There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Two times happening together
Next: NOW ????????????
From: NoEinstein on 30 Mar 2010 09:56 On Mar 29, 9:56 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Paul: Maxwell is a 'nice' name to... drop. But he was too naive to realizewhen he proposed to A. A. Michelson that Michelson use his new interferometer to detect the drag of the ether on lightthat if ether ever could 'drag' light, that the light from the Sun and from the stars would never get here, and we would all be dead! Maxwell, wasn't a very deep thinker, now, was he. NoEinstein > > On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical > > > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote "Hypothesis Non- > > > > > Fingo"! It's plain stupid to think otherwise. > > > > > Newton explicity said that the mathematical model is enough. From the > > > > Motte/Cajori translation: > > > > > "In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the > > > > phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was > > > > that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of > > > > bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And > > > > to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to > > > > the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for > > > > all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea." > > > > Hi Timo, its been a long time... > > > > As to your comment above, yes, please note 'this philosophy' which can > > > be also interpreted as in 'this case'. And sure, it's enough to get > > > by with for the time being. If that is, in fact, the goal then all of > > > science might as well be a religion with fundamental 'beliefs' forming > > > its foundation. > > > Note that this extract from the Scholium comes immediately after the > > extract I quoted below; "this philosophy" is "experimental philosophy". > > More below. > > > > > More than that, Newton explcitly stated that stories spun about the > > > > "physical" causes - tales of mechanism in the Cartesian style - have no > > > > place in physics: > > > > > But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those > > > > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for > > > > whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an > > > > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of > > > > occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental > > > > philosophy. > > You know, if... scientist of today were more rigorous and disciplined > with the use of term hypothesis verses theory then I would be more > inclined to accept the argument. > > > > > > > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context > > > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus > > > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert's claim that one cannot, > > > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to > > > frame it. Faraday's experiments are a great example of this. But, > > > that is not what I'm talking about here. > > > Newton's "experimental philosophy" means "physics". IIRC, this was his > > first major published use of the term, and it looks like part of his > > program to establish "experimental philosophy" as a synonym for "natural > > philosophy", thereby excluding Cartesianist science from being science. > > > This is discussed in Alan E. Shapiro, Newton's "experimental philosophy", > > Early Science and Medicine 9(3), 185-217 (2004) (and the text of a talk > > which appears to be the ancestor of this paper is readily found by > > googling the title). Shapiro quotes Newton: > > > "Experimental Philosophy reduces Phaenomena to general Rules & looks > > upon the Rules to be general when they hold generally in Phaenomena.... > > Hypothetical Philosophy consists in imaginary explications of things & > > imaginary arguments for or against such explications, or against the > > arguments of Experimental Philosophers founded upon Induction. The first > > sort of Philosophy is followed by me, the latter too much by Cartes, > > Leibnitz & some others." > > > (From Newton to Cotes, 28 March 1713, Newton, The Correspondence of Isaac > > Newton, ed., H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scott, A. Rupert Hall, and Laura > > Tilling, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1959-77), 5: 398-399.) > > > The modern usage of "experiment", in a strict and restricted philosophical > > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or > > less, we had "experiment" = "experience", including pure observation, > > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In > > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an > > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. "Experiment" is > > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer > > to that of Newton's time. > > Many true 'discoveries' involved observations or elements of > experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And, > more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of > itself invalidates Robert's stance. > > > > > > > The idea of data divorced from theory (not at all the same as free from > > speculation) is very Baconian. See Salomon's House in Bacon's "New > > Atlantis" Not the idea of a research institute, but the details of the > > methodology - an attempt at describing theory-free observation and > > application of such data (it isn't theory free). > > > But, back to the main point: > > > > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says > > > > that Cartesian-style "explanations" of causes are not physics. Was Newton > > > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise. > > > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if > > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think > > > reversed 'engineering' not fundamental understanding is sufficient. > > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for > > > science. > > > "Enough" for further progress to be made. > > Indeed! > > > If it's the best that can be done (at least for the visible future), > > I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short > if one actually believes it. > > > does one proceed in the Newtonian > > fashion, or discard that approach as "not enough"? > > Proceeds and openly declares that it's not enough, and in the long > run, an unaceptable state. > > > It's clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other > > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the > > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress > > that has resulted from these interpretations. > > That's a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is > changing. > > > Do we understand the "why" of quantum mechanics, what it "really means"? > > No. In this sense, it isn't complete. It's obviously enough to provide a > > basis for a great deal of further progress, both in quantum mechanics > > itself, and other fields making use of it. It's enough for practical > > engineering. That you - and others - want more does not make it "not > > enough". > > I guess that depends upon one's perspective... > > > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a > > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work > > with "enough", and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens. > > There's a nice discussion in the English translation of his book. > > > -- > > Timo > > Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then, > what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the > bathwater and claims the baby never existed... > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 30 Mar 2010 18:00 just say, Duh!... so, Why, is the absorption of the energy of a quantum of wave-energy, to be considered to be the manifestation of a particle?... see, even though it "is not a classical wave," it is still a wave, as completely proven by Young, without any recourse (I guess) to Newton's alleged "theory." > The portion of the photon wave which is absorbed or 'collapses' > occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single > path. This is what is considered the 'particle'. --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 18:02 On Mar 30, 5:56 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > now, just as mpc# refuses to step-away > from de Broglie's little "dual" picture of a "photon" > -- they were all puzzling over the photo-electrical *effect* > in the instrumentation -- that of a sphere-particle, punctured > by a linear wavicle-arrow ... you beieve in a "vacuum," > that is now named as an aether, yet somehow need > to resuscitate Newton's old, Young-deflated corpuscular "photon." > > there is no Einstein, > there is no photon, there is no vacuum, > there is no Fossilized Fuel (tm), and > there is no such thing as "the separation of church and state" > in the Constitution! > I don't know why you insist the photon 'particle' exists as a self contained entity. That is not what is being said. My preferred concept of a photon is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a quantum of matter. As I have said repeatedly, this is my preferred image of a photon: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: mpc755 on 30 Mar 2010 18:06 On Mar 30, 6:00 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > just say, Duh!... so, Why, > is the absorption of the energy of a quantum of wave-energy, > to be considered to be the manifestation of a particle?... see, > even though it "is not a classical wave," it is still a wave, > as completely proven by Young, without any recourse > (I guess) to Newton's alleged "theory." > > > The portion of the photon wave which is absorbed or 'collapses' > > occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single > > path. This is what is considered the 'particle'. > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com I don't know why you insist the photon 'particle' exists as a self contained entity. That is not what is being said. My preferred concept of a photon is as a directed/pointed wave which collapses and is detected as a quantum of matter. As I have said repeatedly, this is my preferred image of a photon: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). While the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. When there are detectors at the exits to the slits the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. If the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. Explain how this is possible without aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: spudnik on 30 Mar 2010 18:18
I'm sure that de Broglie had used that very same arrow- pierced apple picture, in his lectures -- it surely is old enough. so, step away from the God-am keyboard & think about it: there are NO photons & there is NO vacuum. > I don't know why you insist the photon 'particle' exists as a self > contained entity. That is not what is being said. --Light: A History! http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm |