On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:45:39 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| The traditional name of this "type of 'matter' that is transparent
| to both light and normal matter" is "the luminiferous aether".

Which the crank Einstein believed in, density gradients of said
"luminiferous aether" defining the "curvature of spacetime".

You must be an aetherialist, Tusseladd.

The emission fact of light is supported by Mira, the crackpot theories of
Einstein are not.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rbit/Orbit.htm

You haven't actually produced a light curve for Mira, A. ...even though its
observed shape is pretty typical.
In fact there is a bit of a problem in that BaTh cannot produce magnitude
changes above about 4 without causing serious distortion in the curves.

There is a large group of variables that are claimed to change by a factor up
to about 9 magnitudes.
This kind of variation cannot readily be attributed to c+v..... although I have
a few ideas that might link the two.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Space is a psychological construction based on one specific kind of 3D
information sent to the brain by our eyes.
Time is NOT detected by our eyes but by sensors in our brains. We know
time is
passing. We have biological clocks that enable us to count approximate one
second time intervals. It is easy to do. Try it. You can even do it with
your
eyes shut.

Time and space are totally unrelated basic phenomena.

You gave a clear analysis, but why don't you see the consequences? As you
said, time and space are different subjects to our brains. But are our
brains that important to the universe?

Einstein was a hoaxer.

I dont't know what is a 'hoaxter' and don't what to pick up my
german-english dictionary to look that up. I guess its something impolite.
But Einstein was or is not that important. I guess he was friendly man with
a lot of humour.

Thomas Heger



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:52:08 +0200, "Thomas Heger" wrote:



Space is a psychological construction based on one specific kind of 3D
information sent to the brain by our eyes.
Time is NOT detected by our eyes but by sensors in our brains. We know
time is
passing. We have biological clocks that enable us to count approximate one
second time intervals. It is easy to do. Try it. You can even do it with
your
eyes shut.

Time and space are totally unrelated basic phenomena.

You gave a clear analysis, but why don't you see the consequences? As you
said, time and space are different subjects to our brains. But are our
brains that important to the universe?

If time was the same as space, our eyes would detect it.

Einstein was a hoaxer.

I dont't know what is a 'hoaxter' and don't what to pick up my
german-english dictionary to look that up. I guess its something impolite.
But Einstein was or is not that important. I guess he was friendly man with
a lot of humour.

Einstein made a mathematical model of a universe in which one way light speed
has the same value no matter who measured it. It involves complex maths and a
new jargon as well as many SciFi type concepts that attracted a following of
gullible little boys like Eric Geese and PDraper.
The theory was initiallly just a joke with no connection to physical
reality,...... but it soon brought Einstein fame and fortune...so he naturally
kept it going.

Thomas Heger



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:



If time was the same as space, our eyes would detect it.

Also, why can't we lay two intervals of time side by side and compare them.

Bob Kolker

On Apr 16, 6:06*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


That's not my model at all, although some aspects may not be as silly as they
sound.

Have you ever wondered why we see and feel sold objects when in reality they
are 99.9999999999999999% empty space. Why doesn't a bullet go straight through?
Of course we have some clues, EM emission explains why we see type 1 matter.,,
molecular bonds, dielectric properties, RI, *etc. explain why we feel it..
...but what if there is another type of 'substance' that we do not sense????
(hereby known as 'Wilson, type 2 matter' or 'Watter')


Very well could be. But when a door slams and someone says the wind
pushed it shut, it being a breezy day and the door being open to the
outside and a candle puffing out at the same time the door slammed, it
could ALSO be that two tiny gnomes slammed the door shut and blew out
the candle. It does not mean that the tiny gnome conjecture is on the
same level as the wind conjecture.

The fact is, the solidity of objects, even though they are mostly
empty space, is already accounted for, quantitatively and
qualitatively, by known models that have predictive power. An
alternate model presented has to at least be able to compete in being
able to *predict* (not accommodate, but predict), quantitatively and
qualitatively, the properties of the solid material. Wilson, type 2
matter is a model with no predictive power at all, and so it doesn't
compete. That's not to say that Wilson type 2 matter is ruled out.
It's just that Wilson type 2 matter isn't even far enough along as a
model to make the comparison. It is a tiny gnome model -- and gnomes
have got a cute name too.

PD

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 6:06 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


That's not my model at all, although some aspects may not be as silly as
they
sound.

Have you ever wondered why we see and feel sold objects when in reality
they
are 99.9999999999999999% empty space. Why doesn't a bullet go straight
through?
Of course we have some clues, EM emission explains why we see type 1
matter.,,
molecular bonds, dielectric properties, RI, etc. explain why we feel it.
...but what if there is another type of 'substance' that we do not
sense????
(hereby known as 'Wilson, type 2 matter' or 'Watter')


Very well could be. But when a door slams and someone says the wind
pushed it shut, it being a breezy day and the door being open to the
outside and a candle puffing out at the same time the door slammed, it
could ALSO be that two tiny gnomes slammed the door shut and blew out
the candle. It does not mean that the tiny gnome conjecture is on the
same level as the wind conjecture.

The fact is, the solidity of objects, even though they are mostly
empty space, is already accounted for, quantitatively and
qualitatively, by known models that have predictive power. An
alternate model presented has to at least be able to compete in being
able to *predict* (not accommodate, but predict), quantitatively and
qualitatively, the properties of the solid material. Wilson, type 2
matter is a model with no predictive power at all, and so it doesn't
compete. That's not to say that Wilson type 2 matter is ruled out.
It's just that Wilson type 2 matter isn't even far enough along as a
model to make the comparison. It is a tiny gnome model -- and gnomes
have got a cute name too.
PD
Phuckwit Duck and Blind Poe, the tiny gnomes of relativity.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:43:02 -0700 (PDT), Darwin123
wrote:

On Apr 13, 7:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
Let's be honest. Nothing physics has produced so far has given any insight into
what makes a 'field'. Apart from the fact that the maths describing the forces
are well known, action-at-a-distance is as much a mystery as ever.

Consider a completely isolated negative charge in remote space. The question
is, does its 'field' exist in the absence of another charge. If so, how is the
surrounding space modified in such a way that if another charge is introduced
at any distance , a force immediately exists between the two.

The force doesn't immediately exist between the two charges. The
force exists between the field and the charge. That is the difference
between the field concept and the concept of forces in Principia.

I wont argue with that.

Fields can be a local interaction. This is the way Faraday
thought of them, this is the way Maxwell thought of them. However,
what went down the tubes with Maxwell is the idea of two particles
directly interacting. Particles only interact with fields. The
particle can interact with the portion of the field closest to the
particle, but a particle never interacts with another particle. There
is the contradiction between Principia and the field concept.

I think this is really only playing with words. The end result is that the
particles exert opposite forces on each other.

If one uses the idea of electromagnetic field, as embodied by the
Maxwell equations, there is never any force between two electric
charges. The electric charges emit field lines, and the field lines
push around electric charges. Therefore, if a charge were to suddenly
appear out of nowhere in the way of an electric field line, the
electric field would push the electric charge. Now the electric field
line may have once been emitted by an electric charge. However, the
field in the vicinity of the new charge doesn't remember where it came
from. The charge responds locally to the field, as though the charge
that generated it never existed. Charges don't know what other charges
are doing except through a field.

Well I naturally agree. ..but it doesn't tell us much.
The fact is, the field around a single isolated charge appears to exist whether
or not another charge is present. Maybe that is not the case but I should think
it is true. There is no way to test it.
The point I was making is that for a field to exist at all, the space
containing that field must have PHYSICAL properties that render it different
from 'nothing'.

In any field theory, one is not allowed to speak about the forces
between particles. Particles instead are called "current sources," or
"charges." The particles interact through fields. A field can not be a
current source. Thus, there are electric currents and electric fields.
They are different. Electric currents never react directly to each
other. Electric fields never react directly to each other.

OK we'll assume fields act on particles...and since + and - fields are
identical, opposite charges are attracted to each other by the same force.

However there is a momentum problem. If the field surrounding an electron is
responsible for accelerating a positron, the latter's increase in momentum
should be matched by that of the field itself, which presumably has no mass.

Similarly, quarks have "color currents." There are "gluon fields."
A quark never interacts directly with another quark. The quark has an
effect on the gluon field, or the quark has an effect on the electric
field. A quark can have both electric charges and color charges.
However, it can never interact with another quark directly. The quark
makes a field line, the field line travels, and the other quark
interacts with the field line where ever it may be.

You introduce a separate question...namely the speed at which the field around
a charge moves.

Thus, there is no true action at a distance in the field
concept. What you are throwing away is the idea that two "bodies"
interact directly with each other.

I don't think this line of thought is very constructive. What you are saying is
pretty obvious really.

Classically (which includes relativity) one can handle this by
saying the field carries energy and mass itself. However, this gets
pretty creepy which is one reason that relativity seems so
counterintuitive.

Relativity is counterintuitive generally. Ignore it.

One way to resolve the field concept in quantum mechanics is to
say that "bodies" are particles with an odd number of half spins
(fermions), and "fields" are particles with an even number of half
spins (bosons). Fermions can't interact with identical fermions. They
can only interact with bosons which can interact with other fermions.
This is creepy, but it is still local. The fermions interact only with
the bosons that are near it.

Words, words that mean little......

The nonlocality in quantum mechanics is not part of the field
concept. It is something else.

The question remains. What makes space containing a field different from
'complete emptiness'. Whatever it is has the ability to exert a force on a
charged particle.





Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:05:53 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:



If time was the same as space, our eyes would detect it.

Also, why can't we lay two intervals of time side by side and compare them.

yes


Bob Kolker



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:36:52 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Apr 16, 6:06*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


That's not my model at all, although some aspects may not be as silly as they
sound.

Have you ever wondered why we see and feel sold objects when in reality they
are 99.9999999999999999% empty space. Why doesn't a bullet go straight through?
Of course we have some clues, EM emission explains why we see type 1 matter.,,
molecular bonds, dielectric properties, RI, *etc. explain why we feel it.
...but what if there is another type of 'substance' that we do not sense????
(hereby known as 'Wilson, type 2 matter' or 'Watter')


Very well could be. But when a door slams and someone says the wind
pushed it shut, it being a breezy day and the door being open to the
outside and a candle puffing out at the same time the door slammed, it
could ALSO be that two tiny gnomes slammed the door shut and blew out
the candle. It does not mean that the tiny gnome conjecture is on the
same level as the wind conjecture.

You seem to have a wind problem...hot air no doubt....

The fact is, the solidity of objects, even though they are mostly
empty space, is already accounted for, quantitatively and
qualitatively, by known models that have predictive power.

....based entirely on the existence of intra-atomic and intermolecular fields.
FIELDS again...what are they made of, Draper?

An
alternate model presented has to at least be able to compete in being
able to *predict* (not accommodate, but predict), quantitatively and
qualitatively, the properties of the solid material. Wilson, type 2
matter is a model with no predictive power at all, and so it doesn't
compete.

You have the typical relativist defeatist attitude. "If you can't see it or it
isn't in a text book, it doesn't exist".

I'll bet you, Draper, any furry or feathered animal can 'see' electrostatic
fields.

That's not to say that Wilson type 2 matter is ruled out.
It's just that Wilson type 2 matter isn't even far enough along as a
model to make the comparison. It is a tiny gnome model -- and gnomes
have got a cute name too.

Nevertheless, Watter is what makes space carrying a field different from
complete emptiness.

PD



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:31:15 +1000) it happened Timo Nieminen
wrote in
Pine.LNX.4.50.0804160759260.21926-100000@localhost:

Given the various recent advances in physics (especially applied physics),
I wouldn't say that mechanism is _needed_.

That is not completely correct.

What's not correct about it? You said that without mechanism, physics will
not advance. I was just pointing out that, currently, without what you
would consider adequate mechanism, physics _is_ advancing.

You must consider not to become cought up in words, to become a pedantic babbler.
As what I pointed out is clear enough.

Yes, it was clear enough. You very clearly stated that, without
"mechanism", physics will not advance. Are you now saying that you didn't
mean what your statement clearly appears to mean?

Assuming that you mean what you clearly write is not pedantry.

Clearly, we must have different ideas of what physics is, or what advances
in physics are.

Well in practical field nice advances have been made, mostly experimental,
with real models.

And very many advances in _theoretical_ applied physics, too.

In the theoretical field we see NOTHING since nuclear fission in the 1940 ties.
There is no fusion break even, we see no gravity waves,

All of which are questions of experiment and engineering. For fusion and
gravity waves, theory is way ahead of practical application, since the
experiment/engineering is rather difficult. Lack of commercial fusion
power reactors isn't due to deficiency in theory.

one ridiculous theory
after the other is proposed, we have no real FTL spacecraft, we do not know
the mechanism in gravity, and as to the subject we
use 'field' or 'ghost' to describe the area of influence while ignoring what
transfers the forces.

One of the major goals of current research in fundamental theoretical
physics is to find a mechanism for gravity. Unsuccessful so far. Do you
approve of the effort put into the attempt?

Use statistics,

A essential mathematical tool for experimental work. What's wrong with
using statistics? What use of statistics in _theory_ do you find
objectionable?

and too much questionable mathematics, to 'normalise' things
that clearly need a more sane solution, etc.
THAT part of physics is dead, not progressing, a joke, a waste of time,
and building the next bigger accelerator after we see a 1 in zillion Higgs would also be
a joke.
Same for building the next bigger one after ITER, that will not break even either.

Most physicists don't work in fundamental theoretical physics. The various
branches of experimental and theoretical applied physics is where most of
the work is being done, and where most of the advances are being made.
There's also lots of good stuff coming out of observational astronomy.

Things are measured (physical things), math is applied, some thing does
not fit the current 'model' (where model is sort of our picture of what we think
is happening), a new particle is proposed (for example neutrino).
What I say here is: 'you cannot separate math from that model, from the mechanism'.

Why not? The old model fails, a new model is proposed (and neither the old
or the new depends on "mechanism", if I understand your meaning of
mechanism). Eventually, the new model passes experimental test, and
becomes the accepted model. The models (old and new) are fundamentally
mathematical descriptions of the behaviour of the physical system in
question, so, sure, I'd agree that you can't separate model from maths.

We agree, likely, but my terminology may differ from yours.

But why is mechanism needed? For a counter-example, see Maxwell's
development of EM theory. Maxwell made heavy use of mechanical models in
his development of the theory (see Longair, Theoretical concepts in
physics, or Maxwell's 1861-2, 1865 papers), but such models were
essentially gone by the time he wrote Treatise - a clear case of the model
being separated from the mechanism, with no ill-effects on the use of the
model. Perhaps benefits even, since physicists who were very uncertain on
the reality of the proposed mechanism could accept the model (especially
after Hertz's non-mechanism justification/derivation of the model).

Yes, and that is where you go wrong, well physics goes wrong.

OK, so you think Newtonianism was the Big Mistake? Should physics re-wind
back to before Galileo and Newton?

Alas, I don't think you'd like Aristotlean physics either. Where Aristotle
(and the Aristotleans) stuck to description of phenomena (mathematical
models, no mechanism), the physics was often excellent (e.g., motion in
the presence of friction or viscous drag, levers, etc.), but where he (and
they) resorted to explanations in terms of "mechanism", they largely
produced nonsense.

So, re-wind back past Aristotle then, and then, maybe, physics will
progress?

So there is no ether, so what sets EM (light) speed then?
ONLY a line of text by Einstein? Nothing shall go c?
What a joke.
Actually he said: We have not observed anything c , so it does not exist.
Like if I have not seen a rocket, so nothing can go faster then horses, the fasted thing observed.
Hell this is 2008, and you are still thinking 10000 BC.

Actually, no, that isn't what Einstein said.

The list of science-based fears is long: atomic bombs will ignite the
nitrogen in the atmosphere, nanotechnology will turn everything into grey
goo, collider black holes, nuclear powered satellites will fall down on
us, power lines will kill us (sometimes said by people microwaving their
heads with their phones, much like hippie-types saying how brown rice is
so much healthier than white rice, with beer in one hand and cigarette in
the other), eating microwaved food will kill us. Most of this has very
little to do with maths, and much to do with scare-journalism exploiting
buzzwords.

If the calculated risk is 1 in 50 million to destroy the earth, then you should NOT do
the experiment.
If you change the calculations, so X people die per year the earth exists, you
are misusing math to get your pet experiment realized.

And if the calculated risk is zero? Above you complained about the lack of
FTL spaceships. What of the risk of the first test of such a spaceship?
Should it be done? Considering the possible physics involved, it seems a
far riskier venture than LHC.

Now I really do not know if LHC will create a black hole, and if it does if
it will do something to us, or a strangelet, maybe all will be a big hole in the ground
where LHC was, and STILL we would not learn.
Maybe all those gamma ray bursts we see are civilisations that finally did THE experiment.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html