Phillip,

Don't you ever feel the least bit silly?

How can you possibly claim that Maxwell's derivation of the speed of light
is 'speculative'? Or that it is 'off-topic?'

Bob explicitly stated that his student was "not interested in an explanation
that says we can measure it and that is what we measure". Since Maxwell is
the only mainstream theorist who ever provided such a calculation, this
cannot possibly be 'off-topic.'

Or don't you agree that aethers are denied by the current paradigm -- a la
Kuhn?

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

----- Original Message -----
From: Phillip Helbig
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:39 PM

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because remarks about the current
paradigm denying the existence of a Maxwellian superfluid are too
speculative and off-topic.

Sincerely,

Phillip Helbig, sci.physics.research co-moderator


================================================== ==========================

bob bornstein wrote in message
...
Hi

I am a Prof of Meteorology at SJSU, and a student asked why the speed of
light is at its value (and not some other value). He is not interested
in an explanation that says we can measure it and that is what we
measure.

Does its value come out of relativity theory or from quantum mechanics??
Does anyone have a good ans???? Thanks.

The value of the speed of light is -- unfortunately -- what we measure.
The value is not set by relativity theory or quantum mechanics. Both
those theories take the speed of gravity as a given.

Fizeau was (one of the) first to measure the speed of light. Maxwell
is -- historically -- the first to calculate the speed of light from
theoretical
grounds. Maxwell did this in his opus "On Physical Lines of Force," 1861.
This is the work wherein Maxwell first derived "Maxwell's equations,"
using a fluid aether with zero viscosity (a superfluid). As part of this
work, Maxwell calculated the speed of transverse electric and magnetic
waves in the fluid aether. The matching of the calculated speed of light
with that measured was the first identification of light as transverse
electric and magnetic waves.

A short excerpt from the work:
========================================
Prop. XVI. -- To find the rate of propagation of transverse vibrations
through the elastic medium of which the cells are composed, on the
supposition that its elasticity is due entire to forces acting between
particles.

{snip details of derivation}

In air or vacuum mu = 1, and therefore V=E=310,740,000,000 mm/sec, and V =
193,088 miles/second.

The velocity of light in air, as determined by M. Fizeau, is 70,843
leagues per second (25 leagues to a degree) which gives
V=314,858,000,000 mm/sec = 195,647 miles/second.

The velocity of transverse undulations in our hypothetical medium,
calculated from the electro-magnetic expermiments of MM. Kohlrausch and
Weber, agrees so exactly with the velocity of light calculated from the
optical experiments of M. Fizeau, that we can scarcely avoid the inference
that light consists in the transverse undulations of the same medium which
is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.
========================================

It should be noted that the current paradigm denies that such a fluid
exists. The speed of light is merely accepted to be a constant of the
value measured.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Phillip,

Don't you ever feel the least bit silly?

How can you possibly claim that Maxwell's derivation of the speed of light
is 'speculative'? Or that it is 'off-topic?'

Bob explicitly stated that his student was "not interested in an
explanation
that says we can measure it and that is what we measure". Since Maxwell
is
the only mainstream theorist who ever provided such a calculation, this
cannot possibly be 'off-topic.'

Or don't you agree that aethers are denied by the current paradigm -- a la
Kuhn?

I can't imagine why he would reject your post. There's nothing in it that's
even remotely "speculative" or crankish.

Besides, I don't think physicists who spend all day discussing quantum
gravity and string theory should be so quick to label other people's posts
"speculative".

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:51:22 -0600, "Brian"
wrote:

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Phillip,

Don't you ever feel the least bit silly?

How can you possibly claim that Maxwell's derivation of the speed of light
is 'speculative'? Or that it is 'off-topic?'

Bob explicitly stated that his student was "not interested in an
explanation that says we can measure it and that is what we measure".
Since Maxwell is the only mainstream theorist who ever provided such
a calculation, this cannot possibly be 'off-topic.'

Or don't you agree that aethers are denied by the current paradigm -- a
la Kuhn?

I can't imagine why he would reject your post. There's nothing in it that's
even remotely "speculative" or crankish.

Besides, I don't think physicists who spend all day discussing quantum
gravity and string theory should be so quick to label other people's posts
"speculative".

Indeed!

In fact, there exist NO speculation in this reply. The fact in the reply
are,

- Both SR, GR and QM take c (light speed) as a given constant that
is emperical. Further, it is generally set to unity...

- Maxwell was the only person I know of that calculated it from a
theoretical premise. Not only that, a valid reference is provided!

- Maxwell did (as objective history shows) assume a zero viscosity
incompressible fluid for his derivations in that paper.

- Fact, the very definition of a superfluid is one without, or no
measurable viscosity... See,

http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/573_62.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid

Maxwell specifically declared his model a "perfect fluid" and inviscid
which is synomomous with this. See,

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...Flow_I/TH6.htm

- Finally we have,

"It should be noted that the current paradigm denies that
such a fluid exists. The speed of light is merely accepted
to be a constant of the value measured."

This is, in fact, the only thing that comes close to a speculative element
in that post But it also quite provalby true, thus isn't!

Paul Stowe

"Brian" wrote in message
...
|
| "greywolf42" wrote in message
| ...
| Phillip,
|
| Don't you ever feel the least bit silly?
|
| How can you possibly claim that Maxwell's derivation of the speed
of light
| is 'speculative'? Or that it is 'off-topic?'
|
| Bob explicitly stated that his student was "not interested in an
| explanation
| that says we can measure it and that is what we measure". Since
Maxwell
| is
| the only mainstream theorist who ever provided such a calculation,
this
| cannot possibly be 'off-topic.'
|
| Or don't you agree that aethers are denied by the current
paradigm -- a la
| Kuhn?
|
| I can't imagine why he would reject your post. There's nothing in
it that's
| even remotely "speculative" or crankish.
|
| Besides, I don't think physicists who spend all day discussing
quantum
| gravity and string theory should be so quick to label other people's
posts
| "speculative".

Yep, it really is a joke over there isn't it? Hehe. No big deal, as
a person can always post to other sci.physics.x groups. Those quantum
gravity and string theorist folks don't have a freakin' clue. They
might learn something from studying Maxwell's ideas. John Baez
basically told me a spin matrix was not the same thing as "spin
network" in one post of mine that was rejected. Get real. While I
highly respect John for many things he has posted over the years, he
was flat out wrong about that.

FrediFizzx

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 08:22:58 +0000 (UTC), "bob bornstein"
wrote:

Hi

I am a Prof of Meteorology at SJSU, and a student asked why the speed of
light is at its value (and not some other value). He is not interested in
an explanation that says we can measure it and that is what we measure.

Does its value come out of relativity theory or from quantum mechanics??
Does anyone have a good ans???? Thanks.

Bob Bornstein
Department of Meteorology
One Washington Square
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA 95192 USA
408.924.5205 work
5191 fax
415.567.1063 home
415.308.1587 cell phone
work/home

_________________________________________________ ________________
Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan
online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963

And, on 11/01/2003 8:26 AM PST I wrote to the moderator,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the moderator Phillip Helbig. Regarding Mr. Mingst reply to this thread
ref:


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=vq... um=3&filter=0

There is, in objective fact, NO SPECULATION in this article. If you can
substantiate you claim then do so for any of the following

- Both SR, GR and QM take c (light speed) as a given constant that
is emperical. Further, it is generally set to unity...

- Maxwell was the only person I know of that calculated it from a
theoretical premise. Not only that, a valid reference is provided!

- Maxwell did (as objective history shows) assume a zero viscosity
incompressible fluid for his derivations in that paper.

- Fact, the very definition of a superfluid is one without, or no
measurable viscosity... See,

http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/573_62.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid

Maxwell specifically declared his model a "perfect fluid" and
inviscid which is synomomous with this. See,

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...Flow_I/TH6.htm

- Finally we have,

"It should be noted that the current paradigm denies that
such a fluid exists. The speed of light is merely accepted
to be a constant of the value measured."

This is, in fact, the only thing that comes close to a speculative element
in that post But it also quite objectively true.!

While I doubt that you can prove any objective evidence to your claim

"Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.physics.research
is inappropriate for the newsgroup because remarks about the
current paradigm denying the existence of a Maxwellian superfluid
are too speculative and off-topic."

The read of this is that modern science denies the existence of Maxwell's
aether. Please show us that this is in anyway speculative. I think we
all would love to see why you think this 'speculation'...

Failing to being able to show that any element is speculative and not
based in objective fact, I think you owe Mr. Mingst a public appology.
For it is you, not he, that is guilty of overt bias, bordering upon
bigoty. Furthermore, it most certainly is not off-topic to the thread.

I will, under separate cover, post this to the sci.physics newsgroup and
you may reply to that group when you reply this, I can forward your reply
to that thread.

Paul Stowe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As expected (though I had hoped otherwise) Mr. Helbig choose not to post
or comment on this rebutal. In fact, the only thing he could do (given
the 'facts') was to post the response with an apology for his biased
behavior. But, as expected, the man did not have the requisite integrity
to behave in such an honorable manner. This is denomstrated behavior of
a so-called moderator for a science newsgroup? So much for vaulted
scientific objectivity.

Paul Stowe