Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Paul Stowe on 3 Mar 2010 22:18
On Mar 2, 8:14 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>
> > > Newton was 'smart enough' to realize that this gravitational force
> > > equation was simply a quantifying correlation and not a physical model
> > > or explanation for gravity. The famous quote "hypothesis non-fingo"
> > > said it all! You don't seem to grasp the fact that both GR and
> > > Newton's equations provide no physical model or basis for their
> > > existence. In the case of Newton his equation is mute on many aspects
> > > of gravity like its speed of propagation as one example, so-called
> > > frame dragging for another. Einstein was also smart enough to realise
> > > that GR also needed so physical framework. But what I call the modern
> > > science blindness does not realize that equations ARE NOT! physical
> > > explanations they are, instead, the way such physical model are
> > > quantified. Yes, you can correlate observed behavior to equations and
> > > have those equations match observation. You can even further predict
> > > that future observation must match the form but still be totally
> > > ignorant of proper physical basis, tolemy's system is a classic
> > > example of this. I would put Minkowski equation in the Ptolemic
> > > category, not wrong, but not useful to understanding the underlying
> > > physical process either. It is neat mathematical format which takes
> > > advantage of a physical property but without any knowledge or basis of
> > > what brings about that property.
>
> > > _____________________________
> > > Like the E and M fields in Maxwell, or the force of gravity in Newton?
>
> > There exist physical models for both.
>
> > _________________________
> > OK, explain to me the physical model of the electric field in Maxwell.
>
> > Maxwell simply quantified Faraday;s model. You sure do seem ignorant of the
> > history of science...
> > ______________________________
> > I never claimed otherwise, so I am wondering why you think I am ignorant
> > of the history of science.
>
> Because you seem clueless to even the existence of Maxwell's WELL
> KNOWN physical model for E and M 'fields'.  See,
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf
>
> _________________________
> That doesn't provide a physical model for the E field. Why don't you just
> tell us what Maxwell's physical model for the E field was, if you think he
> had one? Or what Newton's physical mechanism for gravity was? Or Darwin's
> physical model for inheritability? Or, even better, Maxwell's physical mode
> for the E field, like I asked? Haven't actually got one? Didn't think so.
> Maybe you should read Maxwell's paper again, see if you can find where he
> explains the physical model for the E field. (ROFL).

Maxwell's model was one of quantized vortices. The circulation
(vorticity) is the magnetic and these interacting circulation, the
electric. This was what lead him to the 'displacement current'. You
could not have possibly read Maxwell's paper throughly in the time
between posting...

Read what I said above about Newton, he WAS smart enough to realize
that the equation was not, and more importantly, could not be, a
physical model or explanation for gravity. However there does exist
such a physical model which, from it Newton equation is derived as the
weak slow speed limit and its not GR although Newton's equation is
also the weak slow speed limit for it. But, I doubt you're even aware
of its existence.

> > Can you actually point to anything that I have said
> > regarding the history of science which is wrong, or is this simply wishful
> > thinking on your part?
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich
>
> Whittaker's book both volumes is probably the very best historical
> account of the developmental history of science from 1600 to 1930.
>
> _________________________
> I repeat my question, which you ignored. "Can you actually point to anything
> that I have said regarding the history of science which is wrong, or is this
> simply wishful thinking on your part?"

You claim that there exists no physical models for gravity for one. E
& M for another.

Paul Stowe
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 22:35

"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:343d01e1-98ec-4962-bade-eab3d250e48f(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 3, 8:29 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 6:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I understand it and think it is correct.
>>
>> > My position is that far more people would understand it if it was
>> > explained differently.
>>
>> It is generally accepted by most legitimate posters on these
>> newsgroups that Einstein's original two-postulates axiomatic
>> approach to the development of relativity is somewhat archaic and
>> difficult to follow, to judge by the numerous crackpots who
>> stumble at the very first steps in his derivation.
>
> Oh, and the crackpots catch right on to the newer methods? ;)
>
>> You prefer Bondi's presentation of Milne's derivation, which
>> goes "backwards" starting with the Doppler effect. I also like
>> Bondi's approach which is quite intuitive, but after rederiving
>> all of Einstein's famous results, the reader is left somewhat
>> dangling. How does one proceed from there? Bondi's approach is
>> still, at its core, a classic geometric development of the
>> subject.
>
> Actually I do not prefer Bondi. I suggested him for Ste only to give
> him a different perspective, and to steer him away from Taylor and
> Wheeler.
>
>> By analogy: One does not design a skyscraper using Euclid's
>> Elements, and one does not get to General Relativity through
>> either Einstein's original or Milne's "inverted" axiomatic
>> development of relativity. It's just too cumbersome a way to
>> get there.
>
> Since you like analogies, for a starting pool player it is better to
> go for the easy shot and make it than to try for a more difficult shot
> with a better leave and miss. Few of the posters here will go on to
> GR. I think the way Einstein presented SR in "Relativity" is probably
> the easiest way to understand, with a few clarifications added. It
> was the easiest way that he could see it. The new methods become
> clear with hindsight, but the new student doesn't have hindsight.
>
>> Proceeding forward means presenting Minkowski spacetime. The
>> Minkowski spacetime approach to relativity in essence replaces
>> the two postulates with a single assertion: "The geometry of the
>> universe is accurately described (in low gravity fields) by a
>> four dimensional manifold with properties as follows..."
>
> It still keeps the speed of light a universal constant c.
>
>> Taylor and Wheeler, which I like and you hate, start with this
>> single "postulate" and spend the rest of the book familiarizing
>> the reader with the implications of this visualization of the
>> universe. If the reader is diligent, by the time they finish the
>> book, Minkowski spacetime will have gone beyond mere mathematical
>> manipulation, but will have become a coherent, consistent, and
>> best of all, highly intuitive mental construct by which the
>> reader apprehends relativity.
>>
>> Your main objection seems to be that Taylor and Wheeler don't
>> bother trying to justify relativity. T&W just want the reader
>> to accept that the battle has been won. Relativity works, so
>> the reader should just get on with learning the most efficient
>> way to work with it, et cetera.
>>
>> You obviously don't like that attitude.
>>
>> Jerry
>
> No, I don't. That's just learning how to crunch numbers.

I don't really see the point of arguing about it .. its just a matter of
taste and horses-for-courses. Some approaches work better for some, and
other approaches for others. With one approach you may quickly get that
'lightbulb moment' where it all makes sense, and in another that may not
happen at all. For someone else it may be the other way around. As long as
all roads are still leading to Rome, find the one that makes the journey
easiest for you.


From: BURT on 3 Mar 2010 22:44
On Mar 3, 7:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:343d01e1-98ec-4962-bade-eab3d250e48f(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 8:29 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 3, 6:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I understand it and think it is correct.
>
> >> > My position is that far more people would understand it if it was
> >> > explained differently.
>
> >> It is generally accepted by most legitimate posters on these
> >> newsgroups that Einstein's original two-postulates axiomatic
> >> approach to the development of relativity is somewhat archaic and
> >> difficult to follow, to judge by the numerous crackpots who
> >> stumble at the very first steps in his derivation.
>
> > Oh, and the crackpots catch right on to the newer methods? ;)
>
> >> You prefer Bondi's presentation of Milne's derivation, which
> >> goes "backwards" starting with the Doppler effect. I also like
> >> Bondi's approach which is quite intuitive, but after rederiving
> >> all of Einstein's famous results, the reader is left somewhat
> >> dangling. How does one proceed from there? Bondi's approach is
> >> still, at its core, a classic geometric development of the
> >> subject.
>
> > Actually I do not prefer Bondi.  I suggested him for Ste only to give
> > him a different perspective, and to steer him away from Taylor and
> > Wheeler.
>
> >> By analogy: One does not design a skyscraper using Euclid's
> >> Elements, and one does not get to General Relativity through
> >> either Einstein's original or Milne's "inverted" axiomatic
> >> development of relativity. It's just too cumbersome a way to
> >> get there.
>
> > Since you like analogies, for a starting pool player it is better to
> > go for the easy shot and make it than to try for a more difficult shot
> > with a better leave and miss.  Few of the posters here will go on to
> > GR.  I think the way Einstein presented SR in "Relativity" is probably
> > the easiest way to understand, with a few clarifications added.  It
> > was the easiest way that he could see it.  The new methods become
> > clear with hindsight, but the new student doesn't have hindsight.
>
> >> Proceeding forward means presenting Minkowski spacetime. The
> >> Minkowski spacetime approach to relativity in essence replaces
> >> the two postulates with a single assertion: "The geometry of the
> >> universe is accurately described (in low gravity fields) by a
> >> four dimensional manifold with properties as follows..."
>
> > It still keeps the speed of light a universal constant c.
>
> >> Taylor and Wheeler, which I like and you hate, start with this
> >> single "postulate" and spend the rest of the book familiarizing
> >> the reader with the implications of this visualization of the
> >> universe. If the reader is diligent, by the time they finish the
> >> book, Minkowski spacetime will have gone beyond mere mathematical
> >> manipulation, but will have become a coherent, consistent, and
> >> best of all, highly intuitive mental construct by which the
> >> reader apprehends relativity.
>
> >> Your main objection seems to be that Taylor and Wheeler don't
> >> bother trying to justify relativity. T&W just want the reader
> >> to accept that the battle has been won. Relativity works, so
> >> the reader should just get on with learning the most efficient
> >> way to work with it, et cetera.
>
> >> You obviously don't like that attitude.
>
> >> Jerry
>
> > No, I don't.  That's just learning how to crunch numbers.
>
> I don't really see the point of arguing about it .. its just a matter of
> taste and horses-for-courses.  Some approaches work better for some, and
> other approaches for others.  With one approach you may quickly get that
> 'lightbulb moment' where it all makes sense, and in another that may not
> happen at all.  For someone else it may be the other way around.  As long as
> all roads are still leading to Rome, find the one that makes the journey
> easiest for you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If all roads are leading to Rome then all roads exit Rome.

Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 3 Mar 2010 22:54

"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aaecfd5-934f-4218-9d21-4f51996fd5c8(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 2, 8:14 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>
> > > Newton was 'smart enough' to realize that this gravitational force
> > > equation was simply a quantifying correlation and not a physical model
> > > or explanation for gravity. The famous quote "hypothesis non-fingo"
> > > said it all! You don't seem to grasp the fact that both GR and
> > > Newton's equations provide no physical model or basis for their
> > > existence. In the case of Newton his equation is mute on many aspects
> > > of gravity like its speed of propagation as one example, so-called
> > > frame dragging for another. Einstein was also smart enough to realise
> > > that GR also needed so physical framework. But what I call the modern
> > > science blindness does not realize that equations ARE NOT! physical
> > > explanations they are, instead, the way such physical model are
> > > quantified. Yes, you can correlate observed behavior to equations and
> > > have those equations match observation. You can even further predict
> > > that future observation must match the form but still be totally
> > > ignorant of proper physical basis, tolemy's system is a classic
> > > example of this. I would put Minkowski equation in the Ptolemic
> > > category, not wrong, but not useful to understanding the underlying
> > > physical process either. It is neat mathematical format which takes
> > > advantage of a physical property but without any knowledge or basis of
> > > what brings about that property.
>
> > > _____________________________
> > > Like the E and M fields in Maxwell, or the force of gravity in Newton?
>
> > There exist physical models for both.
>
> > _________________________
> > OK, explain to me the physical model of the electric field in Maxwell.
>
> > Maxwell simply quantified Faraday;s model. You sure do seem ignorant of
> > the
> > history of science...
> > ______________________________
> > I never claimed otherwise, so I am wondering why you think I am ignorant
> > of the history of science.
>
> Because you seem clueless to even the existence of Maxwell's WELL
> KNOWN physical model for E and M 'fields'. See,
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf
>
> _________________________
> That doesn't provide a physical model for the E field. Why don't you just
> tell us what Maxwell's physical model for the E field was, if you think he
> had one? Or what Newton's physical mechanism for gravity was? Or Darwin's
> physical model for inheritability? Or, even better, Maxwell's physical
> mode
> for the E field, like I asked? Haven't actually got one? Didn't think so.
> Maybe you should read Maxwell's paper again, see if you can find where he
> explains the physical model for the E field. (ROFL).

Maxwell's model was one of quantized vortices. The circulation
(vorticity) is the magnetic and these interacting circulation, the
electric. This was what lead him to the 'displacement current'. You
could not have possibly read Maxwell's paper throughly in the time
between posting...

Read what I said above about Newton, he WAS smart enough to realize
that the equation was not, and more importantly, could not be, a
physical model or explanation for gravity. However there does exist
such a physical model which, from it Newton equation is derived as the
weak slow speed limit and its not GR although Newton's equation is
also the weak slow speed limit for it. But, I doubt you're even aware
of its existence.

> > Can you actually point to anything that I have said
> > regarding the history of science which is wrong, or is this simply
> > wishful
> > thinking on your part?
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich
>
> Whittaker's book both volumes is probably the very best historical
> account of the developmental history of science from 1600 to 1930.
>
> _________________________
> I repeat my question, which you ignored. "Can you actually point to
> anything
> that I have said regarding the history of science which is wrong, or is
> this
> simply wishful thinking on your part?"

You claim that there exists no physical models for gravity for one.

__________________________
No, I said that Newton did not have one. And in fact he didn't.


E
& M for another.

____________________________
Maxwell did not supply a physical model for what an electric field really
is. He characterised it purely in terms of its properties, not by a physical
explanation of how charges attract and repel at distance. If you think he
did, you should post it. I note that GR provides a physical explanantion of
gravity, and QM provides a physical explanation (to some extent) of electric
fields. Of course, neither Newton or Maxwell were aware of these, and
neither had any physical explanation of why massive objects are attracted by
gravity at distance, or why electric charges can attract or repel at a
distance.

From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Mar 2010 23:59
On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > remember that?
>
> > I beg to differ.  It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO.  RoS only took it
> > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > frame.  If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> either observer.

Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
*know* that the speed is the same both ways. That is why Einstein
wrote, "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far
defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a
common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all
unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light
to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B
to A."

> Since the distance from the events to the observer is
> equal, as verifiable at any time by each observer, we learn from this
> that each observer KNOWS the propagation delays from each event to the
> observer are equal. This acknowledges the propagation delays
> completely, but simply allows for verification that they are the same.

Assuming the speed of light is the same in both directions.

> Then the determination of simultaneity or nonsimultaneity of the
> original events is completely unambiguous: If the observer receives
> both signals at the same time, then (because the propagation delays
> are the same) the original events were simultaneous; if the observer
> receives both signals at different times, then (because the
> propagation delays are the same) the original events were
> nonsimultaneous.
>
> Then the frame-dependence of simultaneity follows directly from the
> experimental *observation* that for the same pair of events, one
> observer correctly and unambiguously concludes the events were
> simultaneous, and the other observer correctly and unambiguously
> concludes the events were nonsimultaneous.
>
> You've mentioned in the past that you found your disbelief in
> relativity stems from being unable to find a good, understandable
> explanation of it. I invite you to read back on this thread where I
> was trying to explain to Ste (who has a similar complaint) how this
> comes about.

No need. Lorentz showed how all frames could measure the speed of
light to be c. That in effect confirms the second postulate, which is
the stumbling block for many.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights