 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Expelled: If you don't believe in holy physics dogma ; you're fired!
I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those promoting the dogma of establishment science. This is a subject near and dear to my heart upon which I have been known to post here repeatedly, but it always bears bringing the subject up one more time. Although this film is on the subject of publishing papers on "intelligent design" and the attacks upon one career that occur if such transgressions against establishment dogma are even suggested let alone advocated, the same actions can be equally seen if one chooses to discuss a whole host of "anti-establishment" topics. I leave it as an exercise for the interested student to make a list of topics upon which any attempt to publish credible research will be a fast track to the unemployment line. The attacks always take the same form. The author is accused of "pseudoscience". The authors find that grants and support dry up. Papers are rejected. Jobs suddenly become unavailable. You get fired. You get denied tenure and not for the normal reasons like being a woman or not willing to grovel before the tenured faculty. Attacks often extend to being accused of mental illness or incompetence. So what is going on? I'll tell you. The problem, dear reader, is YOU! You are simply too smart and too perceptive to be allowed free reign in a world ruled by mass politics. You can too easily see through the myriad political scams designed to keep those who rule, in power and rich! Hence, a way had to be found to control you and keep you in line! And what is that way? It's the "university" system that has been developed along with "peer review" and government and other "controlled" funding of research that makes sure that certain topics and certain ideas are never given free and open discussion. You ALL know this is true. But most of you can't say a thing though because unlike me, you still have a career in science that can be lost. This documentary is especially interesting to me in that it pulls very few punches. It makes the connection between communist doctrine and establishment dogma. It makes the connection, for example between Hitler's death camps for the disabled and other "defectives" and the American "Eugenics" research at Cold Harbor (which by the way, changed its name but still exists) that Hitler was so taken with. It points out the connection between atheism (the state religion of leftist regimes) and Darwinism. And best of all it shows the draconian punishment awaiting any research who steps even a little bit out of line! Yes, Virginia they WILL "make an example of you" if you drift even a little bit into a "forbidden zone"! All of you out there, listen to me. If you are just the least bit interested in REAL science, this documentary is required viewing. It should soon be out on DVD so go steal a copy from a friend or if you must, rent it from Blockbuster. Your first lesson in science boys and girls is that science is NOT the pure exercise of intellect and free inquiry you thought it was. It is about making sure that aspects of knowledge that threaten the power of the elite stay tightly "controlled". There is POLITICS right down at the core of modern science and sorry to say, politics operates best with lies. And it's high time you all learned how this politics works whether you choose to join in the lies or work to eliminate them. Ok. Now all you with the GS rating can start posting the suggestion that I go look for my "tinfoil hat". Of course you haven't viewed this movie and never will, but I'm sure you are nevertheless convinced that it's all "pseudoscience", lies and right wing Christian tripe. [All perpetrated by the well-known right wing Christian evangelist Ben Stein! :-) ] Our profession is in dire need of a good housecleaning! I say this documentary is one good step in the right direction. > I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" > over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those > promoting the dogma of establishment science. This is a subject near > and dear to my heart upon which I have been known to post here > repeatedly, but it always bears bringing the subject up one more > time. [snip 68 lines of crap] 1) Name one empirical failure of physical science. 2) Idiot. (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be denied. Test of faith! What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > 1) Name one empirical failure of physical science. NASA? >> 1) Name one empirical failure of physical science. > > NASA? He said _science_. NASA is a marketing organization. "Tom M" <tmiller@umaryland.edu> wrote in message news:B8SdnYrvefB0IcTVnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@comcast.com >> 1) Name one empirical failure of physical science. > > NASA? >He said _science_. NASA is a marketing organization. Truer words have not been spoken. >"Tom M" <tmiller@umaryland.edu> wrote in message >news:B8SdnYrvefB0IcTVnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@comcast.com [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>He said _science_. NASA is a marketing organization. >Truer words have not been spoken. I did see a press conference on NASA-TV, and a reporter asked what experiments were going to be done in the new huge Japanese 'Kibo' module. And the (Japanese) guy had no answer... The NASA guy said something like: 'We will have to work with the other agencies to find something.' So, it is all up there for .. ehh.... play. > [snip 68 lines of crap] Al, you forgot to mention "tinfoil hat"! > 1) Name one empirical failure of physical science. Physical science is FILLED with "empircal failures"! And the problem is not failure, but refusal to OPENLY DISCUSS those failures! The so- called "theory of evolution" is FILLED with questions, but you high priests do NOT permit any discussion of them. You bear false witness by asserting that the theory is infallible. Clearly this is some kind of religious dogma and NOT a scientific attitude! How many "empirical failures" of physical science have there been? How much time do you have? Heavier than air craft can't fly! You can't build a motor without a commutator. Disease is caused by "bad humours" that must be drained out. The geological "theory of uniformity", sun goes around the earth .... and on and on. But the whole point here is NOT "wrong" theories, but a POLITICAL effort to eliminate any and all open discussion of theories not considered open to questioning by the establishment. Are we talking about SCIENCE here or the "infallibility" of the pope? > 2) Idiot. > > (physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith (Empirical reality) - (free and open discussion of it) = religious dogma Moron. > Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be > denied. Test of faith! What can be asserted without evidence can > also be dismissed without evidence. Dear most ignorant uncle Al. We are NOT talking here about replacing empirical evidence with faith! Come on admit it! Like all "debunkers" you are arguing against the documentary and you haven't even seen it, have you? We are talking about so-called "establishment science" DEMANDING that various conclusions be accepted as "faith" while any discussion of empiricism that creates doubt is systematically suppressed by political means! Remind you of any organizations? Maybe a little taste of the stake will give you a reminder! Oddly enough uncle Al, it is YOU who is arguing FOR faith-based science here and tis I (and Ben Stein) who are arguing for empiricism! Come on Al. I KNOW you are NOT this Stupid! Therefore this can only mean you must have some kind of political agenda! Fess up! You are really just one more closet leftist, right? > > [snip 68 lines of crap] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that must be drained out. The geological "theory of uniformity", sun > goes around the earth .... and on and on. Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list several theories that were formerly orthodox and were abandoned when they were shown to be defective. Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list several theories that were formerly orthodox and were abandoned when they were shown to be defective. Yes. And that is the point. HOW MUCH FARTHER ALONG MIGHT MANKIND BE if these dogmatic "laws" had not been jammed down the throats of the "thinking classes?" It took people of intelligence, personal courage and incredibly high character to FINALLY shake these defective concepts off of the tree of dogma. Bill > Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion > of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and incredibly high character to FINALLY shake these defective > concepts off of the tree of dogma. Hmm, I'm not sure that these things were ever a significant pacing item. As for "how much farther along might mankind be?" Well, if you subscribe to the notion that there would have been rapid technological development, how about...... closer to extinction! Phil H >> Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion >> of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to the notion that there would have been rapid technological development, > how about...... closer to extinction! I'm afraid I do not share your nihilistic viewpoint. Free men, through free enterprise and free expression have accomplished more FOR humanity in the last century than was accomplished by all the dogma-restricted centuries after the Roman Empire collapsed. I'm personally sorry for anyone that looks at the glass of human accomplishment and sees it 20% empty rather than 80% full. Bill > Phil H > I'm personally sorry for anyone that looks at the glass of human > accomplishment and sees it 20% empty rather than 80% full. I feel most sorry for those that do not know it would have to be 20% empty and 80% full simulataneously. :) It can not be one or the other alone. It has to be both. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>> Interesting. In order to support your contention that no discussion >>> of currently-orthodox scientific thories is permitted, you list [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > humanity in the last century than was accomplished by all the > dogma-restricted centuries after the Roman Empire collapsed. That was more to do with many, many series of technological innovations from the industrial revolution rather than your so-called lifting of restrictions. "HOW MUCH FARTHER ALONG MIGHT MANKIND BE?"..........you tell us. > I'm personally sorry for anyone that looks at the glass of human > accomplishment and sees it 20% empty rather than 80% full. Where do you get that? I'm not the one dissatisfied with the rate at which science and technology have progressed. I'm happy with a glass that is 80% full. You on the other hand appear to be disappointed because it isn't 90% full. Phil H In news:sci.physics, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> posted on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:41:44 -0700: > Where do you get that? I'm not the one dissatisfied with the rate at > which science and technology have progressed. I'm happy with a glass > that is 80% full. You on the other hand appear to be disappointed > because it isn't 90% full. Oh, please. Whether the glass of water is 20% empty, 80% full, 90% full...none of that crap matters. All that matters is: do you want any of the water? Yes? Drink it. No? Leave it. Damaeus > It makes the connection, for example between > Hitler's death camps for the disabled and other "defectives" and the > American "Eugenics" research at Cold Harbor (which by the way, changed > its name but still exists) that Hitler was so taken with. Well, that didn't take long. SignatureJim E. Black (domain in headers) How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog: !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads > > It makes the connection, for example between > > Hitler's death camps for the disabled and other "defectives" and the > > American "Eugenics" research at Cold Harbor (which by the way, changed > > its name but still exists) that Hitler was so taken with. > > Well, that didn't take long. Yeah I know... the thread is now officially over! Heh, I was pretty effective in keeping you from mentioning "tinfoil hats", however. Important questions to be answered by the interested student: 1. Did Hitler kill and sterilize "defective" human beings to "improve" the "super-race" he was trying to breed? 2. Was that a scientific and reasonable thing to do? Hint: Think Charles Proteus Steinmetz. 3. Was "eugenics" a real subject studied by real people at real research institutions? 4. Did the Cold Harbor "eugenics institute" exist in Hitler's time and was he enthusiastic about it's work and theories? 5. Does it still exist? Did it recently change it's name? The answers to these questions will determine exactly who is wearing the "tinfoil hat"! In news:sci.physics, Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> posted on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:52:46 -0700 (PDT): > Important questions to be answered by the interested student: > > 1. Did Hitler kill and sterilize "defective" human beings to "improve" > the "super-race" he was trying to breed? That's what he thought he was doing, but he didn't have all the facts, so his actions were errors in the broader picture. Hitler really did believe he was doing the right thing, so he can't be faulted for trying. > 2. Was that a scientific and reasonable thing to do? Hint: Think > Charles Proteus Steinmetz. Based on what he knew, probably so. But the "mysterious" part of DNA scientists can't figure out contains information that turns what currently appears to be a genetic defective into an immortal god. Nobody should have died. Damaeus > The attacks always take the same form. The author is accused of > "pseudoscience". The authors find that grants and support dry up. > Papers are rejected. Jobs suddenly become unavailable. You get fired. > You get denied tenure and not for the normal reasons like being a > woman or not willing to grovel before the tenured faculty. Attacks > often extend to being accused of mental illness or incompetence. I don't know why everyone is surprised,it is not a new development and is a natural part of the empirical defences ,the old commie manifestos were full of this breathless stuff and no wonder Americans intutively hate the pseudo-pomp of empiricists,apart from the last approach to an objector,the following excerpt from the 1930's just about covers it all - "When his allegiance is attacked, the psychopolitical operative should explain his connection with Vienna on the grounds that Vienna is the place of study for all important matters of the mind. More importantly, he should rule into scorn, by reason of his authority, the sanity of the person attacking him, and if the psychopolitical archives of the country are adequate many defamatory data can be unearthed and presented as a rebuttal. Should anyone attempt to expose psychotherapy as a psychopolitical activity, the best defense is calling into question the sanity of the attacker. The next best defense is authority. The next best defense is a validation of psychiatric practices in terms of long and impressive figures. The next best defense is the actual removal of the attacker by giving him, or them, treatment sufficient to bring about a period of insanity for the duration of the trial. This, more than anything else, would discredit them, but it is dangerous to practice this, in the extreme." Chapter X http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics-pt2.html#anchor10 An ideology succeeds so long as it does not admit 'failure' and Uncle Al is more or less affirming the party line even though the core empirical framework which supports conceptual views of the cosmological arena are astrological in content and character. When an ideology moves to a phase of all stick and no carrot then it becomes interesting and so it should.Wile many think that the problem can be restricted to biological evolutionary material,the real problem is with structural and timekeeping astronomy. In news:sci.physics, oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> posted on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:13:33 -0700 (PDT): > I don't know why everyone is surprised,it is not a new development and > is a natural part of the empirical defences ,the old commie manifestos > were full of this breathless stuff and no wonder Americans intutively > hate the pseudo-pomp of empiricists,apart from the last approach to an > objector,the following excerpt from the 1930's just about covers it > all - And this exhibits the same problem. People would rather find something someone else has said that they agree with rather than coming up with something new on their own. Damaeus > > The attacks always take the same form. The author is accused of > > "pseudoscience". The authors find that grants and support dry up. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics-pt2.html#anchor10 Hail Xenu! Yes, L. Ron Hubbard was really bad at writing this sort of propaganda; it's so over-the-top and so focused on demonstrating how evil psychiatrists are that even a complete idiot can tell he wrote it himself. By the way, he didn't write it in the 1930's; I'd have to look up the exact date, but Hubbard's title references "brainwashing," which means it can be no earlier than the Korean War. -- Jim E. Black > I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" > over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Our profession is in dire need of a good housecleaning! I say this > documentary is one good step in the right direction. What's this "our" sh.t, Kimosabe? > > Our profession is in dire need of a good housecleaning! I say this > > documentary is one good step in the right direction. > > What's this "our" sh.t, Kimosabe? What you mean "Kimosabe", white man? I'm the one here with the red man genes! :-) >I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" > over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those > promoting the dogma of establishment science. <snip brilliant exposition> > Ok. Now all you with the GS rating can start posting the suggestion > that I go look for my "tinfoil hat". Of course you haven't viewed this > movie and never will, but I'm sure you are nevertheless convinced that > it's all "pseudoscience", lies and right wing Christian tripe. [All > perpetrated by the well-known right wing Christian evangelist Ben > Stein! :-) ] Benj... You left out the "other" Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian Bible Thumping Evangelist -- Rush Limbaugh. He was born and raised in the Jewish Faith. May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws" <Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.> The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E *causes* H and H *causes* E, F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions. Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum. For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT! Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r --> zero. Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.) I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead. > May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws" > > <Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.> > > The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E *causes* > H and H *causes* E, Common enough as a just-so story in introductory textbooks. A natural interpretation of Faraday's experiments, yes? Hardly near-universal, as it isn't hard to find books (on electromagnetics) where such claims are not made. Historically, it's been clear ever since Lorenz's 1867 paper. Also clear in any modern formulation of electromagnetics as a 4D relativistic field theory (given the Lorenz gauge, what else would one expect?). Would publishing (or attempting to) a paper opposing this interpetation result in attack on one's scientific career? > F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions. Such as? A "law" doesn't need to be universally applicable. For example, consider Snell's law: can you use Snell's law when one of the media cannot be characterised by a refractive index? > Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum. > > For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT! ??? > Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r --> zero. One of the well-know deep problems in classical and quantum electrodynamics. However, as far as we can tell, Coulomb's law _works_. The real problem is the implications of this, such as infinite self-energy, and infinite inertia of point charges. > Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.) Given that statistical mechanics is widely taught to undergrads, making this point, is this really dogma? > I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the > spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead. Do keep in mind that the original post was equating resistance from within "establishment science" to the enforced introduction of teaching of religious dogma in science classrooms with a supposed enforcement of establishment dogma in science. How is defensive anti-dogmatism meant to be the same as enforcement of dogma? Would trying to publish on _any_ of the topics you listed endanger a scientific career? The research-end of science is full of dispute and controversy. Many of the participants in disputes over who is correct are wrong (usually at least somebody must be, and sometimes everybody is wrong). The textbook-end of science is rather ossified, and simplified severely at the introductory level. Witness the usual pattern of teaching classical mechanics as True, to be followed later by teaching special relativity as True ("What we have taught you before is wrong!" - an attitude which can disturb students), when neither is a complete (or we might say, "correct in a strict sense") theory. OTOH, both are very good theories when applied appropriately. Given that you can hardly start out by teaching general relativity (to get the GR -> SR -> classical mechanics progression) or quantum field theory (to get a QFT -> non-relativistic quantum mechanics -> classical mechanics progression), what can one do? Well, the transition from CM -> SR should emphasise just how little change is required in the core of CM, and certainly shouldn't be along the lines of "what we taught you before is wrong". Especially because most of what had been taught before is _not_ wrong. Textbooks are a teaching tool, not expositions on current scientific opinion. That said, they can have lasting influence on students. In particular, scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, and the presentation of textbook content as absolute fact is in opposition to this, encouraging scientism or confusion when scientific dispute is encountered; not good preparation for modern life. Thus the movements to include understanding/history/nature/philosophy of science in science education in the schools. Given that significant, and politically influential, elements of the "establishment" are actively working towards education of the public including the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, where is the dogmatism of the establishment? Inferior teachers who adopt "textbook fundamentalism" to avoid questioning are _not_ members of the scientific establishment. SignatureTimo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html >> May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws" >> [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > Inferior teachers who adopt "textbook fundamentalism" to avoid questioning > are _not_ members of the scientific establishment. Timo... you make a number of fine points and my reply to any of them might be considered as a "quibble." Taken overall, the ossifiaction in textbooks has benn compounded by generations of engineers and scientist -- many at th PhD level -- that did not pay attention to the "tweaks" that you point out in your post. From personal experience, I have been vilified personally by PhD level folks for suggesting that Maxwell's Equations are descriptive rather than causal. BTW a Law, in my NTBHO is always universally applicable. Anything else is a theory or a hypothesis (or occasionally wild-a.s guess!) For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" category. Not anymore. Bill > For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" > category. Not anymore. Sorry to quibble Bill, What law of newtons became not a law anymore? Perpetual motion designers all over the world would like to know so they can "break" all of his laws by simply jumping over one. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" >> category. Not anymore. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so they can "break" all of his laws by simply jumping over one. > :) One of the fundamental laws of mechanics is Newton's law of action and reaction, usually stated as : "Whenever a body exerts a force (action) on a second body, the second body exerts an equal and opposite force (reaction) on the first body." Suppose that a stationary mass is located in the gravitational field of another, distant stationary mass.The two masses exert equal and opposite forces on each other. (Action and reaction) Let us now allow one mass to move under the action of the field of the other mass. ut the second mass, being far away, does not yet "know that the first mass has moved. (gravity -- like light -- cannot propagate instantaneously.) The second body continues to experience the same force as before. In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction and Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this situation also is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation of momentum. For a detailed analysis of this, and other Newtonian flaws, please see Jefimenko's "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" OR "Gravitation and Cogravitation." BTW, Timo questioned my assertion that F = MA was also "leaky." I THOUGHT that the above also affected this equation. After further review... Timo's right... so far! I hope this helps! BTW, yes, a glass is simultaneously 20% empty and 80% full, but entirely too many people (IMNTBHO) ignore the fullness and concentrate only on the empitiness. And that's kinda sad! Bill >>> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" >>> category. Not anymore. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > propagate instantaneously.) The second body continues to experience > the same force as before. Bill, I am sorry you have been fooled by the described situation Newtons force theory has to include every object in between also. When every action-reaction of the object is considered, it has never been wrong. The example given is "ignoring" action-reaction of all in between the two objects. > In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction > and Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this > situation also is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation > of momentum. Every action/re-action in between have balanced. Forces have caused "objects that would transfer the force to transfer to a different direction, and not enough force was transmitted all the way to cause the re-action you were hoping for. Newton still holds true if each and every action-reaction is considered in between. > For a detailed analysis of this, and other Newtonian flaws, please see > Jefimenko's "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" OR > "Gravitation and Cogravitation." Again, This is not a newton flaw, it is a flaw of the understanding of the newton law. Each and every single object in between must be considered. You can not ignore the action-reactions that take place in between the two objects like such is being done to come up with the supposed violation. Try this one in a much simpler form but almost like the gravity problem... Lets use air. Air between two objects on the ground. Would the air transfer all the motion of an object that is 5 ft away from another object? No, simply because all the force of the action-reactions are diverted by the air but all action re-action of the air follows Newton's law very well. the same holds true for gravity. :) > BTW, Timo questioned my assertion that F = MA was also "leaky." I > THOUGHT that the above also affected this equation. After further > review... Timo's right... so far! Action-reaction of Newton law still holds true if all such action-reactions in between are considered. > I hope this helps! I hope what I babbled probably too many times just now, helps you understand that Newton still holds fine and no problem has occured that Newton has been proven wrong in such. (Missing forces is the only way he is ever proven wrong) and missing forces only proves that someone is not following Newton the way they really should. After all any force at all, is a force and not only the ones Newton haters want to pick are the only forces. :) > BTW, yes, a glass is simultaneously 20% empty and 80% full, but > entirely too many people (IMNTBHO) ignore the fullness and > concentrate only on the empitiness. And that's kinda sad! Yes, it is sad.. I always try to think of both sides of the story. It is much safer to do so also. :) I am sorry for babbling but I have never seen Newton's Laws to be wrong. and that is why I always follow him and think about each and every force (action-reaction) that could occur.,, also if I don't follow such being mechanically minded... I could be killed. Newton has saved my life a few times. I am sure he probably has saved a lot of peoples lives by coming up with such beautiful laws that have not actually been broken ever. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >>>> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" >>>> category. Not anymore. [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > up with such beautiful laws that have not actually been broken ever. > :) I think I understand your point, but in the case that I described, there is nothing in between the two masses but vacuum. Are you postulating some special property of vacuum that instantaneously transmits force vector information from a perturbed mass to a mass in the same field? If so, I'd like to learn more about that! If not, then there will be a delay between when a mass is perturbed and when the perturbation is sensed..And that delay is not explicit in any of Newton's laws. >>>>> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" >>>>> category. Not anymore. [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > transmits force vector information from a perturbed mass to a mass in > the same field? If so, I'd like to learn more about that! No instantly transfering anything is needed. If it is truly "vacuum" there should no transfer of energy possible at all. That is one reason I allow people to say there is an aether. and I listen. My glass is both half empty and half full simultaneously. but when relativists start pulling crap that "math" is the cause of energy transference, you jumped me into the half empty mode. Without physical force, physical force can not be transmitted. and we all know light waves do have a physical force. or they would not burn our skin when we fall asleep in the sun. so I do think the supposed vacuum is full of stuff that can transfer the "mass in motion" (energy). :) > If not, then there will be a delay between when a mass is perturbed > and when the perturbation is sensed..And that delay is not explicit > in any of Newton's laws. The problem is simple sorta, The larger the mass, the more delay for it to move if it moves at all ( larger force needed to move larger mass of course). the smaller the mass, the less delay could be detected. It really is all newtonian. (but only when you look and find every single bit of newtonian factors of course.) It (The universe) truly all does all act like a Dirac sea. All very fluid in motion. of course it might not be "stuff we can even detect yet" No proof of things we can not see can be made of course, but again, no disproof can either. :) If anything the only thing Newton was off on, is the "instant motion". We know it can't be instant. but all his other stuff falls right into place once we add the "non instant" delays of motion in. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman ---------------------------- >>>>> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law" >>>>> category. Not anymore. [quoted text clipped - 121 lines] > when the perturbation is sensed..And that delay is not explicit in any of > Newton's laws. Put a bunch of ball bearings in contact with each other in a row. Tap the first one and not that the last one does not instantaneously react. At each contact point, assuming the bearings are incompressible there is a local action/reaction equivalence but the time for this to be transferred to the end is dependent on the speed of sound in the bearings. Essentially a travelling wave. No need to go to deep space to see a delay. Does this make Newtons 3rd law invalid? In the vacuum, we really do not know the propagation method and there are various proposed mechanisms including aether and virtual phonons and the delay depends on the velocity of light. These all appear to be attempts to cope with mechanical forces at distances by some essentially fully mechanical coupling. Why? Do the delays make Newton's law of action/reaction invalid? After all, this was developed without consideration of delays. Timo points out the Heaviside view-all reactions are local. - Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca remove the X to answer > ---------------------------- >> [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > Essentially a travelling wave. No need to go to deep space to see a delay. > Does this make Newtons 3rd law invalid? GREAT example. Let's think about this. We hit the first ball. Some time later, the last ball moves. Newton says: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." If this means "instantly," then clearly there is a flaw. Does this mean that Newton is wrong, or merely incomplete? Since we routinely use Newton to chart the heavens, launch satellites etc. etc., it is clear that Newton isn't WRONG. I believe the answer is "incomplete." Let's take your line of balls idea a step farther. First, let's assume that the second ball is slightly out of line with all the others. When we strike the first ball, it passes the impact on to the second ball slightly off center. This acts to transfer some of the impact in a straight line, but also causes it to rotate. This imparts angular momentum to the second ball -- and subsequent balls. The reaction is not the same as the action! Now let's assume that it has been a while since we have played with our balls. (Sorry! I couldn't resist!) A thick coating of dust covers all the balls. We strike the first ball, and as the traveling wave progresses, it shakes the dust off of all the other balls. This reduces the mass of each ball. Again, the reaction is not the same as the action. So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to modify the rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate retardation, deal with changes in angular momentum, and handle situations where the starting and ending masses are not the same! These issues are important in planetary systems. There, we have distances that are large WRT the speed of gravity, we have bodies that possess angular momentum, and (like a comet whose mass changes as it travels by) bodies whose mass is not constant with time. A gravitostatic model does not work in a gravitodynamic environment. > In the vacuum, we really do not know the propagation method True >and there are various proposed mechanisms including aether and virtual >phonons and the delay depends on the velocity of light. (or gravity -- they >are not necessarily the same, although they SEEM to be) > These all appear to be attempts to cope with mechanical forces at > distances by some essentially fully mechanical coupling. Why? Because we seem to be worshiping at the shrine of St, Isaac rather than looking -- as Heaviside did in 1893 (!) -- at the facts. > Do the delays make Newton's law of action/reaction invalid? Not invalid. Just incomplete. ..After all, this > was developed without consideration of delays. Timo points out the > Heaviside view-all reactions are local. - True! But all actions are not! Bill > Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca > remove the X to answer > GREAT example. Let's think about this. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ball -- and subsequent balls. The reaction is not the same as the > action! Hmm, wait a bit. It will be an action that creates the equal "opposite" reaction. spin one way hits and produces spin the other way. Newton is still correct about that part. (he is still incomplete with the instantaneousness though) :) > Now let's assume that it has been a while since we have played with > our balls. (Sorry! I couldn't resist!) A thick coating of dust covers > all the balls. That is so disgusting and true it is kinda funny. :) > We strike the first ball, and as the traveling wave progresses, it > shakes the dust off of all the other balls. This reduces the mass of > each ball. Again, the reaction is not the same as the action. but again, you need to include all the actions and reactions. the shaking off is a reaction. > So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to > modify the rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate > retardation, deal with changes in angular momentum, and handle > situations where the starting and ending masses are not the same! Angular momentum is covered (gearing) and starting and ending mass is also covered the "dust" was part of the reaction. The only thing really still missing is the reaction "speed" We do know it is not instant. :) So, Incomplete by only the timing factor of the motion. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman "Bill Miller" > So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to modify > the rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate retardation, deal > with changes in angular momentum, and handle situations where the starting > and ending masses are not the same! Who are WE. Must exist the two knowledge. One for students and the second for adults. The first must be extremely simply and for this reason adults do not use it. Afer study people (in industry) learn for 40 years and they do not use textbooks for students. Authors of textbooks need modify the rules but in direction to make them more simply. Which who launch satellites etc. have them modified properly. S* ---------------------------- >> ---------------------------- >>> [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > but also causes it to rotate. This imparts angular momentum to the second > ball -- and subsequent balls. The reaction is not the same as the action! ----------------- But, at the point of contact the forces are the same whether or not the impact is dead on. You give some direct force but you also have some spin-on both balls. You still have conservation of angular momentum. No problem with Newton there -just consider the forces as vectors. Newton obviously did . --------- > Now let's assume that it has been a while since we have played with our > balls. (Sorry! I couldn't resist!) A thick coating of dust covers all the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > angular momentum, and (like a comet whose mass changes as it travels by) > bodies whose mass is not constant with time. ------ But then considering only the first dusty ball, the problem becomes not a two body problem but a multibody problem. Considering all the balls, this is compounded. The failure is not Newton but in our ability to actually solve the resultant multibody problem. We don't know the masses or velocities of the dust particles but they aren't being converted to energy so there is no change in the total system mass. You can still assume total momentum, angular and linear is unchanged- even if the final interaction occurs some time later than the first collision. SignatureDon Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca remove the X to answer ------------ > A gravitostatic model does not work in a gravitodynamic environment. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca >> remove the X to answer > ---------------------------- >> [quoted text clipped - 222 lines] >>> Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca >>> remove the X to answer Don & Spaceman Don's ball exercise was an excellent ANALOGY but it does not represent an EXAMPLE of the issues that I raised. I will cheerfully concede that the dynamics of balls clicking together represents known (almost high-school level) interactions between materials whose proprties are (or can be) well known.. What is of interest to me is what happens when these "balls" are in space and their only interaction is via gravity. In this case, we have to resort to the concept of force fields. (Please! let us not re-open the silly discussion about the "reality" of fields.) In my example, we have two masses separated by a distance. We wiggle one mass. MUCH later the effect is felt by the other mass. During that time perid, the law of action and reaction does not hold. There are other examples: If one calculates the forces between a charged particle moving on the x axis and a particle moving along the z axis, we find the forces are unequal. ( Breitenburger "Magnetic Interaction betwen Charged Particles" A J Ph. 36, 505-515 1968 & Scanio, "Conservation of Momentum in electrodynamics... " A J Ph. 43, 258-260, 1975) Also, if a charge moves past a magnetic dipole, the forces are unequal. (Portis, "Electromagnetic Fields, Sources and Media" John Wiley & Sons 1978, pp 390-392) There are others. See Ch 4 of Jefimenko's "Causality..." book for some more. This is not surprising. Newton's theory of gravitation is based on the Gravitational Force Law, F = G(M1M2)/r sq. This is a STATICS law. There is no provision for time dependency, whether it be location, velocity (linear or otherwise) nor of mass. Also, like Coulomb, it has an obvious flaw in that it "blows up" as r --> 0. Or do we just "normalize" this away as some would have us do with Coulomb? We do not (slavishly) attempt to apply Coulomb's Law to Electrodynamic situations. Why should we do so with Newton? Let's douse the candles and incense at Isaac's shrine and recognize that his is a great theory, or "law" if you wish.. It is incomplete. Bill > Don & Spaceman > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > one mass. MUCH later the effect is felt by the other mass. During > that time perid, the law of action and reaction does not hold. Actually it does, but like I said, to think Newtonian, you would have to have an aether of some sort "a medium of the transference of the force". I do agree there will not be an instant reaction between any two object and a newtonian force would need that to be "complete". But still, the basic of the newton equation still hold (barring the instant motion thing) Each and every " ball" be it so tiny would account for the motion occuring. It also is of course an immense amount of math of each and every action/re-action. > There are other examples: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Particles" A J Ph. 36, 505-515 1968 & Scanio, "Conservation of > Momentum in electrodynamics... " A J Ph. 43, 258-260, 1975) Such non balance of the forces is simply "a missing a force" that is ignored and thrown into the "anti-newton evidence" folder. :) > Also, if a charge moves past a magnetic dipole, the forces are > unequal. (Portis, "Electromagnetic Fields, Sources and Media" John > Wiley & Sons 1978, pp 390-392) Ditto again. If they looked for the force instead of just dismissing the missing force as a newton fault, they may actually find it instead of using "math" as a cause instead. math is not a cause. At least not in the Universe I know. :) > There are others. See Ch 4 of Jefimenko's "Causality..." book for > some more. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > It is incomplete. I agree, but it is only incomplete in the "timing" of the action/reaction. With proper timing and newtonian force laws and the actual finding of each and every force, Newtons force laws hold fine but are missing the timing equation of such force transference. :) And the biggest factor of timing with a newtonian/eculidian world, would be to use "absolute" timing. nothing relative at all. Relative timing is non standard, if you read my post about that. "The standard of time and identical clocks" I am sure you would agree. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Don & Spaceman >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to think Newtonian, you would have to have an aether of some sort > "a medium of the transference of the force". Give us the required stiffness (bulk modulus) of this medium in order for the speed of interaction to be as high as it is measured to be -- the speed of light. Then tell us how anything material could ever move through such a medium, let alone frictionlessly. After that you can explain how such a medium would not be dispersive for light. > Give us the required stiffness (bulk modulus) of this > medium in order for the speed of interaction to be as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that you can explain how such a medium would not be > dispersive for light. Hmm? It would seem that it all would match a photons everything. so it must just be full of photons or even smaller stuff. Of course, you would only have to find a true "mass" and size of such photons or even smaller stuff to finish the aether theory correctly. But of course, such is beyond what a rubber ruler person could even think of being so brainwashed about a 0 mass photon to begin with. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Give us the required stiffness (bulk modulus) of this >> medium in order for the speed of interaction to be as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It would seem that it all would match a photons everything. > so it must just be full of photons or even smaller stuff. If that were true then gravity could be shielded by the simple expedient of interposing a blind (shades of cavorite!), and planets would slow in their orbits due to frictional effects (a photon bath provides a form of friction to bodies moving in it). > Of course, you would only have to find a true "mass" > and size of such photons or even smaller stuff to finish > the aether theory correctly. Oh is that all? Suppose you take a stab at specifying the material properties of the bulk aether then, being careful that they correspond to the physical requirements. I'm not saying specify the particles it's made of (you can if you want though) but rather the measurable bulk qualities of the aether. > But of course, > such is beyond what a rubber ruler person could even think of > being so brainwashed about a 0 mass photon to begin with. Forget Relativity in this case. The aether was a failure of classical physics (which you would know if you had read any science history). There are no consistent set of properties that can be assigned to an aether that will not be self contradictory or empirically impossible. > If that were true then gravity could be shielded by the > simple expedient of interposing a blind (shades of > cavorite!), and planets would slow in their orbits due to > frictional effects (a photon bath provides a form of > friction to bodies moving in it). You must be forgetting the smaller stuff. Figures. Only gigantic swelled brains can ignore the tiny stuff. LOL SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > One of the fundamental laws of mechanics is Newton's law of action and > reaction, usually stated as : "Whenever a body exerts a force (action) on a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this situation also > is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation of momentum. Hmm. Newton's 3rd law of motion (along with Newton 2, to relate force and transfer of momentum) is basically a statement that momentum is conserved. Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out. Does this mean Newton 3 is wrong? Does this mean momentum is not conserved? I would say that it means that we simply don't have a situation where there are two objects interacting at a distance, but two objects each interacting with a field. Perhaps the interaction really is as described by field theory, a local interaction between field and body, and we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a distance rather than Newton 3. We know that a force is exerted on each mass. We know that in a static case, the force is symmetric. We don't know that it is the other body that is actually exerting the force. The example you give strongly suggests that it isn't. It wasn't that long ago that I wrote a lot more about this, so I won't repeat it here. But for an example of a "law" by Newton that we know is only an approximation: Newton's law of universal gravitation. SignatureTimo >> One of the fundamental laws of mechanics is Newton's law of action and >> reaction, usually stated as : "Whenever a body exerts a force (action) on [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Hmm. Newton's 3rd law of motion (along with Newton 2, to relate force and > transfer of momentum) is basically a statement that momentum is conserved. Correct. And as long as the interaction is of a contact nature, then eveything is OK. But when there is a delay between the action and the reaction, then *for that delay period* momentum is not conserved. But we know that momentum MUST be conserved, so we must look at Newton with an eye to modifying it to deal with what amounts to a time dependency. This is not a new idea. We have long recognized, for EM that electrostaic representations break down when time dependency is present. Heaviside suggested this in 1893 but never took it all the way to its logical conclusion. > Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be > interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a > distance rather than Newton 3. That's one way of dealing with it. I believe that a better way would be to recognize that Newton's work is not applicable to time dependency. That's no different, conceptually, from Maxwell's expansion of Ampere's Law to include The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in a time-dependent environment. Please note that Amoere's Law was not WRONG. It was simply not totally applicable to a time dependent environment. Same situation with Newton and gravity. > We know that a force is exerted on each mass. We know that in a static > case, the force is symmetric. We don't know that it is the other body that > is actually exerting the force. The example you give strongly suggests > that it isn't. Nope. It suggests (to me) that -- just like Maxwell's adaptation of Ampere's Law -- we need an adaptation of Newton. > It wasn't that long ago that I wrote a lot more about this, so I won't > repeat it here. > > But for an example of a "law" by Newton that we know is only an > approximation: Newton's law of universal gravitation. Bill >>> One of the fundamental laws of mechanics is Newton's law of action and >>> reaction, usually stated as : "Whenever a body exerts a force (action) on [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Heaviside suggested this in 1893 but never took it all the way to its > logical conclusion. Heaviside's Maxwellian gravitation? There is no modification of Newton's laws of motion in it. Newton's law of universal gravitation, describing gravitational forces as interactions between distant bodies, is replaced by a field theory, wherein all interactions are local - body interacts with local field, not body with distant body. As for Newton's laws of motion, Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just definititions of inertial motion and force, while Newton 3 is (as above) conservation of momentum. How can these be modified sensibly? >> Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be >> interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in a > time-dependent environment. I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the other describes a limited set of experimental observations. If the limited set of observations are static, then modifications for time-dependent cases shouldn't be surprising. But conservation of momentum works for time-dependent cases too - consider a bunch of colliding particles in a box. Consider a collision between two elastic bodies - the collision itself is time dependent, and Newton's laws work well. How can we modify conservation of momentum to become time-dependent? Momentum is only conserved in an average sense? Momentum is not conserved? Yes, Newton's laws of motions describe observations too, but not in an obvious or straightforward way (which is why students often have difficulty). SignatureTimo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html <snip> >> Correct. And as long as the interaction is of a contact nature, then >> eveything is OK. But when there is a delay between the action and the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > by a field theory, wherein all interactions are local - body interacts > with local field, not body with distant body. You must be looking at a different copy of Heaviside's 1893 article. In it, he clearly (to me at least) understood concepts of time-dependancy, the gravitational equivalent of the Poynting Vector (that he claimed partial credit for) and others. I agree that he did NOT deal with retardation. Neither did/does Maxwell! This "action at a distance" has always been an Achilles Heel. It is resolved, I believe by understanding and applying Causality. We need to understand that if two events occur at the same time, neither can cause the other. Instead, at least one must be caused by some other (hidden) event. Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H and H causes E. It would have also stopped generations of mathematical physicists from publishing articles in peer-reviewed publications that "proved" that E causes H or vice versa. And it would have stopped generations of experimental physicists from spending countless hours and dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the plates of capacitors. If I have understood your position on this, Timo, it is that the teaching of this is expeditious & that once one gets to the PG leve, the "true facts" are revealed and everything is fine. That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And it begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say *something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but that they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors don't know it! Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the relationship between E and H? Even ONE? <Bill takes a deep breath, steps down from the soap box, and shuffles away from the small crowd of mostly disinterested onlookers. A nondescript brown dog sniffs the box suspiciously, turns sidewise and lifts its leg.> >Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just definititions of inertial motion and >force, while Newton 3 is (as above) conservation of momentum. How can these >be modified sensibly? I'd say that looking at Causality and incorporating what we learn into new expressions that include factors tor time variation of position and for timevariation of mass would get the job done. Naturally, any such additions must obey conservation of momentum AND must reduce to the original form when time dependancy is absent. >>> Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be >>> interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the > other describes a limited set of experimental observations. It is true that gravity is a whole bunch of orders of magnitude more difficult to deal with experimentally than EM. Building planetary objects, setting them rotating, and zapping them past one another is way beyond our experimental capability. BUT, we have a handy set of "toys" in our own night sky. And there we have an interesting set of pre-made experiments already in process. Like, maybe, does our model explain why the rotational speed of the Sun at the equator is different from the speed at the poles? Or does it provide some insights into Mercury's (supposedly) residual precession? Does it support or deny the existence of black holes? Does it provide some insight into the "missing mass of the universe" question? What might it say about gravitational waves? Does it provide a definitive explanation of the process wherein potential energy is converted into kinetic energy by a falling body? Does it explain why EM beams are deflected by gravity? But that's a lotta work. Doing it wrong is a lot easier! Cheers, Bill | <snip> | [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] | generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H and | H causes E. You mean this magnet turns on only when the operator throws a switch because it is a simultaneous but independent event? http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50090267/Electromagnet.jpg I must say that is a very simple concept - from an extremely simple mind, fuckhead. *plonk* > | <snip> > | [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > You mean this magnet turns on only when the operator throws a switch > because it is a simultaneous but independent event? http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50090267/Electromagnet.jpg Because? So, what is happening? The switch is thrown and low and behold, Both an H field and a Current appear simultaneously? Throwing the switch puts the circuit into direct communication with a sustained electric potential. As it's an electric potential electrons begin to flow, and as there are now moving electrons these cause a corresponding H field? Ok, so now we move to magnetic induction and we end up concluding that the B field is now causing the electrons to flow? If Albert can combine time/space (you can't have one without the other) why not current and H? Doesn't sound silly to me at all. Can they actually be separated? Can one exist without the other? Vince > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > gravitational equivalent of the Poynting Vector (that he claimed partial > credit for) and others. Of course he looks at time-dependent situations - otherwise his finite-speed Maxwellian model of gravitation just reduces to Newton's law of universal gravitation. But the whole essence of his approach is to replace Newton's law of action at a distance with a local field theory, starting firmly on this path right at equation (1). > I agree that he did NOT deal with retardation. > Neither did/does Maxwell! Heaviside deals with retardation, but not so transparently. He introduces a finite (constant, i.e., frequency independent) speed v of gravitation, and goes from there. Maxwell knew that his theory could be described in terms of retardation - he recognises the mathematical equivalence between his theory and Lorenz's in a footnote in his Treatise. I don't know when he realised this, or that he had a retardation compatible theory. Perhaps when he gets the wave equation with a constant speed? Which brings me to a related, but not-so-related, point. Maxwell was, IMO, a good enough mathematician so that he could have done the Hertz-Heaviside simplification of his equations himself. Why didn't he? Since he identifies the field quantities in his version as physically meaningful (e.g., vector potential as momentum of the ether), there isn't any point in getting rid of them. He's not just trying to describe forces on charged bodies or currents (which Hertz and Heaviside seemed to be content with), but wanted to know what the ether was up to. If you want an instantaneous snapshot of the ether, you don't want a retarded formulation of the theory. I don't know, but perhaps this influenced him. > This "action at a distance" has always been an Achilles Heel. > > It is resolved, I believe by understanding and applying Causality. We need > to understand that if two events occur at the same time, neither can cause > the other. Instead, at least one must be caused by some other (hidden) > event. Shades of Aristotle. > Recognition of this simple concept would, as one example, have stopped > generations of instructors from teaching their students that E causes H and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the > plates of capacitors. Not so many papers, hours, or dollars. The existence of electromagnetic waves, transverse (i.e., div(E) = 0, div(H) = 0) solutions of the vector Helmholtz equation, is pretty good evidence that the dD/dt term really belongs in the Maxwell equations, so perhaps a more direct "proof" isn't seen as essential. > If I have understood your position on this, Timo, it is that the teaching of > this is expeditious & that once one gets to the PG leve, the "true facts" > are revealed and everything is fine. Well, for better or for worse, what is taught is necessarily simplified. Alas, while a small number of misconceptions might be corrected in later undergrad or postgrad education, many are not. With limited time, and limited initial knowledge, there are limits to what can be taught. I woulnd't say that everything is fine, just that it isn't easy to do much better. One particular problem is that many (most?) courses lead to just cramming for an exam, followed by forgetting. Emphasis on techniques and proofs over any real understanding. One problem is that understanding comes with experience, and a 1 semester course allows very little time for that. I don't think that the current issue (E, H, and causality) is such a big deal. It's mostly harmless as far as beliefs go, and only one of very many various misconceptions that students pick up. They learn far worse ones along the way. It also isn't enough to just tell them in lectures - students don't learn from lectures, they learn from assessment and preparing for assessment. It's hard to assess understanding, so understanding tends to not be assessed strongly, so students don't get really motivated to understand. > That leaves hordes of non PG students still believing this rubbish. And it > begs the question of why, in UG classes, the instructors don't say > *something* about how theses two parameters don't cause each other, but that > they always appear simultaneously. I suspect its because the instructors > don't know it! Likely enough. > Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the relationship > between E and H? Even ONE? Probably. Very likely. But specialised EM texts are the stuff of advanced (or at least intermediate) undergrad courses. Those who do just 1 or 2 physics courses ay uni, or only do high school physics never get to see them. There might well even be generic introductory textbooks that don't get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near future, I will look. >> Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just definititions of inertial motion and >> force, while Newton 3 is (as above) conservation of momentum. How can these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expressions that include factors tor time variation of position and for > timevariation of mass would get the job done. New expressions for what? My point is that it's easy enough to modify, e.g., a force law (as Heaviside did Newton's law of universal gravitation), or Coulomb's law (as per Maxwell), but a very different thing to try to modify Newton's laws of motion, which are of a very different fundamental nature. > Naturally, any such additions > must obey conservation of momentum AND must reduce to the original form when > time dependancy is absent. Well, if you want conservation of momentum, then you're _not_ going to be modifying Newton 3. Also, if you want retarded interaction at a distance along with conservation of momentum, then you're going to need fields that can carry the momentum from point A to point B (or some other "thing" to have the momentum when the "interacting" objects don't have it). Or we change our ideas about what conservation of momentum means. >>>> Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be >>>> interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > But that's a lotta work. Doing it wrong is a lot easier! Apart from the rotational speed of the sun, which at first glance is more a matter of fluid dynamics and plasma physics rather than gravitation, and perhaps the missing mass stuff, yes, our best models of gravity do answer these questions. Alas, they don't reduce to Heaviside's model in the appropriate limit, There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE (or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s about the weak-field limit of GR. SignatureTimo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html > > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 198 lines] > E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html > Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html Excellent response, Timo. It's thoughtful posts like this that make trawling these groups worthwhile. >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the >> plates of capacitors > Not so many papers, hours, or dollars. I concur with most of what you said -- until here! Two examples: One experiment used a superconductor based setup to try and measure H "caused" by Displacement Current. Not an inexpensive exercise. Worse still is a set of patents issued for a variety of Crossed Field Antennas (CFA). The patent holder is a professor in Scotland. The basic "operating principle" is the formation of separate E and H fields using capacitor plates and inductors that are phased at 90 degrees to form an EM wave. The claim is that the device is as efficient as a full-sized antenna, but an order of magnitude smaller than conventional 1/4 wave monopoles against ground. Numerous antennas were sold. None worked. The most salient was on the Isle Of Man where an entire multi-million dollar radio transmitter project was scrapped -- with substantial losses to the investors since it was physically impossible to substitute a conventional antenna. So, Timo, the E causes H error is not just an academic exercise gone bad. It has cost time and money. >The existence of electromagnetic waves, transverse (i.e., div(E) = 0, >div(H) = 0) solutions of the vector Helmholtz equation, is pretty good [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I don't think that the current issue (E, H, and causality) is such a big > deal. It's mostly harmless as far as beliefs go, If you consider millions of dollars wasted in craossed field antennas as "harmless." There are others "using" similar techniques. They do not work "as advertised" either. and only one of very many > various misconceptions that students pick up. Herein is the proble: Students are not "pickibg up" misconceptions. They are being TAUGHT them. The participants on this lis are not dumb. But look at some of the replies in this thread. More than a few folks still harbor the misconception that H causes E and vice versa. They learn far worse ones > along the way. It also isn't enough to just tell them in lectures - > students don't learn from lectures, they learn from assessment and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Likely enough. Strong agreement here! >> Is there a single UG EM textbook that correctly categorizes the >> relationship [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > get it wrong, by not mentioning it at all. If I have time in the near > future, I will look. Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship between Electric(E) and Magnetic (H) fields. This is sometimes erroneously interpreted as meaning that E causes H and H causes E. However, a careful analysis shows that E fields and H fields are sololy caused by charges and the movement of charges."" Not too hard. >>> Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just definititions of inertial motion and >>> force, while Newton 3 is (as above) conservation of momentum. How can [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > can carry the momentum from point A to point B (or some other "thing" to > have the momentum when the "interacting" objects don't have it). Yep. Gravitational fields do that. > Or we change our ideas about what conservation of momentum means. No need to do that. >>>>> Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to >>>>> be [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Apart from the rotational speed of the sun, which at first glance is more > a matter of fluid dynamics and plasma physics rather than gravitation, Try a second glance. and > perhaps the missing mass stuff, yes, our best models of gravity do answer > these questions. Alas, they don't reduce to Heaviside's model in the > appropriate limit, As I mentioned earlier, Heaviside didn't take it all the way. And that may be because he was stuck in the "action at a distance" mode and did not seem to thoroughy grasp Causality. Or perhaps he resolved this in his V4 of "Electromagnetic Theory" (unfinished) that was destroyed by thieves and vandals in 1925? >There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE > (or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s Is this the one in his "Guidelines to Antigravity"? Bill > about the weak-field limit of GR. > Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/ > E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html > Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html >>> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> dollars in building apparatus to measure the non-existent H between the >>> plates of capacitors >Herein is the proble: Students are not "pickibg up" misconceptions. They are >being TAUGHT them. > >The participants on this lis are not dumb. But look at some of the replies >in this thread. More than a few folks still harbor the misconception that H >causes E and vice versa. snip >Strong agreement here! > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Not too hard. You are full of beans. As soon as the currents pulse up and down in the antenna, a good portion of the energy exits as EM waves that take off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as they go along. Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain the dark matter problem. By the way which do you prefer: D = E and B = H or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ? >>>>> The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in >>>>> a >>>>> time-dependent environment. Whoever wrote the above is unaware that it should be Change of D field to affect magnetic fields. Unless D = E. >>>> I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the >>>> other describes a limited set of experimental observations. snip > >There was a nice paper by Robert Forward in Proc. IEEE >> (or Proc. IRE, if before the name change of the journal) in the 1960s [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html >> Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html >>>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >>Not too hard. > You are full of beans. Yep... Had some last night. As soon as the currents pulse up and down in > the antenna, a good portion of the energy exits as EM waves that take > off across the country. They're on their own and don't need overt > charges or currents. E, D, B and H are taken care of by polarization > of eps0 and mu0, properties of the vacuum. They exchange energies as > they go along. Your case would be stronger if E and H (in an EM wave) were out of phase. Then we would have a situation analagous to -- say -- a spring or water waves, wherein kinetic energy gets swapped for potential energy, etc. BUT E and H are in phase! How in the world can anyone imagine that two in phase and contiguaous signals are *swapping* energy? If you can do so, I believe we would all love to hear how it works. THEN stand by your phone for the Stockholm call! > Your assumption of currents and charges being present and essential is > just as valid as the teams now looking for Wimps and Machos to explain > the dark matter problem. Currents and charges are essential to LAUNCH the wave(s). Afterwards, the separate E and H signals are in lock step and isolated. > By the way which do you prefer: > D = E and B = H > or D = eps0E and B = mu0H ? I pick.... Let's see... Door number... Ummm...Well... Oh gosh, I just can't decide! Bill >>>>>> The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields >>>>>> in [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> Shrine to Spirits: >>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html ruthless snip >>>Even in introductory texts, it wouldn't be terribly difficult to say >>>something like, "Maxwell's equations demonstrate a clear relationship [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >phase and contiguaous signals are *swapping* energy? If you can do so, I >believe we would all love to hear how it works. OK, here's how they swap energy, (and remember, you promised to love to hear this). Using spring mass for simplicity and recognizing that the wave will be sinusoidal, the force on the spring is proportional to displacement Fk = F0 sin wt (say) The force on the m |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message