"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
Sorry about threadlet.

"jahn" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
(Peter Kinane) wrote in message
. com...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which
the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So,
with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of
matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is
considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships).
This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.


Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor,
however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the
last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis
from
which to experiment and develop equations.


Bill, Sue, etc.,

I suspect that, due to exposure to the magnetic, let's say, force, now
resolved, the conductor has a degree of charge not present prior to
the exposure - an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy.

If so, I would propose to experiment with that extra charge. That
charge could be our selected FOR. Any ideas of what is - would be -
found?
Perhaps I missed something in your opening of thread but it is my
understanding that a change in the magnetic "field" will result in a
redistribution of charge on the conductor, the rate and duration
being determined by the free space impedance.

I may have achieved as much as I should expect from this thread -
thank you - and probably cannot go much further, however, I'll try
this:
Is there fairly solid evidence that the rate and duration is
determined by "the free space impedance"?

The need to adjust the length of a radiating conductor to
achieve the predicted feed point impedance for a given
wavelength seems to make a fairly good case. IMHO
Free space is ~ 377 ohms. A resonant dipole is ~ 75 ohms
Sue...

Perhaps it is entirely
determined by the behaviour of the magnetic field- -force?

Indeed, perhaps we should go further: Considering what is already
given in the system and what we have developed, the concept of "the
free space impedance", or indeed of "free space", does not (yet)
feature, and may not ever do.

The net charge wouldn't change; only the distribution.
Indeed, you have a worthy subject of study and I will caution
against "reverse engineering" to conform to any particular theory
whenever you have valid microscopic models. The displacement
current assumed by Maxwell is one such example where we should
probably ask more probing questions about what exactly is occuring
on a subatomic scale.
Kind regards,
Sue...


--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"jahn" wrote in message
...

"Harry" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
SNIP

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of
what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of
the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same
(as
is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one
results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains
charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results
from
a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the
charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary). The point is the
only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics
must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM
being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in
all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz
transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Poincare did not publish with as much detail how he did it - instead he
just
gave the results such as the relativity of simultaneity, the clock
calibration procedure, and of course the Lorentz transformations.

Bill, you pointed out the sore thumb in the above example - for what
matters
for the PoR is *not* the relative motion of magnet and wire, but the
motion
of each relative to inertial frames of reference. That confusion is at
the
basis of the Clock Paradox. The relative motion of magnet and wire is
only
coincidentally related to the PoR when they are both resting in inertial
frames.
I would like to read a good paper on that issue, if there is one - a
quick
search now gave me http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/symm.html, but I
hope that also reviewed journal papers about this subject are available.
Anyone?

Harald


Chapeter 8. Invariance of Maxwell-Lorentz equations of
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408077
might be something of interest.
Kind regards,
Sue...

A complete book! It does not seem to answer my question, but certainly
interesting. Thanks!
Harald

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

'effects effect'?

I'll leave this point for now, if I may.



Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.

In other words there is preferred frame of reference and a violation of
the
POR - care to provide actual evidence rather than philosophical mumbo
jumbo?

In other words, the relational nature of value would be recognised,
one would then _select_ a FOR, and then get on with attempting to
develop a system - thereby expecting to avoid 'jumping' around of
FORs.

Not in other words Peter. If the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames there is nothing preventing us logically from looking at
phenomena from different frames and seeing what that tells us - see for
example the well known situation you described below. Just because you do
not like something does not mean it is not a logically valid procedure.

As the point of the thread was- -is to suggest using a particular new
approach to developing a Physics system, together with your total
refusal to address the subject of an earlier thread - the Eff.
approach to cosmological navigation, even after much attempted
humouring of you - I did not wish to invest much effort again in reply
to some of the points you raised.

We have rather different philosophy systems - even if you think of
yours as none. I believe that different systems feature different
concepts - in effect, different Physics. So, your "In other words
there is preferred frame of reference []" point together with the
subsequent "If the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
[]" point are an argument against the proposal of the thread. I'm not
here to persuade you to consider a particular new approach to
developing a Physics system. People can decide whether to do so based
on there own sense of 'things'.






Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
which to experiment and develop equations.

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of
the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same (as
is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one
results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results
from a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the
charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary).

Good; it suggests that the proposal of this thread has some weight.
Let's simply select one FOR and get on with business.

Since the context of your post so far content your usual drivel against
frame jumbling it suggests nothing of the sort.

It is "good" in that it shows that "a different physical explanation"
arises from different approaches.



The point is the only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics
must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in
all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz
transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Good; same as above.

Same as above for me.

It is "good" in that it shows that "a different physical explanation"
arises from different approaches.




Peter - the above is really fundamental to an understanding of EM. May
I
suggest you acquaint yourself with what is going on - see
http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/hask...Relativity.htm


So, perhaps now you can focus on selecting a FOR, in accordance with
the proposal of the thread.

Your [frame] of refernece where 'effects effect'

I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "'the forces' through which
effects effect".

However, in saying "Also, this system would only trade in effects -
not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.", I was recording a thought which seemed
possibly of some worth. It is fairly analagous to this: Having
selected a position from which one is walking Eastward, the best way
to appraoch it from the West may be through continuing to walk
Eastward.

No need to make a big deal, or big excuse, of it.



Re "In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to
which in itself there is no corresponding energy []": For now, when I
said I am not particularly clear about what is meant here I
principally had in mind the meaning of "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?

The energy to move the electrons comes from the electric field for the
stationary conductor - or do you wish to deny faradays law?


I am enquiring about the clause "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which
the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the
material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So,
with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of
matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is
considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat
discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships).
This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

'effects effect'?

I'll leave this point for now, if I may.



Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference -
there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.

In other words there is preferred frame of reference and a violation
of
the
POR - care to provide actual evidence rather than philosophical
mumbo
jumbo?

In other words, the relational nature of value would be recognised,
one would then _select_ a FOR, and then get on with attempting to
develop a system - thereby expecting to avoid 'jumping' around of
FORs.

Not in other words Peter. If the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames there is nothing preventing us logically from looking at
phenomena from different frames and seeing what that tells us - see for
example the well known situation you described below. Just because you
do
not like something does not mean it is not a logically valid procedure.

As the point of the thread was- -is to suggest using a particular new
approach to developing a Physics system, together with your total
refusal to address the subject of an earlier thread - the Eff.
approach to cosmological navigation, even after much attempted
humouring of you - I did not wish to invest much effort again in reply
to some of the points you raised.

We have rather different philosophy systems - even if you think of
yours as none. I believe that different systems feature different
concepts - in effect, different Physics. So, your "In other words
there is preferred frame of reference []" point together with the
subsequent "If the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
[]" point are an argument against the proposal of the thread. I'm not
here to persuade you to consider a particular new approach to
developing a Physics system. People can decide whether to do so based
on there own sense of 'things'.

Make some predictions at variance with current theories and test them. All
else is gloss sand dross. And you are not only one this has been leveled
at - it has been leveled at string theorists whose ranks contain greats like
Witten - and not by cranks either - by none other than people of the stature
of Feynman. The difference between you and them however (their are equate a
few - this is just one) is they worry about it - you could not seem to care
less. Physics is not the working out of your philosophical system - it is
proposing testable theories.

Bill







Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what
equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed
here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric
field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor,
however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents
of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric
forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the
last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis
from
which to experiment and develop equations.

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of
what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame
of
the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same
(as
is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one
results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains
charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results
from a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the
charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary).

Good; it suggests that the proposal of this thread has some weight.
Let's simply select one FOR and get on with business.

Since the context of your post so far content your usual drivel against
frame jumbling it suggests nothing of the sort.

It is "good" in that it shows that "a different physical explanation"
arises from different approaches.



The point is the only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying
physics
must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM
being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form
in
all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz
transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already
done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Good; same as above.

Same as above for me.

It is "good" in that it shows that "a different physical explanation"
arises from different approaches.




Peter - the above is really fundamental to an understanding of EM.
May
I
suggest you acquaint yourself with what is going on - see
http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/hask...Relativity.htm


So, perhaps now you can focus on selecting a FOR, in accordance with
the proposal of the thread.

Your [frame] of refernece where 'effects effect'

I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "'the forces' through which
effects effect".

However, in saying "Also, this system would only trade in effects -
not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.", I was recording a thought which seemed
possibly of some worth. It is fairly analagous to this: Having
selected a position from which one is walking Eastward, the best way
to appraoch it from the West may be through continuing to walk
Eastward.

No need to make a big deal, or big excuse, of it.



Re "In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to
which in itself there is no corresponding energy []": For now, when I
said I am not particularly clear about what is meant here I
principally had in mind the meaning of "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?

The energy to move the electrons comes from the electric field for the
stationary conductor - or do you wish to deny faradays law?


I am enquiring about the clause "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

"Peter Kinane" wrote in message
om...
Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises


This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
reproduced here
http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm

"In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which
the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is the
material
point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So,
with
Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of
matter
effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is
considered
a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat
discontinuous,
but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships).
This
would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".

Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.

'effects effect'?

I'll leave this point for now, if I may.



Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference -
there
would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.

In other words there is preferred frame of reference and a violation
of
the
POR - care to provide actual evidence rather than philosophical
mumbo
jumbo?

In other words, the relational nature of value would be recognised,
one would then _select_ a FOR, and then get on with attempting to
develop a system - thereby expecting to avoid 'jumping' around of
FORs.

Not in other words Peter. If the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames there is nothing preventing us logically from looking at
phenomena from different frames and seeing what that tells us - see for
example the well known situation you described below. Just because you
do
not like something does not mean it is not a logically valid procedure.

As the point of the thread was- -is to suggest using a particular new
approach to developing a Physics system, together with your total
refusal to address the subject of an earlier thread - the Eff.
approach to cosmological navigation, even after much attempted
humouring of you - I did not wish to invest much effort again in reply
to some of the points you raised.

We have rather different philosophy systems - even if you think of
yours as none. I believe that different systems feature different
concepts - in effect, different Physics. So, your "In other words
there is preferred frame of reference []" point together with the
subsequent "If the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
[]" point are an argument against the proposal of the thread. I'm not
here to persuade you to consider a particular new approach to
developing a Physics system. People can decide whether to do so based
on there own sense of 'things'.

Make some predictions at variance with current theories and test them. All
else is gloss sand dross. And you are not only one this has been leveled
at - it has been leveled at string theorists whose ranks contain greats like
Witten - and not by cranks either - by none other than people of the stature
of Feynman. The difference between you and them however (their are equate a
few - this is just one) is they worry about it - you could not seem to care
less. Physics is not the working out of your philosophical system - it is
proposing testable theories.

Bill

The proposal of the thread falls outside your area of interest. No
news there.

I respect such difference - different FORs lead to quite different
worlds. As well as recognising the principle, I go on to select - or
crystallise as - a FOR and get on with business. I do not attempt to
be all FORs. (Indeed, it would seem very unnecessary, if not
ridiculous, to do so (to a great extent) - but Einstein seems to
disagree, and probably because of his philosophical premises). Then
the principle of survival of the fittest, or luckiest, plays a role.

Re "Physics [] is proposing testable theories.": Good. Anyone to
further develop and test Eff. Electrodynamics?

Re "Make some predictions at variance with current theories and test
them.": As above, I am proposing a new FOR - Eff. Electrodynamics -
with a view to it showing new concepts - a somewhat different world.








Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what
equations
would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed
here
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric
field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor,
however,
we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents
of
the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric
forces
in the former case".

It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the
last
quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis
from
which to experiment and develop equations.

What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of
what
frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame
of
the
conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same
(as
is
required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one
results
from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains
charges
that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results
from a
changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the
charges
(in this case the wire is considered stairtonary).

Good; it suggests that the proposal of this thread has some weight.
Let's simply select one FOR and get on with business.

Since the context of your post so far content your usual drivel against
frame jumbling it suggests nothing of the sort.

It is "good" in that it shows that "a different physical explanation"
arises from different approaches.



The point is the only
thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying
physics
must
really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM
being
Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form
in
all
frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz
transformations,
for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already
done
that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.

Good; same as above.

Same as above for me.

It is "good" in that it shows that "a different physical explanation"
arises from different approaches.




Peter - the above is really fundamental to an understanding of EM.
May
I
suggest you acquaint yourself with what is going on - see
http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/hask...Relativity.htm


So, perhaps now you can focus on selecting a FOR, in accordance with
the proposal of the thread.

Your [frame] of refernece where 'effects effect'

I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "'the forces' through which
effects effect".

However, in saying "Also, this system would only trade in effects -
not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.", I was recording a thought which seemed
possibly of some worth. It is fairly analagous to this: Having
selected a position from which one is walking Eastward, the best way
to appraoch it from the West may be through continuing to walk
Eastward.

No need to make a big deal, or big excuse, of it.



Re "In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to
which in itself there is no corresponding energy []": For now, when I
said I am not particularly clear about what is meant here I
principally had in mind the meaning of "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?

The energy to move the electrons comes from the electric field for the
stationary conductor - or do you wish to deny faradays law?


I am enquiring about the clause "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?

--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/


--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/

Philosophy at the time of consolidation of the prevailing Physics
model had not yet produced the concept "Value, effecting through
relationship 'of forces'". People thought of things as being discrete
or separate and of definite value, as, shall we say, objective - much
as a child sees things in very definite terms- -concepts, and as is
appropriate to primal organisms. But, physicists, 'trying to measure
things', found that 'things seemed different' from different
'perspectives'. They thought of this principle as "Relativity". As
well as coming to this, shall we say, slightly more advanced
conclusion they still, perhaps low-consciously, hankered for the old
'objectivity' and so tried to make Relativity objective. This, shall
we say, cross-species union begot rather fantastic concepts and
mathematical equations, but did- -does not seem to express intuitive
value - just goes to show what relationship of forces can effect.

This rather mysterious- -alien offspring is, in effect, modern Physics
- modern man. His soul is rather a stranger to him, but then long so,
to some niggling sense, has been his philosophy. This probably results
in a (further) loss of self-confidence and in a reluctance to
experiment with a new principle such as "Value, effecting through
relationship 'of forces'" - perhaps a reluctance also, in part,
because it is a time of exponential technological progress. In effect,
it is a condition of technological progress built on a long time
failure in philosophy - the human intellect and spirit of recent
millennia.


-----------

...

-----------

Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/