is the ether.)
>
Clarke: >Ether is an old disproved idea as far as mainstream science is
concerned.
>Naturally I am suspicious of it.
Dennis: Well, I'm glad you admit your suspicion is due to the fact that it is
outside mainstream science. But the point is that, here, you have acted like
you have very well-developed sense of evedentiary criteria for hypothetical
material media--and are willing to discount publicly various phenomena as
evidence of a material medium.
For example, you seem to be very clear that media effects like Doppler
effect, Sagnac effect, interference effects, waves, forces like wind, pressure,
etc. are not alone evidence of a medium at all. So what is? And please don't
just write "etc." if some of the other phenomena you have not listed are
*required* in the package in order for anything to be considered evidence of a
medium.
D: >> Yet for some strange reason when they are asked to apply this same
>criteria to
>> other hypothetical media, they have difficulty. Why?
>> Do you have a well developed sense of what is and is not evidence of a
>medium
>> or don't you?
Clarke:
>I guess I don't by your criteria.
Dennis: Then how can you be sure that media effects like Doppler effect, Sagnac
effect, interference effects, waves, etc are not evidence of a medium?
>> Clarke:
>> Brownian motion was known before 1905 -
>> >just look
>> >through a microscope - but in 1905 Einstein saw the clear connection
>between
>> >atomic
>> >theory and Brownian motion. Maybe I would have been as smart as Einstein
>and
>> >have seen the connection (but I don't think I am that clever, honestly) if
>> >you allow
>> >evidence of looking through a microscope.
>>
>> >Wilson's cloud chamber and Rutherford's experiments came after 1905.
>> >Kinetic/statistical mechanics was a pretty good theoretical argument for
>the
>> >existence of atoms and that goes back to Maxwell and Waterston.
>>
>> Dennis; No, many physicists were still rejecting these arguments in the
>early
>> 1900's. It's why Boltzmann committed suicide allegedly (that and his bad
>> health.)
>> After all, why posit a medium when you don't have to?
>
Clarke: >Eventually you have to. When you reach the "have to" point then
>that is the point of evidence for the medium or whatever
>existent is being considered.
Dennis: And yet you still have not listed everything that is required in order
to reach that "have to" point.
BTW, the scientists who were arguing for the existence of a particulate
material atmosphere in the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's were in your opinion
"jumping the gun," --as they were imagining a particulate medium when no such
evidence existed whatsoever.
>> [snip]
>
>> >> >> Clarke: >You have this very narrow view of materialism.
>>
>> >> >> Dennis: No, I have the classical view of Democritean materialism that
>> >was
>> >> >> shared by Huygens, Newton, Maxwell, Herapath, Waterston, Bjerknes,
>etc.
>>
>> >> Clarke: >Well they were wrong as well. I thought you didn't like
>> >kow-towing to
>> >> >authority.
>>
>> >> Dennis: We are talking about whether my definition is wrong (i.e., too
>> >narrow.)
>> >> It's not. It's the classical definition--and I reference this fact by
>> >pointing
>> >> to the people who defined the philosophy.
>>
>> Clarke: >So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be
>revised?
>>
>> Dennis; Of course it can. But my definition of the philosophy is correct.
>
Clarke: >And it is old fashioned and outmoded. Get with the times!
Dennis: Your opinion that it is "old_fashioned" has nothing to do with the fact
that I am using a correct definition.
>> Clarke: >You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your
>ideas
>> >are definitely outdated.
>>
>> Dennis: No. Standard model is now outdated. Ether theory is still alive.
>
>See above. You are wrong.
Dennis: I saw above. Apparently you are one of the few left who thinks
Standard Model is just fine. Perhaps, you should "get with the times." ;-)
Dennis McCarthy
Tom Clarke
>>> Clarke: >Can you site a gas law as simple and elegant as Maxwell's
>>equations
>>> that
>>> >holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)?
>
>>> Dennis: Sure. Media theory (gas laws, hydrodynamics) are used to describe
>>quark
>>> gluon plasma--and there is no upper limit to the size range that it will
>>> describe (including the interstellar medium).
>Clarke: >Uh er, ah. Quarks? Gluons? When cometh these.
>>Are they not products of the standard model that you claim has
>>been recently refuted?
>Dennis: 1) You asked for me to "cite a gas law as simple and elegant as
>Maxwell's
>equations that holds over a range of 10^36:1 (galaxy scale to nuclear scale)"
>
>I did that.
I don't think so. Can you steer me to a citation of gas laws that covers
all the phenomena in over such a broad range - condensation, ionization
and the like in only a few lines of equations?
> 2) Ether theory, of course, predicts sub atomic constituents. SM is not
>wrong about everything.
Glad to here you think the SM is at least partially valid.
>Clarke:
>>Further the description of plasmas over such a wide range of sizes
>>is not subject to a single equation or set of equations comparable
>>in simplicity and elegance to Maxwell's.
>Dennis: Yes they are subject to the same equations, either inelastic of
>elastic.
Where do I find these equations that are simple and elegant?
>>> >> Dennis: Well, the problem is you don't realize SM has recently broken
>>> >down--and
>>> >> that there are accurate gas equations.
>>> Clarke: >You are just making this up.
>>> From: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/science/09PHYS.html
[snip quotes from New York Times article]
>Clarke: >I was more responding to "there are accurate gas equations",
>Dennis::? You think I"m "making up" the fact that there are accurate gas
>equations?
Until I see them, I have doubts.
I do not doubt that some theory can be constructed to model gaseous
phenomena. But I do doubt that the equations of the theory would be
as simple as Maxwell's.
>Clarke: but with regard
>>to the recent muon experiments the NYT articles goes on to say:
[snip further quotes from article]
>>
>Clarke: >Hardly the crisis in physics that you seem to imply.
>Dennis: Well, I didn't use the word "crisis"--as quibblers will quibble about
>the meaning of that word. But I can hardly see how your quote that
>"theorists
>believe it [standard model] has logical and aesthetic flaws and that its
>complicated structure is unlikely to represent natural law at its most
>fundamental level" supports your strange position that everything is
>perfectly
>fine with SM.
Its a work in progress as is physics in general.
So say it breaks down if you like.
The fact remains that ether theory is broken in a far worse
fashion.
>>> Perhaps, Kirk is making this up as well.
>Clarke: >You are merely quoting out of context.
>Dennis: No. Kirk wrote that if the findings are confirmed (an they have a 99%
>likelihood) then the standard model is "insufficient to describe our
>universe,"
>That's what I mean by "broken down."
What I mean by ether theory is broken is that it has no observable consequences.
The ether is postulated purely to satisfy some desire for common sense
model of fundamental physics.
[...]
>>> Dennis: If you include every possible theory that people want to invoke to
>>> change the standard model, like super symmetry, as part of the standard
>>model,
>>> then I'm not sure how one could falsify it.
>Clarke: >Lots of ways. But the muon experiment results do "not surprise
>theorists".
>Dennis: Super symmetry is not part of the standard model-despite your
>implications.
>And given confirmation of these experimental results, the Standard Model is
>no
>longer sufficient.
Whatever. SUSY-Standard Model is part of mainstream physics.
It may not be Standard Model, but it is part of non-etherist physics.
>>> Some want to change the standard model to incorporate an ether theory. Is
>>that
>>> part of the standard model too?
>Clarke: >Can you provide a citation? I haven't come across that proposal.
>Dennis: Look at Ilja's work.
From thumbing through his paper, it does look like he's moving in
that direction.
[...]
>>> Clarke: The muon moment
>>> >measurements are not a crisis for standard physics as you would have
>>> >us believe.
>>> Dennis: Or Kirk at Brookhaven?
>Clarke: >Not Lee Roberts at BU or Gerald Gabrielse at Harvard. and
>>I strongly suspect Kirk at Brookhaven might be a little miffed
>>at the lack of context of that snippet of a quote:
>>"insufficient to describe our universe,"
>Dennis: Do you think he said it is sufficient afterward?
I'm sure he said a lot more than 5 words.
I bet he didn't say "I'm now adopting ether theory".
Probably more like "there are many ideas for theoretical
approaches to explaining these data".
>>> Clarke: : >Can you point me to these accurate gas equations that work over
>>36
>>> >orders of magnitude?
>>> Dennis: QGP --> no size range
>Clarke: >You are not being very consistent. Invoking standard model to argue
>against
>>standard model.
>Dennis: ?? No. Subatomic constituents and QGP is perfectly consistent with
>ether theory. Also , if you want to me include a small size range for
>accurate
>gas equations, I have to include atomic and subatomic constituents.
I don't accept you theory, so you can't cite those size ranges
as valid applications of gas theory in an argument with me.
For me to accept those limits, I would have to accept your theory.
>Clarke: And can you point me to a location where these equations
>>are writtein down in four lines?
>Dennis: Check QGP under an internet search.
I'm not going to do the work for you.
>>> [jump to question]
>>> >> ... THEN TELL ME RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU
>>> >WOULD
>>> >> CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF THE MOLECULAR THEORY OF GASES (OR ATOMIC THEORY).
[snip for brevity]
>Clarke: >Ether is an old disproved idea as far as mainstream science is
>concerned.
>>Naturally I am suspicious of it.
>Dennis: Well, I'm glad you admit your suspicion is due to the fact that it is
>outside mainstream science. But the point is that, here, you have acted like
>you have very well-developed sense of evedentiary criteria for hypothetical
>material media--and are willing to discount publicly various phenomena as
>evidence of a material medium.
Tell me what the evidence is and I will judge it. I will not prejudge.
> For example, you seem to be very clear that media effects like Doppler
>effect, Sagnac effect, interference effects, waves, forces like wind,
>pressure,
>etc. are not alone evidence of a medium at all.
Doppler/Sagnac/interference are wave effects, requiring no media.
There are no forces like wind or pressure for ether.
I said buoyancy and pressure would have proved to me that air existed
as some sort of material substance back in 1600ish had I been alive
then.
>So what is? And please don't
>just write "etc." if some of the other phenomena you have not listed are
>*required* in the package in order for anything to be considered evidence of
>a medium.
I cannot do that. I am sorry. I take data and physical situations on a case
by case basis. I do not abdicate my reason to a set of fixed rules.
>D:
>>> Do you have a well developed sense of what is and is not evidence of a
>>medium
>>> or don't you?
>Clarke:
>>I guess I don't by your criteria.
>Dennis: Then how can you be sure that media effects like Doppler effect,
>Sagnac
>effect, interference effects, waves, etc are not evidence of a medium?
I can't. I believe somewhere in these threads I have written that I
hold a basically skeptical position and am not absolutely sure of
anything.
But I can see that a media is not required to explain those data
and that an EM field governed by Maxwell's equations or some
equivalent mathematics is a pretty simple primitive.
[snip eventually I wrote about accepting a theory]
>Clarke: >Eventually you have to. When you reach the "have to" point then
>>that is the point of evidence for the medium or whatever
>>existent is being considered.
>Dennis: And yet you still have not listed everything that is required in
>order
>to reach that "have to" point.
I can't give you a list.
> BTW, the scientists who were arguing for the existence of a particulate
>material atmosphere in the 1600's, 1700's, and 1800's were in your opinion
>"jumping the gun," --as they were imagining a particulate medium when no such
>evidence existed whatsoever.
Yes they were jumping the gun. They were eventually proved right, but they
were ahead of their time.
And please don't confuse material air with material particulate air - if you
are talking about air above.
If you are talking about ether then those scientists are still most likely
wrong.
>>> [snip]
>>> Clarke: >So philosophy can never be wrong? Philosophy can never be
>>revised?
>>> Dennis; Of course it can. But my definition of the philosophy is correct.
>Clarke: >And it is old fashioned and outmoded. Get with the times!
>Dennis: Your opinion that it is "old_fashioned" has nothing to do with the
>fact that I am using a correct definition.
>>> Clarke: >You are applying ancient definitions to modern science. Your
>>ideas are definitely outdated.
>>> Dennis: No. Standard model is now outdated. Ether theory is still alive.
>>See above. You are wrong.
>Dennis: I saw above. Apparently you are one of the few left who thinks
>Standard Model is just fine. Perhaps, you should "get with the times." ;-)
SUSY-Standard Model seems to be just fine.
Tom Clarke