On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:29:28 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

From your writing, "field" is not sufficient mechanism.

Field is a [mathematical] concept.
It basically says: 'We do not know what the 'mechanism' (and hopefully
you now get closer to what I mean by 'mechanism') is, but this is how
the forces look at any given point in space.'
So fields tells us nothing (and this was the OP's assertion) about 'what'
transfers the forces.
You do not know (and anybody) what exactly is the causing the 'charge' of
an electron, how it is transmitted from one electron to the other, so that
they repel each other.




Consider carefully the section of my previous post you deleted without
comment.

If I did not comment, then I must have found that part to agree with some of my views,
or irrelevant to the subject, or something.
I want to avoid pedantic word games.


Your insistence on mechanism would discard Newton, discard
Galileo, and discard the correct [1] portion of Aristotlean physics.

Oh big words, back to the OP, and the fact that we need to look what transfers those forces.
If you do not, then you get math crap.
And a whole newsgroup full of relativist.


What is wrong with insisting on "mechanism"? When physics has been content
with phenomena - building and using mathematical models of phenomena -
physics has advanced. For example, we model classical EM effects using
classical EM theory, and there is no "mechanism" in sight. It works, and
works well. It's even the foundation of the quantum theory, which works,
and works even better, also with no "mechanism" in sight.

That cat is dead.



An insistence on measurement would divorce theory from the real world,
which rather than allowing physics to advance, would severely retard
progress.

Theory needs to be verified, you need a model (or mechanism, same), to
form a picture in your mind of what happens, if you omit that, then
you are stuck with math crap.


Essentially, theory is utterly dependent on observation, measurement and
experiment, and historically has not advanced without it, and will not now
or in the future.

This was my point exactly :-)


Likewise, experiment will not get far in the absence of theory (despite
the fond hopes of Francis Bacon).

Same.


Perhaps Newton knew what he was doing?

Newton called (using my own words) gravity's action at a distance without something
transferring the forces 'insane'.


And what if that theory is wrong?
Keep looking in LIGO, see nothing, does that not ring a bell?
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

The detectors need to get better to disprove current theory, which
predicts that they're unlikely to see anything yet.

Quote:
Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's
gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million
trillion times larger than Einstein?s General Relativity predicts.
end quote

So one hundred million trillion times does not seem like 'in the noise'
and needing a better detector.

To be honest I think they measure some inductance effect in the wiring,
but if they did their homework right then Einstein's theory is dead.



since the
experiment/engineering is rather difficult. Lack of commercial fusion
power reactors isn't due to deficiency in theory.

It actually is, they do not understand the plasma's behaviour.

Tokamaks basically work according to theory (1950 or so). There's
currently realistic optimism that they might even get it to work.

Look it up, it is the plasma that causes problems.


And then there's inertial confinement.

And, as above, do you _really_ expect theory to proceed without
experimental input?

Well, you are agreeing 100% again with me, so what can I say?


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?

There was a professor in Germany who showed his students that the same
village where most children were born, also had the most storks.

So he then statistically 'proved' storks bring babies.
DOES THAT RING A BELL?

No. And you haven't answered the question in any meaningful manner. Of
course such "proofs" (usually less stupid) exist in bad research. It isn't
the fault of the statistics, but the fault of bad researchers. Correlation
doesn't demonstrate causality, and any researcher worth their salt will
know this.

I am saying there is so much use of statistics, and statistics build on statistics,
that the end result is so depending on errors like the before mentioned, that it is worth nothing.


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.

So, what did he say?
I can assure you there is no light speed police to give you a ticket.

Read his 1905 SR paper. You could even read his popular book on
relativity, available free on Gutenberg, iirc, and likely elsewhere.

Oh I did, nice for 1905, I think he has some religious hang up with light.


The problem comes when you want to accelerate a massive object past the
speed of light. It's been tried. Consult the history of particle
accelerators, including ones designed and built by relativity skeptics.

You CANNOT I repeat _cannot_ accelerate a particle faster then the medium you are accelerating it with.

To be precise:
The surfer cannot move faster then the waves.
No matter how high the waves are (energy).
The wavefront will be steeper, the surfer will arrive a fraction earlier, but _never_ before the
start of the wave.

A child can see that if an accelerator pushes some particle to .999c, and sits
on earth, then the sum of the speeds (particle + earth movement) (say directed to some point in space)
due to rotation of the earth is c.


Above you complained about the lack of
FTL spaceships. What of the risk of the first test of such a spaceship?

Why should it be a risk?

Given _no_ theory on how to do it, how can you even assess the risk, let
alone proclaim that there is no risk?

Just keep accelerating, you will get there.
If you leave FTL, then nothing can reach us, so that is Einstein's proof it is safe (joking).

On Apr 19, 1:38*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:

[snip]


Quote:
*Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's
*gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million
*trillion times larger than Einstein?s General Relativity predicts.
end quote

So one hundred million trillion times does not seem like 'in the noise'
and needing a better detector.

The results never passed peer review - the only reason you know about
it was because of a premature press release. Why are you citing them
as if they were gospel?

I repeat: Tajmar's work was never published. Stop quoting it as if it
proves a point.

[snip]


You CANNOT I repeat _cannot_ accelerate a particle faster then the medium you are accelerating it with.

Ignorance. Bullets travel faster than the speed of sound in any gas
yet use gas to accelerate them.



To be precise:
The surfer cannot move faster then the waves.
No matter how high the waves are (energy).
The wavefront will be steeper, the surfer will arrive a fraction earlier, but _never_ before the
start of the wave.

A child can see that if an accelerator pushes some particle to .999c, and sits
on earth, then the sum of the speeds (particle + earth movement) (say directed to some point in space)
due to rotation of the earth is c.

Only in classical mechanics, which is refuted by experiment.


Above you complained about the lack of
FTL spaceships. What of the risk of the first test of such a spaceship?

Why should it be a risk?

Given _no_ theory on how to do it, how can you even assess the risk, let
alone proclaim that there is no risk?

Just keep accelerating, you will get there.
If you leave FTL, then nothing can reach us, so that is Einstein's proof it is safe (joking).

On Apr 19, 5:38 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:29:28 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

From your writing, "field" is not sufficient mechanism.

Field is a [mathematical] concept.
It basically says: 'We do not know what the 'mechanism' (and hopefully
you now get closer to what I mean by 'mechanism') is, but this is how
the forces look at any given point in space.'
So fields tells us nothing (and this was the OP's assertion) about 'what'
transfers the forces.
You do not know (and anybody) what exactly is the causing the 'charge' of
an electron, how it is transmitted from one electron to the other, so that
they repel each other.

Consider carefully the section of my previous post you deleted without
comment.

If I did not comment, then I must have found that part to agree with some of my views,
or irrelevant to the subject, or something.
I want to avoid pedantic word games.

Your insistence on mechanism would discard Newton, discard
Galileo, and discard the correct [1] portion of Aristotlean physics.

Oh big words, back to the OP, and the fact that we need to look what transfers those forces.
If you do not, then you get math crap.
And a whole newsgroup full of relativist.

What is wrong with insisting on "mechanism"? When physics has been content
with phenomena - building and using mathematical models of phenomena -
physics has advanced. For example, we model classical EM effects using
classical EM theory, and there is no "mechanism" in sight. It works, and
works well. It's even the foundation of the quantum theory, which works,
and works even better, also with no "mechanism" in sight.

That cat is dead.

An insistence on measurement would divorce theory from the real world,
which rather than allowing physics to advance, would severely retard
progress.

Theory needs to be verified, you need a model (or mechanism, same), to
form a picture in your mind of what happens, if you omit that, then
you are stuck with math crap.

Essentially, theory is utterly dependent on observation, measurement and
experiment, and historically has not advanced without it, and will not now
or in the future.

This was my point exactly :-)

Likewise, experiment will not get far in the absence of theory (despite
the fond hopes of Francis Bacon).

Same.

Perhaps Newton knew what he was doing?

Newton called (using my own words) gravity's action at a distance without something
transferring the forces 'insane'.

And what if that theory is wrong?
Keep looking in LIGO, see nothing, does that not ring a bell?
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

The detectors need to get better to disprove current theory, which
predicts that they're unlikely to see anything yet.

Quote:
Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's
gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million
trillion times larger than Einstein?s General Relativity predicts.
end quote

So one hundred million trillion times does not seem like 'in the noise'
and needing a better detector.

To be honest I think they measure some inductance effect in the wiring,
but if they did their homework right then Einstein's theory is dead.

since the
experiment/engineering is rather difficult. Lack of commercial fusion
power reactors isn't due to deficiency in theory.

It actually is, they do not understand the plasma's behaviour.

Tokamaks basically work according to theory (1950 or so). There's
currently realistic optimism that they might even get it to work.

Look it up, it is the plasma that causes problems.

And then there's inertial confinement.

And, as above, do you _really_ expect theory to proceed without
experimental input?

Well, you are agreeing 100% again with me, so what can I say?



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?

There was a professor in Germany who showed his students that the same
village where most children were born, also had the most storks.

So he then statistically 'proved' storks bring babies.
DOES THAT RING A BELL?

No. And you haven't answered the question in any meaningful manner. Of
course such "proofs" (usually less stupid) exist in bad research. It isn't
the fault of the statistics, but the fault of bad researchers. Correlation
doesn't demonstrate causality, and any researcher worth their salt will
know this.

I am saying there is so much use of statistics, and statistics build on statistics,
that the end result is so depending on errors like the before mentioned, that it is worth nothing.

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.

So, what did he say?
I can assure you there is no light speed police to give you a ticket.

Read his 1905 SR paper. You could even read his popular book on
relativity, available free on Gutenberg, iirc, and likely elsewhere.

Oh I did, nice for 1905, I think he has some religious hang up with light.

The problem comes when you want to accelerate a massive object past the
speed of light. It's been tried. Consult the history of particle
accelerators, including ones designed and built by relativity skeptics.

You CANNOT I repeat _cannot_ accelerate a particle faster then the medium you are accelerating it with.

To be precise:
The surfer cannot move faster then the waves.
No matter how high the waves are (energy).
The wavefront will be steeper, the surfer will arrive a fraction earlier, but _never_ before the
start of the wave.

A child can see that if an accelerator pushes some particle to .999c, and sits
on earth, then the sum of the speeds (particle + earth movement) (say directed to some point in space)
due to rotation of the earth is c.

Above you complained about the lack of
FTL spaceships. What of the risk of the first test of such a spaceship?

Why should it be a risk?

Given _no_ theory on how to do it, how can you even assess the risk, let
alone proclaim that there is no risk?

Just keep accelerating, you will get there.
If you leave FTL, then nothing can reach us, so that is Einstein's proof it is safe (joking).


In considering the speed of light it is healthy awareness to consider
the aging of the photon as one considers the aging of an astronaut who
takes a fast trip and returns more youthful than his counterpart; the
photon ages zero units unconditionally. So from the photon's
perspective its trip is instantaneous though from ours we see some
fixed velocity. I think that this is a healthy awareness to maintain
since under this paradigm the absolute limitation of c is more
explicit. Still it poses some deep puzzle in a toplogical vein.

The direct relation of electromagnetism to spacetime is already
invoked yet the directness seems obscured. There is a different way to
bridge the gap. If with pure arithmetic we can answer the question
"Why spacetime"
then could that answer lead the way? It seems highly likely. Firstly,
the unidirectional nature of time suggests that a 4D isotropic model
is not a realistic construction. Even the real number as a
representation of time will already contain an artificial
bidirectional feature that is present in the spatial dimensions but
lacking in time. It is a simplistic step to swipe away one of the
signs of the reals and arrive at one-signed (P1) numbers beneath the
two-signed (P2) reals. P1 will contain no inverse and under
superposition can only accumulate. In order to extend such a theory
one will have to consider the generalization of sign and so a family
of number systems called polysign numbers.
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
It happens that natural support for spacetime can be had but it will
ask us to consider that spacetime may be progressively structured. In
hindsight already the special treatment of time under the Minkowski
metric lends support. Interestingly the progressive structure also
contains inherent support for the geometrical nature of
electromagnetism.

Earlier in this thread the notion of the electron as conceived from
vacuum tube behaviors was spelled out but the spin of the electron was
left off from that early model of raw charge. What we see now is a
collage of construction with spin being imposed atop that old raw
charge. Maxwell's equations expose the interrelation of charge and
magnetism but the polysign theory suggests that these are features of
spacetime itself and so the electron and its spin may be unitary. By
shifting some of the informational complexity into spacetime a
simplistic particle model might be achieved. If we then allow for
relative reference frames per particle we can take those spin
orientations as reference frames.

The informational format of the progressively structured spacetime is
consistent with the antisymmetric electromagnetic tensor
a11
a21 a22
a31 a32 a33
with redundancy removed.

- Tim

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:

Essentially, theory is utterly dependent on observation, measurement and
experiment, and historically has not advanced without it, and will not now
or in the future.

This was my point exactly :-)

No, it's the opposite of your point! You are insisting on "mechanism"
(whatever exactly you might mean by that, but you clearly don't mean
a mathematical model of observable phenomena) behind the observable
phenomena. You've been saying that we _must_ do "theory" (i.e., come up
with "mechanism") that's resistant to observational/experimental test.

Likewise, experiment will not get far in the absence of theory (despite
the fond hopes of Francis Bacon).

Same.

Perhaps Newton knew what he was doing?

Newton called (using my own words) gravity's action at a distance without something
transferring the forces 'insane'.

But it works.

Or are you saying the whole Newtonian program is fundamentally defective
in method? If you _really_ think physics should be rewound back past
observation-based Aristotle, say so.

You say you don't want to get into word games, but that's all I see from
you above and below.

You've said that for physics to advance, "mechanism" is necessary. You've
avoided saying what you mean by "mechanism" (cute word game no. 1). But
you've said that mathematical description of phenomena is not "mechanism".
Thus, you want to go "behind" the phenomena, and uncover the "why". But
behind the phenomena is not observable, thus your bland agreement with the
first point above is quite the opposite of your original point (cute word
game no. 2).

I am saying there is so much use of statistics, and statistics build on statistics,
that the end result is so depending on errors like the before
mentioned, that it is worth nothing.

So just a general complaint, with nothing of substance?

The problem comes when you want to accelerate a massive object past the
speed of light. It's been tried. Consult the history of particle
accelerators, including ones designed and built by relativity skeptics.

You CANNOT I repeat _cannot_ accelerate a particle faster then the medium you are accelerating it with.

To be precise:
The surfer cannot move faster then the waves.
No matter how high the waves are (energy).
The wavefront will be steeper, the surfer will arrive a fraction earlier, but _never_ before the
start of the wave.

So what? Use a wave with phase velocity c.

Also, production of particles in collisions/decays.

--
Timo

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:45:14 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:

Essentially, theory is utterly dependent on observation, measurement and
experiment, and historically has not advanced without it, and will not now
or in the future.

This was my point exactly :-)

No, it's the opposite of your point! You are insisting on "mechanism"
(whatever exactly you might mean by that, but you clearly don't mean
a mathematical model of observable phenomena) behind the observable
phenomena. You've been saying that we _must_ do "theory" (i.e., come up
with "mechanism") that's resistant to observational/experimental test.

Hell, I am beginning to believe that you physicks guys have been so brainwashed
as to no longer see the difference.
Here we go again:
Once Ohm's law was derived as I = U / R, and current was found to flow
in a vacuum tube. a 'model' or 'mechanism' was needed to explain that.
THAT CURRENT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM I = U / R, as when R is infinite (vacuum),
as then I is zero. So enter the electron, and modern electronics.


Newton called (using my own words) gravity's action at a distance without something
transferring the forces 'insane'.

But it works.

Yes, his EQUATIONS work, but he ALSO wanted to know WHAT was relaying the forces.


The problem comes when you want to accelerate a massive object past the
speed of light. It's been tried. Consult the history of particle
accelerators, including ones designed and built by relativity skeptics.

You CANNOT I repeat _cannot_ accelerate a particle faster then the medium you are accelerating it with.

To be precise:
The surfer cannot move faster then the waves.
No matter how high the waves are (energy).
The wavefront will be steeper, the surfer will arrive a fraction earlier, but _never_ before the
start of the wave.

So what? Use a wave with phase velocity c.

Here you show you have no clue of waves and EM radiation.
Even worked in an accelerator complex?
They use electromagnets to pulse charged particles, push them in such
a sequence that they speed up.
Of course you can use many waves to try to speed up the surfer, but if those
waves (the EM field here) themselves move at c, and grab on to the charged particles via
EM forces, then you cannot move those particles faster then the waves, even if you pulse
faster, or use a stronger EM field.



Also, production of particles in collisions/decays.

I'd say Bull, but will be careful.
As you specify nothing.
If charged particles are moving and interact with space who knows....
As the situation is now, if a FTL particle was observed, Einstein's relativity would be
applied immediately to get the experimenter / observer / student of the hook of
having his / her career ended prematurely or immediately.
Observation - apply relativity - do some calculus - undo relativity - result.
Everybody happy + Einstein in his grave not rolling over.
DO YOU REMEMBER EPICYCLES?
It is the same 100%.

On Apr 19, 10:04 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:45:14 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:

Essentially, theory is utterly dependent on observation, measurement and
experiment, and historically has not advanced without it, and will not now
or in the future.

This was my point exactly :-)

No, it's the opposite of your point! You are insisting on "mechanism"
(whatever exactly you might mean by that, but you clearly don't mean
a mathematical model of observable phenomena) behind the observable
phenomena. You've been saying that we _must_ do "theory" (i.e., come up
with "mechanism") that's resistant to observational/experimental test.

Hell, I am beginning to believe that you physicks guys have been so brainwashed
as to no longer see the difference.
Here we go again:
Once Ohm's law was derived as I = U / R, and current was found to flow
in a vacuum tube. a 'model' or 'mechanism' was needed to explain that.
THAT CURRENT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM I = U / R, as when R is infinite (vacuum),

Where did you get the idea a vacuum has infinite
resistance, CRT's work good.
Ken S. Tucker
PS: If you disprove my TV works my wife won't be
able to watch Jeopardy, do you Jan want that
on your consience then we'll get real dumb.

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:24:40 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:56:07 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Well Henri, despite the fact that EM fields are so well understood
that we can correctly predict their strength in any experiment you
might devise, you claim that "there is no actual physical model
that describes the relationship between electrostatic and magnetic
force fields."
You don't seem to understand. A mathematical model is NOT a physical one.

So what qualifies as "an actual physical model"?
Can you have such a model without the equivalent of cogs and wheels?
Please give an example of an "actual physical model".
Paul, have you ever questioned why a lump of iron feels hard and prevents light
passing through. After all, the actual volume occupied by its basic particles
is negligible.
Have you ever considered why matter possesses inertia and a lump of iron is
hard to move?
Have you ever considerd that there might be another type of 'matter' that is
transparent to both light and normal matter. There is no reason to rule out the
possibility that an electrostatic field is made of some kind of 'substance'
that is completely transparent to us in respect of both light and inertia.
The traditional name of this "type of 'matter' that is transparent
to both light and normal matter" is "the luminiferous aether".

So you are an etherist.
But didn't you use to advocate Ritz's emission theory? :-)

Now don't be silly Paul. Surely you can do better than this.

The 'field medium' that makes space containing a field different from
'completely empty space' is in no way related to the concept of one absolute
spatial medium.
I'm suggesting that 'something' must exist in space to identify the field
there. There is no reason why we should be able to 'see' or 'feel' it.

So you confirm to believe in the luminiferous ether.
Isn't that heresy for a believer in the emission theory, Henri? :-)

One thing is certain (to those with a brain). Space containing a 'field' is not
completely EMPTY any more than is the space containing the lump of iron. It is
obviously different from space containing a field of different strength.

Just because fields are invisible to us humans (with our very limited sensory
system) doesn't mean they are made of 'nothing'. For all we know, other animals
such as migratory birds might be able to 'visualize' electric fields.

As you so trivially state, we know the maths and have comprehensive
mathematical models of fields. Nobody has bothered to consider the
physics....largely because dickheads like Einstein took over the show.

Nobody has queried how the presence of a field in remote space can exert a
force on a charge or a lump of matter.
Physics is still very much in its infancy.
It's rather you that still are stuck in the clockwork universe
of the 19. century, when EM-fields were stress in "another type
of 'matter' that is transparent to both light and normal matter",
called the luminiferous aether.
Physics has grown out of this infantile world view.
Your clockwork models simply don't work.

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')

I don't think your new name for the ether will catch on. :-)

I have previously suggested that there might be three subdimensions of space,
time and MASS. I stick by that statement.
Nothing is too stupid ...

You obviously work according to the principle, "if you cannot see it, it
doesn't exist"

We cannot see or feel Watter...but it can make our hair stand on end......

Quite.
That's what the etherists claim.


--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:45:14 +1000) it happened "Timo A.
Nieminen" wrote in
:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Timo wrote:

Essentially, theory is utterly dependent on observation, measurement and
experiment, and historically has not advanced without it, and will not now
or in the future.

This was my point exactly :-)

No, it's the opposite of your point! You are insisting on "mechanism"
(whatever exactly you might mean by that, but you clearly don't mean
a mathematical model of observable phenomena) behind the observable
phenomena. You've been saying that we _must_ do "theory" (i.e., come up
with "mechanism") that's resistant to observational/experimental test.

Hell, I am beginning to believe that you physicks guys have been so brainwashed
as to no longer see the difference.
Here we go again:
Once Ohm's law was derived as I = U / R, and current was found to flow
in a vacuum tube. a 'model' or 'mechanism' was needed to explain that.
THAT CURRENT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM I = U / R, as when R is infinite (vacuum),
as then I is zero. So enter the electron, and modern electronics.

Calling something "electron" isn't a "mechanism". Or do you think it is?
Given that we don't know what an electron _is_, beyond its measured
properties, all we have is a name and a mathematical model.

Newton called (using my own words) gravity's action at a distance without something
transferring the forces 'insane'.

But it works.

Yes, his EQUATIONS work, but he ALSO wanted to know WHAT was relaying the forces.

Again you avoid the substance of the discussion. You are allowed to have
an opinion, even if others disagree! You are allowed to say that your
original statement was hasty and incomplete.

You say that physics will not advance without "mechanism". Consider
Newton's theory (i.e., mathematical model) of universal gravitation. As
above, you note (well, claim without evidence, but it does appear that
Newton was interested in knowning about mechanisms), Newton wanted to know
the mechanism behind gravity. But he never found a satisfactory answer.

Did physics progress, based on Newton's mathematical model of gravity,
despite Newton's lack of mechanism?

Again, your insistence on the "mechanism" behind observable phenomena
would divorce theory from observation and experiment, which in the past,
has by-and-large led to useless crap, not advances.

The problem comes when you want to accelerate a massive object past the
speed of light. It's been tried. Consult the history of particle
accelerators, including ones designed and built by relativity skeptics.

You CANNOT I repeat _cannot_ accelerate a particle faster then the medium you are accelerating it with.

To be precise:
The surfer cannot move faster then the waves.
No matter how high the waves are (energy).
The wavefront will be steeper, the surfer will arrive a fraction earlier, but _never_ before the
start of the wave.

So what? Use a wave with phase velocity c.

Here you show you have no clue of waves and EM radiation.
Even worked in an accelerator complex?
They use electromagnets to pulse charged particles, push them in such
a sequence that they speed up.
Of course you can use many waves to try to speed up the surfer, but if those
waves (the EM field here) themselves move at c, and grab on to the charged particles via
EM forces, then you cannot move those particles faster then the waves, even if you pulse
faster, or use a stronger EM field.

"Electromagnetics to pulse charged particles" is a very bad description of
how accelerators work.

"EM wave" is not EM field. You can start with a DC field everywhere. Why
should an electron being accelerated by a DC field have to wait for the
field to "move"?

And again, why not try it with an EM wave with phase velocity c? Such is
trivially achieved, so if you think the phase velocity of EM waves is the
limiting factor, then superluminal particle velocities should be trivially
achieved.

Also, production of particles in collisions/decays.

I'd say Bull, but will be careful.
As you specify nothing.
If charged particles are moving and interact with space who knows....
As the situation is now, if a FTL particle was observed, Einstein's relativity would be
applied immediately to get the experimenter / observer / student of the hook of
having his / her career ended prematurely or immediately.
Observation - apply relativity - do some calculus - undo relativity - result.
Everybody happy + Einstein in his grave not rolling over.
DO YOU REMEMBER EPICYCLES?
It is the same 100%.

Epicycles were "mechanism". Crystal spheres and all that. That's what
happens when people like Aristotle go beyond observation/experiment and
theorise about the mechanisms behind the phenomena

--
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

On Apr 18, 5:24*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:30:35 +0100, "Androcles"
wrote:



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

| OK, if you say so.

NO.

OK, what is your explanation?

You haven't been paying attention. Androcles has reduced himself to
posting with nothing other than a reflex response in his nervous
system. If I say "yes", he says "no", and if I say "no" he says "yes".
He does this between spoonfuls of applesauce.

What allows one volume of space to possess a field strength of X and another a
field strength of Y?

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

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

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

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 5:24 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:30:35 +0100, "Androcles"

wrote:



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

| OK, if you say so.

NO.

OK, what is your explanation?

| You haven't been paying attention. Androcles has reduced himself to
| posting with nothing other than a reflex response in his nervous
| system. If I say "yes", he says "no", and if I say "no" he says "yes".
| He does this between spoonfuls of applesauce.

Cite where you've said "yes".
Actually you are just ****ed off not getting to play the lead role
in the film version of Ian Fleming's "Dr. No." (Due to your lack
of a degree, no doubt.)
Einstein's third postulate, x'/(x+c) = x'/(c-v), is ****in' nonsense.
Go on, say "No it's NOT!"
****head.





What allows one volume of space to possess a field strength of X and
another a
field strength of Y?

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

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