James Maxwell's Physical Model

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Mon May 11, 2009 9:13 am

Solar wrote:I think you were correct to include Rudjer Boskovic in the picture. A suggestion. There are areas wherein Boskovic speaks to what has become known as longitudinal forces. When you read it consider this aspect of force also.
Pg 45 sec 17 & 17 is he speaking of longitudinal forces here via “velocity” and the “precussion” of particles?
Yes, indeed longitudonal forces a playing a role here but Boskovic is no fan of actual contact as in an mechanical collision, he also denies impulsive action
It is in those sections around section 17 that he's trying to show the Law of Continuity which he's advocating, and which Law is that which is most significant of Boskovic's , the point also where he differs from "mechanicians" and such
Let me be so bold to place the first 11 sections below,
Personally I think it is this principle or Law of Continuity is important to go with Faraday and Tesla, as well as the resolving of forces in one force (also a continuity), expressing itself in different magnitude and propensity depending on distance
Farady was not talking about the same lines of force that Maxwell was talking about, not only did Faraday take the lines/strings purely as an analogy and Maxwell as actual physical things (the famous field lines as elucidated by Donald Scott), but also the actual concept of force was as different as that Boskovic is different from Newton
For Tesla also the talk about centres of oscillation might have been important maybe
Solar wrote:Aetherometry works directly with Tesla radiation (both massfree ambipolar electric and massbound electric). I think you're spot on here.
Yes Aetherometry does that indeed, Tesla himself spoke of radiations, more people have noticed this and tried to use it, have defined it in a certain way that have a certain resemblance in properties, though I think as long as people as the Correas are not sincere about scientific and philosophic history it does not only do injustice to the giants on whos shoulders they stand upon but also to the knowledge they are trying to pursue as well

but let me quote PLN2BZ from the end of the Meyl-thread as he said something very nice
There needs to be a reading guide that introduces people to Wal's neutrino sea, Meyl's Scalar Vortex Theory, quantum mechanics and David Thomson's APM. This is the project that I'm working on right now, but it's going to take many months to finish it. Each of these ideas has their own pluses and minuses. All of them can legitimately claim legitimacy. We cannot, and should not, attempt to generate consensus on which is correct. The only consensus we need is with regards to the arguments themselves. Once we learn all of these paradigms, then we can try to figure out tests to evaluate them.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 2419#p2419

1. The following Theory of mutual forces, which I lit upon as far back as the year 1745, whilst I was studying various propositions arising from other very well-known principles, & from which I have derived the very constitution of the simple elements of matter, presents a system that is midway between that of Leibniz & that of Newton ; it has very much in common with both, & differs very much from either ; &, as it is immensely more simple than either, it is undoubtedly suitable in a marvellous degree for deriving all the general properties of bodies, & certain of the special properties also, by means of the most rigorous demonstrations.

2. It indeed holds to those simple & perfectly non-extended primary elements upon which is founded the theory of Leibniz ; & also to the mutual forces, which vary as the distances of the points from one another vary, the characteristic of the theory of Newton ;in addition, it deals not only with the kind of forces, employed by Newton, which oblige the points to approach one another, & are commonly called attractions ; but also it considers forces of a kind that engender recession, & are called repulsions. Further, the idea is introduced in such a manner that, where attraction ends, there, with a change of distance, repulsion begins ; this idea, as a matter of fact, was suggested by Newton in the last of his ' Questions on Optics ', & he illustrated it by the example of the passage from positive to negative, as used in algebraical formulas. Moreover there is this common point between either of the theories of Newton & Leibniz & my own ; namely, that any particle of matter is connected with every other particle, no matter how great is the distance between them, in such a way that, in accordance with a change in the position, no matter how slight, of any one of them, the factors that determine the motions of all the rest are altered ; &, unless it happens that they all cancel one another (& this is infinitely improbable), some motion, due to the change of position in question, will take place in every one of them.

3. But my Theory differs in a marked degree from that of Leibniz. For one thing,because it does not admit the continuous extension that arises from the idea of consecutive, non-extended points touching one another ; here, the difficulty raised in times gone by in opposition to Zeno, & never really or satisfactorily answered (nor can it be answered), with regard to compenetration of all kinds with non-extended consecutive points, still holds the same force against the system of Leibniz. For another thing, it admits homogeneity amongst the elements, all distinction between masses depending on relative position only, & different combinations of the elements ; for this homogeneity amongst the elements, & the reason for the difference amongst masses, Nature herself provides us with the analogy. Chemical operations especially do so ; for, since the result of the analysis of compound substances leads to classes of elementary substances that are so comparatively few in number, & still less different from one another in nature ; it strongly suggests that, the further analysis can be pushed, the greater the simplicity, & homogeneity, that ought to be attained ; thus, at length, we should have, as the result of a final decomposition, homogeneity & simplicity of the highest degree. Against this homogeneity & simplicity, the principle of indiscernibles, & the doctrine of sufficient reason, so long & strongly advocated by the followers of Leibniz, can, in my opinion at least, avail in not the slightest degree.

4. My Theory also differs as widely as possible from that of Newton. For one thing,because it explains by means of a single law of forces all those things that Newton himself,in the last of his Questions on Uptics , endeavoured to explain by the three principles of gravity, cohesion & fermentation ; nay, & very many other things as well, which do not altogether follow from those three principles. Further, this law is expressed by a single algebraical formula, & not by one composed of several formulae compounded together ; or by a single continuous geometrical curve. For another thing, it admits forces that at very small distances are not positive or attractive, as Newton supposed, but negative or repulsive ; although these also become greater & greater indefinitely, as the distances decrease indefinitely. From this it follows of necessity that cohesion is not a consequence of immediate contact, as I indeed deduce from totally different considerations ; nor is it possible to get any immediate or, as I usually term it, mathematical contact between the parts of matter. This idea naturally leads to simplicity & non-extension of the elements, such as Newton himself postulated for various figures ; & to bodies composed of parts perfectly distinct from one another, although bound together so closely that the ties could not be broken or the adherence weakened by any force in Nature ; this adherence, as far as the forces known to us are concerned, is in his opinion unlimited.

5. What has already been published relating to this kind of Theory is contained in my dissertations, De Viribus vivis, issued in 1745, De Lumine, 1748, De Lege Continuitatis,1754, De Lege virium in natura existentium, 1755, De divisibilitate materia, y principiiscorporum, 1757, & in my Supplements to the philosophy of Benedictus Stay, issued in verse,The same theory was set forth with considerable lucidity, & its extremely wide utility in the matter of the whole of Physics was demonstrated, by a learned member of our Society, Carolus Benvenutus, in his Physics Generalis Synopsis published in 1754. In this synopsis he also at the same time gave my deduction of the equilibrium of a pair of masses actuated by parallel forces, which follows quite naturally from my Theory by the well-known law for the composition of forces, & the equality between action & reaction ; this I mentioned in those Supplements, section 4 of book 3, & there also I set forth briefly what I had published in my dissertation De centra Gravitatis. Further, dealing with the centre of oscillation, I stated the most noteworthy methods of others who sought to derive the determination of this centre from merely subsidiary principles. Here also, dealing with the centre of equilibrium, I asserted :" In Nature there are no rods that are rigid, inflexible, totally devoid of weight & inertia ; & so, neither are there really any laws founded on them. If the matter is worked back to the genuine & simplest natural principles, it will be found that everything depends on the composition of the forces with which the particles of matter act upon one another ; & from these very forces, as a matter of fact, all phenomena of Nature take their origin." Moreover, here too, having stated the methods of others for the determination of the centre of oscillation, I promised that, in the fourth volume of the Philosophy, I would investigate by means of genuine principles, such as I had used for the centre of equilibrium, the centre of oscillation as well.

6. Now, lately I had occasion to investigate this centre of oscillation, deriving it from my own principles, at the request of Father Scherffer, a man of much learning, who teaches mathematics in this College of the Society. Whilst doing this, I happened to hit upon areally most simple & truly elegant theorem, from which the forces with which three masses mutually act upon one another are easily to be found ; this theorem, perchance owing to its extreme simplicity, has escaped the notice of mechanicians up till now (unless indeed perhaps it has not escaped notice, but has at some time previously been discovered & published by some other person, though, as may very easily have happened, it may not have come to my notice). From this theorem there come, as the natural consequences, the equilibrium & all the different kinds of levers, the measurement of moments for machines, the centre of oscillation for the case in which the oscillation takes place sideways in a plane perpendicular to the axis of oscillation, & also the centre of percussion ; it opens up also a beautifully clear road to other and more sublime investigations. Initially, my idea was to publish in a short esssay merely this theorem & some deductions from it, & thus to give some sort of brief specimen of my Theory. But little by little the essay grew in length, until it ended in my setting forth in an orderly manner the whole of the theory, giving a demonstration of its truth, & showing its application to Mechanics in the first place, and then to almost the whole of Physics. To it I also added not only those matters that seemed to me to be more especially worth mention, which had all been already set forth in an orderly manner in the dissertations mentioned above, but also a large number of other things, some of which had entered my mind previously, whilst others in some sort obtruded themselves on my notice as I was writing & turning over in my mind all this conglomeration of material.

7. The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points ; they are so scattered in an immense vacuum that every two of them are separated from one another by a definite interval ; this interval can be indefinitely increased or diminished, but can never vanish altogether without compenetration of the points themselves ; for I do not admit as possible any immediate contact between them. On the contrary I consider that it is a certainty that, if the distance between two points of matter should become absolutely nothing, then the very same indivisible point of space, according to the usual idea of it, must be occupied by both together, & we have true compenetration in every way. Therefore indeed I do not admit the idea of vacuum interspersed amongst matter, but I consider that matter is interspersed in a vacuum & floats in it.

8. As an attribute of these points I admit an inherent propensity to remain in the same state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, (a) in which they are initially set, if each exists by itself in Nature. But if there are also other points anywhere, there is an inherent propensity to compound (according to the usual well-known composition of forces & motions by the parallelogram law), the preceding motion with the motion which is determined by the mutual forces that I admit to act between any two of them, depending on the distances & changing, as the distances change, according to a certain law common to them all. This propensity is the origin of what we call the ' force of inertia ' ; whether this is dependent upon an arbitrary law of the Supreme Architect, or on the nature of points itself, or on some attribute of them, whatever it may be, I do not seek to know ; even if I did wish to do so, I see no hope of finding the answer ; and I truly think that this also applies to the law of forces, to which I now pass on.

9. I therefore consider that any two points of matter are subject to a determination to approach one another at some distances, & in an equal degree recede from one another at other distances. This determination I call ' force ' ; in the first case ' attractive ', in the second case ' repulsive ' ; this term does not denote the mode of action, but the propensity itself, whatever its origin, of which the magnitude changes as the distances change ;this is in accordance with a certain definite law, which can be represented by a geometrical curve or by an algebraical formula, & visualized in the manner customary with Mechanicians. We have an example of a force dependent on distance, & varying with varying distance, & pertaining to all distances either great or small, throughout the vastness of space, in the Newtonian idea of general gravitation that changes according to the inverse squares of the distances : this, on account of the law governing it, can never pass from positive to negative ; & thus on no occasion does it pass from being attractive to being repulsive, i.e., from a propensity to approach to a propensity to recession. Further, in bent springs we have an illustration of that kind of mutual force that varies according as the distance varies, & passes from a propensity to recession to a propensity to approach, and vice versa. For here, if the two ends of the spring approach one another on compressing the spring, they acquire a propensity for recession that is the greater, the more the distance diminishes between them as the spring is compressed. But, if the distance between the ends is increased, the force of recession is diminished, until at a certain distance it vanishes and becomes absolutely nothing. Then, if the distance is still further increased, there begins a propensity to approach, which increases more & more as the ends recede further & further away from one another. If now, on the contrary, the distance between the ends is continually diminished, the propensity to approach also diminishes, vanishes, & becomes changed into a propensity to recession. This propensity certainly does not arise from the immediate action of the ends upon one another, but from the nature & form of the whole of the folded plate of metal intervening. But I do not delay over the physical cause of the thing at this juncture ; I only describe it as an example of a propensity to approach & recession, this propensity being characterized by one endeavour at some distances & another at other distances, & changing from one propensity to another.

10. Now the law of forces is of this kind ; the forces are repulsive at very small distances, & become indefinitely greater & greater, as the distances are diminished indefinitely,in such a manner that they are capable of destroying any velocity, no matter how large it may be, with which one point may approach another, before ever the distance between them vanishes. When the distance between them is increased, they are diminished in such a way that at a certain distance, which is extremely small, the force becomes nothing. Then as the distance is still further increased, the forces are changed to attractive forces ; these at first increase, then diminish, vanish, & become repulsive forces, which in the same way first increase, then diminish, vanish, & become once more attractive ; & so on, in turn, for a very great number of distances, which are all still very minute : until, finally, when we get to comparatively great distances, they begin to be continually attractive & approximately inversely proportional to the squares of the distances. This holds good as the distances are increased indefinitely to any extent, or at any rate until we get to distances that are far greater than all the distances of the planets & comets.

11. A law of this kind will seem at first sight to be very complicated, & to be the result of combining together several different laws in a haphazard sort of way ; but it can be of the simplest kind & not complicated in the slightest degree ; it can be represented for instance by a single continuous curve, or by an algebraical formula, as I intimated above.A curve of this sort is perfectly adapted to the .graphical representation of this sort of law, & it does not require a knowledge of geometry to set it forth. It is sufficient for anyone merely to glance at it, & in it, just as in a picture we are accustomed to view all manner of things depicted, so will he perceive the nature of these forces. In a curve of this kind, those lines, that geometricians call abscissae, namely, segments of the axis to which the curve is referred, represent the distances of two points from one another ; & those, which we called ordinates, namely, lines drawn perpendicular to the axis to meet the curve, represent forces. These, when they lie on one side of the axis represent attractive forces, and, when they lie on the other side, repulsive forces ; & according as the curve approaches the axis or recedes from it, they too are diminished or increased. When the curve cuts the axis & passes from one side of it to the other, the direction of the ordinates being changed in consequence, the forces pass from positive to negative or vice versa. When any arc of the curve approaches ever more closely to some straight line perpendicular to the axis and indefinitely produced, in such a manner that, even if this goes on beyond all limits, yet the curve never quite reaches the line (such an arc is called asymptotic by geometricians), then the forces themselves will increase indefinitely.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by Solar » Mon May 11, 2009 5:10 pm

Plasmatic wrote:Alton and I were recently discussing supraluminal causation. I suggested this analogy of a pipe filled with water 100 miles long. As soon as more water on one end enters the same instant water leaves the other end.That is not to say the causative process is instantaneous particularly though.


Continuity. The pipe analogy forced ‘longitudinal momentum‘ in the form of a ‘compression wave’ through the continuity of the water. Which is interesting considering so called “entanglement”:
…any particle of matter is connected with every other particle, no matter how great is the distance between them, in such a way that, in accordance with a change in the position, no matter how slight, of any one of them, the factors that determine the motions of all the rest are altered ; &, unless it happens that they all cancel one another (& this is infinitely improbable), some motion, due to the change of position in question, will take place in every one of them.
StephanR. Considering Boskovic rejects the notion of direct contact via ‘mechanical collisions’ his “compenetration” is then commensurate with ‘superimposition’:
7. The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points ; they are so scattered in an immense vacuum that every two of them are separated from one another by a definite interval ; this interval can be indefinitely increased or diminished, but can never vanish altogether without compenetration of the points themselves ; for I do not admit as possible any immediate contact between them. On the contrary I consider that it is a certainty that, if the distance between two points of matter should become absolutely nothing, then the very same indivisible point of space, according to the usual idea of it, must be occupied by both together, & we have true compenetration in every way.
Here is another interesting find with regard to “compenetration of the points themselves” note:
Thus, it would be offending against these rules to say that large bodies indeed could not suffer compenetration, or enfolding, or be deficient in inertia, but yet very small parts of them could suffer penetration, or enfolding, or be without inertia. On the other hand, if a property is relative with respect to our senses, then, from a result obtained for the larger masses we cannot infer that the same is to be obtained in its smaller particles ; for instance, that it is the same thing to be sensible, as it is to be coloured, which is true in the case of large masses, but not in the case of small particles ; since a distinction of this kind, accidental with respect to matter, is not accidental with respect to the term sensible or coloured. So also if any property depends on an argument referring to an aggregate, or a whole, in such a way that it cannot be considered apart from the whole, or the aggregate; then, neither must it (that is to say, by that same argument), be transferred from the whole, or the aggregate, to parts of it. It is on account of its being a whole that it has parts; nor can there be a whole without parts. It is on account of its being figurable & extended that it has some thing that is apart from some other thing, & therefore that it has parts. Hence those properties, although they are found in any aggregate of particles of matter, or in any sensible mass, must not however be transferred by the power of induction to each & every particle." - pg 59 continuing sec 40
And compare with the references cited here:“Re: Recovered: Tensegrity Structures in Biology
At its most distended Space and most relaxed pace of the Time (Simultaneity) manifold corresponding to the solid phase lattice of the Aether, the substrate of the universe or of the Space-and-Time continuum consists of a nonelectric, nonelectromagnetic and nongravitic radiative form of massfree energy (referred to as free 'latent thermal' or 'antigravitic' aether energy). However, the main body of this energy distribution throughout the cosmos is in a state of secondary superimposition with itself, forming a fluid phase lattice (a liquid Space manifold) where the energetic relations between distinct manifolds or multiplicities are treated as a function of Phase-Space and Phase-Time properties of the Aether. The secondary superimposition process entails - by the folding or collapse of the Phase-Space manifolds - an auto-electrification of the fine structure of massfree energy. (…) A model for complex Phase superimposition of more than two sets of manifolds which addresses the kinetic energy minima of cosmological electrons is also proposed. – Aetherometry AS2-17C

… everything else we refer to as 'other forms of energy' are the results of the folding of this very unfolded reality we call Aether. It is the folding that shortens the distances and permits the other physical effects. Most basic to all matter is that which is basic to the envelope of the cosmos itself: the production of Space and Time as properties of energy flow. Before we can talk of any of the other properties - gravitic, electric, thermal, electromagnetic, ionizing, etc. - we first have to talk about the properties of 'latent heat', because it is these that concretely support the continuum of Space and Time. The reason why there is a microwave background is precisely because everywhere there is conversion of totally unfolded, so to speak, pure Space and Time, pure continuity, into folds.Why Speak of an Aether

In the fields of Hematology and Radiation Biology (including Photobiology and Radiobiology) aetherometric breakthroughs include… In Molecular Biology and System Dynamics, they have yielded a new internal energy function for biological systems, a new treatment of the concept and functions of entropy, and an aethero-dynamic understanding of the folding of polypeptides and the role of latent heat in the catalytic functions of enzymes or allosteric proteins. – Aetherometric Biology


Insofar as the point you’ve made regarding the historical ties of Faraday and Maxwell I think the important thing to consider is the following the statement:
Space now becomes treated as a given, and as being permeated by fields present and propagating even in the vacuum devoid of ordinary matter. - The Death of the Classical Aether and the rise of the Field Concept
Hence, for it to be considered that “fields” and/or “lines of force” exist *in* Space” is what is pointed to as contributing to the “death of the classical aether” by treating “Space” as a given - within which “fields” can reside. That leaves “Space” unaccounted for and the “fields” remain a mystery save for perhaps being some form of organized radiation extending into the ‘emptiness’ of “space” from the molecular or quantum forces of an object. This, as opposed to a radiative aspect of the Aether actually being the ‘substantive-ness’ of “Space” which “fields” then ‘distort’ resulting in their production.

Likewise, and according to the parameters of human vision, one cannot electromagnetically “see” the Earth’s magnetosphere, the Sun’s heliosphere, the magnet field of the magnet, “dark currents” etc. It is the same for the radiative forces that compose, not occupy, “Space”. So the beginning reliance on ‘fields existing in space’ left “Space” unexplained and simply a given. That is changing, as pointed out again by SteveO, with regard to Relativist, Quantum Dynamists, and Cosmologist needing their ‘silent vacuum‘. Boskovic’s “…this nothing is not really nothing in itself, but a certain real state ; & it may be considered as nothing only in a certain sense.”

Its no more than pointing out in retrospect what may have gone wrong as a result of later findings. We do that with the EU and modern cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics constantly. Point out the flaw of "frozen in field lines" for example. Which is to actually honor them by taking the bull by the horns etc. I don't think that they would accept anything less.

I’m in agreement with that which you’ve quoted from Pln2bz. With the above quote it is important to consider the Aetherometric reasoning, along with it's long historical heritage, that “Space“ is a product of “energy“:
Aetherometry proposes that space is generated by, and in fact synonymous with, energy, rather than an empty nothingness that 'contains' energy. - Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
The reason why energy simultaneously unfolds Space and Time is due to a very primary property of defined energy states: that aside from secondary superimposition and phase coincidences, they tend to separate themselves from the continuum they compose, as if a minimum repulsion existed between the simplest units of energy. The deeper reason why the envelope of Space and Time does not and will not collapse is found precisely in the 'antigravitic' or 'repulsive' property of 'latent heat'. This is the deeper secret of it - which it has been Aetherometry's task both to unravel and to document. So if we are to address the problems of Space and Time as functions of energy, we must first understand they are functions of that 'latent' energy in massfree form. It is precisely this 'latent' energy in massfree form which, as scientists continue to attempt to cool down an atom in a trap to absolute zero, keeps stubbornly resisting; keeps using that atom as a pick-up antenna for the capture of 'latent heat' which the atom persistently converts into the little bursts of sensible heat it releases and which, for a mass of atoms, impede the researcher from ever being able to bring any atom to absolute zero. There is, in other words, a minimal thermal heat that atoms constantly propagate, vibrating with the waves of 'latent heat' that produce and unfold Space and Time.
(…)
We are constrained to recognize what others call 'empty space' as Space with Time, as functions of energy that irreversibly flow with the flux of Time. - “Why should we again choose to speak of an aether?”
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

bdw000
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:06 pm

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by bdw000 » Mon May 11, 2009 8:03 pm

Plasmatic wrote:Alton and I were recently discussing supraluminal causation. I suggested this analogy of a pipe filled with water 100 miles long. As soon as more water on one end enters the same instant water leaves the other end.That is not to say the causative process is instantaneous particularly though.
I am no expert. I am not a physicist.

But I remember reading a long time ago about using physical objects to create quasi "faster-than-light" communication (a giant pair of scissors was the example).

But the author said that the problem with these sorts of analogies is that physical forces do not travel through large pieces of matter faster than the speed of sound. So there is no sort of trying to overcome "c" using these sorts of examples.

If anyone "knows" otherwise please correct me.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by junglelord » Mon May 11, 2009 8:27 pm

I think that if the mechanical aspect of a gyroscope as the mechanical model was implimented, all the hand rules of electricity become understandable, not just knowable.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by altonhare » Tue May 12, 2009 10:49 am

bdw000 wrote:
Plasmatic wrote:Alton and I were recently discussing supraluminal causation. I suggested this analogy of a pipe filled with water 100 miles long. As soon as more water on one end enters the same instant water leaves the other end.That is not to say the causative process is instantaneous particularly though.
I am no expert. I am not a physicist.

But I remember reading a long time ago about using physical objects to create quasi "faster-than-light" communication (a giant pair of scissors was the example).

But the author said that the problem with these sorts of analogies is that physical forces do not travel through large pieces of matter faster than the speed of sound. So there is no sort of trying to overcome "c" using these sorts of examples.

If anyone "knows" otherwise please correct me.
Plasm's analogy works only if the water in the pipe is continuous and rigid. Otherwise, one drop goes in and the density of the water momentarily rise. The drop hits the water on one side, which hits adjacent molecules, which hit adjacent molecules, and so on and so forth until the last molecules on the other end are kicked out of the pipe.

The question of physicists today is whether the fundamental constituency (thread or whatever) has a flexibility which maximally allows c-rate propagation. The anisotropy of the fundamental constituent is very important, it could be c-rate limited in one direction but not so in another direction.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by altonhare » Tue May 12, 2009 1:17 pm

Thank you pln2bz, this was a fun and entertaining read. I always like to read about "the journey" taken by researchers and scientists.
pln2bz wrote:I find this quote, within the context of what we know of the aether, Konstantin Meyl and everything presented in this thread regarding Maxwell's Equations, to strike at the fundamental core of what's wrong with physics today.
Resounding agreement from this corner. Physics is the study of existence, i.e. objects with location. A theory of physics starts with a hypothesis involving one or more physical object(s). Without this we are just playing a grand game of "Correlate the Experiments With Equations". Maxwell's equations are visually deficient because they don't contain any objects, they describe the change in an abstract concept "field" and the motion of objects "force" with no reference to the objects which are actually moving and forcing.
pln2bz wrote:... Maxwell's physical model probably works for a reason.
Maxwell's physical model is interesting and clever. The rope hypothesis seems to physically simulate EM much more simply, though. Also, unlike the individual cells, the thread is continuously connected and as such serves as a conduit by which atoms can pull on each other (gravitation). I do not want to hijack this thread into a discussion of the rope hypothesis, however.
Solar wrote:I think the biggest problem causing this false denial is that no one wants to see relativity as a 'special case'. Lets face it, with regard to longitudinal forces the speed limit imposed upon c is *not* of "universal" order.
Here Solar and I are in big time agreement. I think that relativity is a special case of the motion of atoms and lateral (transverse) motions along the rope. Since atoms can only move along the rope, they are likewise limited. Otoh if gravity is longitudinal in nature it would be distinctly different. If the fundamental constituent, such as a rope, were "rigid" in the longitudinal direction then gravitation would be "instantaneous". Even if it is not perfectly rigid in the longitudinal direction, there is no reason to assume its longitudinal characteristics are identical to its lateral/transverse characteristics. In fact there is every reason to believe that the fundamental constituency is anisotropic.
Solar wrote:More conjecture. On pg 45 sec 16 & 17 after mentioning “gravity“, and “elasticity” he centers on “the production of velocity” resulting in or causing “percussion” (collisions) as being “infinitely greater than all forces".

That sounds like longitudinal forces. The ‘axis’ of his drawings; either side of which he discovers all the other forces as being compounds of the initial force. Just as Steve O mentions with RST.
This reeks of the chain hypothesis :).
StefanR wrote:Yes, indeed longitudonal forces a playing a role here but Boskovic is no fan of actual contact as in an mechanical collision, he also denies impulsive action
I think this resistance to "impulsive action" arises due to the human conception of time, which is not necessarily fundamental to Nature. As far as I can tell logic, reason, and the evidence point to a time-less U. When we discard the notion of time the apparent conundrum of "instant action" drops out.

In response to "mechanicians", there simply is no alternative to contact for interaction. This contact does not have to be billiard-ball like, in which discrete entities approach until they "touch" (become one entity?), and then separate again into 2 discrete entities. However one entity simply cannot affect another without some kind of contact. Rejecting this criterion leaves us in the position of only describing appearances and correlating behaviors, i.e. A did this over here then B did that over there. One cannot understand HOW A did that to B without visualizing some kind of contact/locality.
Solar wrote:Continuity. The pipe analogy forced ‘longitudinal momentum‘ in the form of a ‘compression wave’ through the continuity of the water. Which is interesting considering so called “entanglement”:
So-called entanglement does indeed indicate very strongly that every entity, no matter where, is constantly influenced by every other entity. The ubiquity of gravitation/convergence was already an indicator of this also. How can objects all stay "together" without all influencing each other somehow?
Solar wrote:StephanR. Considering Boskovic rejects the notion of direct contact via ‘mechanical collisions’ his “compenetration” is then commensurate with ‘superimposition’:
Contact mechanisms do not, as a necessity, require that entities be perfectly obstructive. We can have contact that is so intense that the entities actually penetrate each other. This is what I have proposed with reference to the rope/chain, that it is indeed semipermeable.

Boscovich's hypothesis is 'a' object with 0 extent? The theory certainly dies there, in the cradle, since we are now asked to visualize "nothing" and how "nothing" affects "nothing".
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Wed May 13, 2009 3:33 am

Solar wrote:StephanR. Considering Boskovic rejects the notion of direct contact via ‘mechanical collisions’ his “compenetration” is then commensurate with ‘superimposition’:
If superimposition as you state it here is the same as in the dictionary than, yes, I do think that is what is meant by compenetration.
Solar wrote:Insofar as the point you’ve made regarding the historical ties of Faraday and Maxwell I think the important thing to consider is the following the statement
I have to take a little time to go over the links you gave, to get a good feeling of your intention.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Wed May 13, 2009 8:17 am

StefanR wrote:
Solar wrote:Insofar as the point you’ve made regarding the historical ties of Faraday and Maxwell I think the important thing to consider is the following the statement
I have to take a little time to go over the links you gave, to get a good feeling of your intention.
Ok, I think what would be most appropriate in relation to that, is to ,at the one hand, refer to the book of Boskovic, and specifically the Supplements I & II ( page 197), called Of Space and Time http://www.archive.org/details/theoryof ... 00boscrich
here he seems to go a little more condensed in to matters that also seem to connect with links you gave, with on the other hand, the text below of Faraday , from the third part of his Experimental Researches in Electricity (page 447), called Thoughts On Ray-Vibrations
I think they are interesting statements, though hesitantly expressed of course and not definite
THOUGHTS ON RAY-VIBRATIONS (1)

To Richard Phillips, Esq.

Dear Sir,

At your request I will endeavor to convey to you a notion of that which I ventured to say at the close of the last Friday-evening Meeting, incidental to the account I gave of Wheatstone's electro-magnetic chronoscope; but from first to last understand that I merely threw out as matter for speculation, the vague impressions of my mind, for I gave nothing as the result of sufficient consideration, or as the settled conviction, or even probable conclusion at which I had arrived.

The point intended to be set forth for consideration of the hearers was, whether it was not possible that vibrations which in a certain theory are assumed to account for radiation and radiant phaenomena may not occur in the lines of force which connect particles, and consequently masses of matter together; a notion which as far as is admitted, will dispense with the aether, which in another view, is supposed to be the medium in which these vibrations take place.

You are aware of the speculation (2) which I some time since uttered respecting that view of the nature of matter which considers its ultimate atoms as centres of force, and not as so many little bodies surrounded by forces, the bodies being considered in the abstract as independent of the forces and capable of existing without them. In the latter view, these little particles have a definite form and a certain limited size; in the former view such is not the case, for that which represents size may be considered as extending to any distance to which the lines of force of the particle extend: the particle indeed is supposed to exist only by these forces, and where they are it is. The consideration of matter under this view gradually led me to look at the lines of force as being perhaps the seat of vibrations of radiant phenomena.

Another consideration bearing conjointly on the hypothetical view both of matter and radiation, arises from the comparison of the velocities with which the radiant action and certain powers of matter are transmitted. The velocity of light through space is about 190,000 miles in a second; the velocity of electricity is, by the experiments of Wheatstone, shown to be as great as this, if not greater: the light is supposed to be transmitted by vibrations through an aether which is, so to speak, destitute of gravitation, but infinite in elasticity; the electricity is transmitted through a small metallic wire, and is often viewed as transmitted by vibrations also. That the electric transference depends on the forces or powers of the matter of the wire can hardly be doubted, when we consider the different conductibility of the various metallic and other bodies; the means of affecting it by heat or cold; the way in which conducting bodies by combination enter into the constitution of non-conducting substances, and the contrary; and the actual existence of one elementary body, carbon, both in the conducting and non-conducting state. The power of electric conduction (being a transmission of force equal in velocity to that of light) appears to be tied up in and dependent upon the properties of the matter, and is, as it were, existent in them.

I suppose we may compare together the matter of the aether and ordinary matter (as, for instance, the copper of the wire through which the electricity is conducted), and consider them as alike in their essential constitution; i.e. either as both composed of little nuclei, considered in the abstract as matter, and of force or power associated with these nuclei, or else both consisting of mere centres of force, according to Boscovich's theory and the view put forth in my speculation; for there is no reason to assume that the nuclei are more requisite in the one case than in the other. It is true that the copper gravitates and the aether does not, and that therefore the copper is ponderable and the aether is not; but that cannot indicate the presence of nuclei in the copper more than in the aether, for of all the powers of matter gravitation is the one in which the force extends to the greatest possible distance from the supposed nucleus, being infinite in relation to the size of the latter, and reducing the nucleus to a mere centre of force. The smallest atom of matter on the earth acts directly on the smallest atom of matter in the sun, though they are 95,000,000 miles apart; further, atoms which, to our knowledge, are at least nineteen times that distance, and indeed in cometary masses, far more, are in a similar way tied together by the lines of force extending from and belonging to each. What is there in the condition of the particles of the supposed aether, if there be even only one such particle between us and the sun, that can in subtility and extent compare to this?

Let us not be confused by the ponderability and gravitation of heavy matter, as if they proved the presence of the abstract nuclei; these are due not to the nuclei, but to the force super-added to them, if the nuclei exist at all; and, if the aether particles be without this force, which according to the assumption is the case, then they are more material, in the abstract sense, than the matter of this our globe; for matter, according to the assumption, being made up of nuclei and force, the aether particles have in this respect proportionately more of the nucleus and less of the force.

On the other hand, the infinite elasticity assumed as belonging to the particles of the aether, is as striking and positive a force of it as gravity is of ponderable particles, and produces in its way effects as great; in witness whereof we have all the varieties of radiant agency as exhibited in luminous, caloric, and actinic phaenomena.

Perhaps I am in error in thinking the idea generally formed of the aether is that its nuclei are almost infinitely small, and that such force as it has, namely its elasticity, is almost infinitely intense. But if such be the received notion, what then is left in the aether but force or centres of force? As gravitation and solidity do not belong to it, perhaps many may admit this conclusion; but what are gravitation and solidity? certainly not the weight and contact of the abstract nuclei. The one is the consequence of an attractive force, which can act at distances as great as the mind of man can estimate or conceive; and the other is the consequence of a repulsive force, which forbids for ever the contact or touch of any two nuclei; so that these powers or properties should not in any degree lead those persons who conceive of the aether as a thing consisting of force only, to think any otherwise of ponderable matter, except that it has more and other forces associated with it than the aether has.

In experimental philosophy we can, by the phaenomena presented, recognize various kinds of lines of force; thus there are the lines of gravitating force, those of electro-static induction, those of magnetic action, and others partaking of a dynamic character might be perhaps included. The lines of electric and magnetic action are by many considered as exerted through space like the lines of gravitating force. For my own part, I incline to believe that when there are intervening particles of matter (being themselves only centres of force), they take part in carrying on the force through the line, but that when there are none, the line proceeds through space. Whatever the view adopted respecting them may be, we can, at all events, affect these lines of force in a manner which may be conceived as partaking of the nature of a shake or lateral vibration. For suppose two bodies, A B, distant from each other and under mutual action, and therefore connected by lines of force, and let us fix our attention upon one resultant of force, having an invariable direction as regards space; if one of the bodies move in the least degree right or left, or if its power be shifted for a moment within the mass (neither of these cases being difficult to realise if A and B be either electric or magnetic bodies), then an effect equivalent to a lateral disturbance will take place in the resultant upon which we are fixing our attention; for, either it will increase in force whilst the neighboring results are diminishing, or it will fall in force as they are increasing.

It may be asked, what lines of force are there in nature which are fitted to convey such an action and supply for the vibrating theory the place of the aether? I do not pretend to answer this question with any confidence; all I can say is, that I do not perceive in any part of space, whether (to use the common phrase) vacant or filled with matter, anything but forces and the lines in which they are exerted. The lines of weight or gravitating force are, certainly, extensive enough to answer in this respect any demand made upon them by radiant phaenomena; and so, probably, are the lines of magnetic force: and then who can forget that Mossotti has shown that gravitation, aggregation, electric force, and electro-chemical action may all have one common connection or origin; and so, in their actions at a distance, may have in common that infinite scope which some of these actions are known to possess?

The view which I am so bold to put forth considers, therefore, radiation as a kind of species of vibration in the lines of force which are known to connect particles and also masses of matter together. It endeavors to dismiss the aether, but not the vibration. The kind of vibration which, I believe, can alone account for the wonderful, varied, and beautiful phaenomena of polarization, is not the same as that which occurs on the surface of disturbed water, or the waves of sound in gases or liquids, for the vibrations in these cases are direct, or to and from the centre of action, whereas the former are lateral. It seems to me, that the resultant of two or more lines of force is in an apt condition for that action which may be considered as equivalent to a lateral vibration; whereas a uniform medium, like the aether, does not appear apt, or more apt than air or water.

The occurrence of a change at one end of a line of force easily suggests a consequent change at the other. The propagation of light, and therefore probably of all radiant action, occupies time; and, that a vibration of the line of force should account for the phaenomena of radiation, it is necessary that such vibration should occupy time also. I am not aware whether there are any data by which it has been, or could be ascertained whether such a power as gravitation acts without occupying time, or whether lines of force being already in existence, such a lateral disturbance at one end as I have suggested above, would require time, or must of necessity be felt instantly at the other end.

As to that condition of the lines of force which represents the assumed high elasticity of the aether, it cannot in this respect be deficient: the question here seems rather to be, whether the lines are sluggish enough in their action to render them equivalent to the aether in respect of the time known experimentally to be occupied in the transmission of radiant force.

The aether is assumed as pervading all bodies as well as space: in the view now set forth, it is the forces of the atomic centres which pervade (and make) all bodies, and also penetrate all space. As regards space, the difference is, that the aether presents successive parts of centres of action, and the present supposition only lines of action; as regards matter, the difference is, that the aether lies between the particles and so carries on the vibrations, whilst as respects the supposition, it is by the lines of force between the centres of the particles that the vibration is continued. As to the difference in intensity of action within matter under the two views, I suppose it will be very difficult to draw any conclusion, for when we take the simplest state of common matter and that which most nearly causes it to approximate to the condition of the aether, namely the state of the rare gas, how soon do we find in its elasticity and the mutual repulsion of its particles, a departure from the law, that the action is inversely as the square of the distance!

And now, my dear Phillips, I must conclude. I do not think I should have allowed these notions to have escaped from me, had I not been led unawares, and without previous consideration, by the circumstances of the evening on which I had to appear suddenly and occupy the place of another. Now that I have put them on paper, I feel that I ought to have kept them much longer for study, consideration, and, perhaps final rejection; and it is only because they are sure to go abroad in one way or another, in consequence of their utterance on that evening, that I give shape, if shape it may be called, in this reply to your inquiry. One thing is certain, that any hypothetical view of radiation which is likely to be received or retained as satisfactory, must not much longer comprehend alone certain phaenomena of light, but must include those of heat and of actinic influence also, and even the conjoined phaenomena of sensible heat and chemical power produced by them. In this respect, a view, which is in some degree founded upon the ordinary forces of matter, may perhaps find a little consideration amongst the other views that will probably arise. I think it likely that I have made many mistakes in the preceeding pages, for even to myself, my ideas on this point appear only as the shadow of a speculation, or as one of those impressions on the mind which are allowable for a time as guides to thought and research. He who labours in experimental inquiries knows how numerous these are, and how often their apparent fitness and beauty vanish before the progress and development of real natural truth.

I am, my dear Phillips,

Ever truly yours,

M. Faraday,

April 15, 1846

*"Experimental Researches in Electricity", Vol III, M. Faraday, p447-452<

1) M. Faraday, Philosophical Magazine, S.3, Vol XXVIII, N188, May 1846

2) M. Faraday, Phil Magazine, 1844, Vol XXIV, p136; or Exp.Res.II.28
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Wed May 13, 2009 9:53 am

Sorry for the lay-out, it didn't work out as expected,
altonhare wrote:Thank you pln2bz, this was a fun and entertaining read. I always like to read about "the journey" taken by researchers and scientists.
pln2bz wrote:I find this quote, within the context of what we know of the aether, Konstantin Meyl and everything presented in this thread regarding Maxwell's Equations, to strike at the fundamental core of what's wrong with physics today.


Resounding agreement from this corner. Physics is the study of existence, i.e. objects with location. A theory of physics starts with a hypothesis involving one or more physical object(s). Without this we are just playing a grand game of "Correlate the Experiments With Equations". Maxwell's equations are visually deficient because they don't contain any objects, they describe the change in an abstract concept "field" and the motion of objects "force" with no reference to the objects which are actually moving and forcing.

pln2bz wrote:... Maxwell's physical model probably works for a reason.


Maxwell's physical model is interesting and clever. The rope hypothesis seems to physically simulate EM much more simply, though. Also, unlike the individual cells, the thread is continuously connected and as such serves as a conduit by which atoms can pull on each other (gravitation). I do not want to hijack this thread into a discussion of the rope hypothesis, however


I personally don't think you are in the act of hijjacking here, as Maxwell also made use of tubes of force, I believe


Solar wrote:I think the biggest problem causing this false denial is that no one wants to see relativity as a 'special case'. Lets face it, with regard to longitudinal forces the speed limit imposed upon c is *not* of "universal" order.


Here Solar and I are in big time agreement. I think that relativity is a special case of the motion of atoms and lateral (transverse) motions along the rope. Since atoms can only move along the rope, they are likewise limited. Otoh if gravity is longitudinal in nature it would be distinctly different. If the fundamental constituent, such as a rope, were "rigid" in the longitudinal direction then gravitation would be "instantaneous". Even if it is not perfectly rigid in the longitudinal direction, there is no reason to assume its longitudinal characteristics are identical to its lateral/transverse characteristics. In fact there is every reason to believe that the fundamental constituency is anisotropic.

Solar wrote:More conjecture. On pg 45 sec 16 & 17 after mentioning “gravity“, and “elasticity” he centers on “the production of velocity” resulting in or causing “percussion” (collisions) as being “infinitely greater than all forces".

That sounds like longitudinal forces. The ‘axis’ of his drawings; either side of which he discovers all the other forces as being compounds of the initial force. Just as Steve O mentions with RST.


This reeks of the chain hypothesis :).

I'm not quite well conversant with that, can you point me where you show, where the chain-link is distinct in it's properties in relation to the whole chain?


StefanR wrote:Yes, indeed longitudonal forces a playing a role here but Boskovic is no fan of actual contact as in an mechanical collision, he also denies impulsive action


I think this resistance to "impulsive action" arises due to the human conception of time, which is not necessarily fundamental to Nature. As far as I can tell logic, reason, and the evidence point to a time-less U. When we discard the notion of time the apparent conundrum of "instant action" drops out.
Which is exactly what Boskovic is saying :D


In response to "mechanicians", there simply is no alternative to contact for interaction. This contact does not have to be billiard-ball like, in which discrete entities approach until they "touch" (become one entity?), and then separate again into 2 discrete entities. However one entity simply cannot affect another without some kind of contact. Rejecting this criterion leaves us in the position of only describing appearances and correlating behaviors, i.e. A did this over here then B did that over there. One cannot understand HOW A did that to B without visualizing some kind of contact/locality.
You really should try to read his discussion of arguments about that it is quite fun actually, it is might be possible to get some of those here but the text doesn't really copy/past easily, becuase of the notes in the border, but maybe I can find a simpler solution for that, but i'm not able yet to just represent Boskovic, as I'm still trying to grasp his "POV" so to say

Solar wrote:Continuity. The pipe analogy forced ‘longitudinal momentum‘ in the form of a ‘compression wave’ through the continuity of the water. Which is interesting considering so called “entanglement”:
So-called entanglement does indeed indicate very strongly that every entity, no matter where, is constantly influenced by every other entity. The ubiquity of gravitation/convergence was already an indicator of this also. How can objects all stay "together" without all influencing each other somehow?
Solar wrote:StephanR. Considering Boskovic rejects the notion of direct contact via ‘mechanical collisions’ his “compenetration” is then commensurate with ‘superimposition’:


Contact mechanisms do not, as a necessity, require that entities be perfectly obstructive. We can have contact that is so intense that the entities actually penetrate each other. This is what I have proposed with reference to the rope/chain, that it is indeed semipermeable.
Personally, from what I can remember, I believe your chains would profit more if they were treated in respect to that principle of Continuity


Boscovich's hypothesis is 'a' object with 0 extent? The theory certainly dies there, in the cradle, since we are now asked to visualize "nothing" and how "nothing" affects "nothing".

Of course that is a choice for you to make, I not here to proof you right or wrong, but if by this sentence you are telling me you have read the book and have fully understood what he is claiming without agreeing/disagreeing, then I would like to ask to ask you some questions pertaining to his theory, but if you have not, then I can only do as you have done also several times in relation to the ideas of Gead, and that is to refer, although this time not to a youtube video but to the book which is also freely available, the only cost is the investment in time and intellect, now I'm not sure of course of the time you have, but I'm convinced that you have enough intellect to be able to play with his arguments but I have to dispassionately say that you are not doing yourself justice with discarding a theory based on pure belief of knowing what Boskovic says, with such slight of hand ;) 8-)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by altonhare » Wed May 13, 2009 11:10 am

StefanR wrote:I'm not quite well conversant with that, can you point me where you show, where the chain-link is distinct in it's properties in relation to the whole chain?
The whole chain is flexible whereas a single link is not.
StefanR wrote:Personally, from what I can remember, I believe your chains would profit more if they were treated in respect to that principle of Continuity
How so, exactly?
StefanR wrote:but if by this sentence you are telling me you have read the book and have fully understood what he is claiming without agreeing/disagreeing
To fully agree or disagree I would have to know precisely what Bos means by "dimension".
StefanR wrote:you are not doing yourself justice with discarding a theory based on pure belief of knowing what Boskovic says, with such slight of hand
It's not a "sleight of hand". Words are how he is communicating his ideas, therefore the words and their exact meanings are crucial. However, I would need to read more to be sure of "exact meaning".
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by Solar » Thu May 14, 2009 7:29 pm

StephanR

I’m not sure I’m seeing the relationship. Other than perhaps Boscovich’s hypothesis that our limited faculties prevent us from seeing absolutes and Farady’s comparison of the aether and matter, he used copper, possibly having similar characteristics insofar as quantum units or ‘points’ unique to each phase of their existence. One phase, matter, being something that is experiential as opposed to another phase, the aether being an aspect of the absolute condition which Boscovich *might say* we are not equipped to detect. It being another “mode” of "infinite time" and "infinite space". Care to share the relationship you see?
altonhare wrote: So-called entanglement does indeed indicate very strongly that every entity, no matter where, is constantly influenced by every other entity. The ubiquity of gravitation/convergence was already an indicator of this also. How can objects all stay "together" without all influencing each other somehow?
I would say that objects can't stay together in that manner and would influence each other somehow. Consider an arrangement of objects at a particular location can having 'center' of force. One can then treat that arrangement of objects as a continuous 'unit' for which the amalgamating force appropriately scales. Particularly with electricity and plasma wherein continuity hierarchically scales and all objects do influence one another.

That's a further indication to me that something is wrong with the way gravity only cosmology is being done. The size of the object, or it's 'mass density', needed to account for the structure of galaxies requires something that doesn't exist. "Their' gravity isn't scaling properly, no continuity.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Fri May 15, 2009 3:02 pm

altonhare wrote:
StefanR wrote:I'm not quite well conversant with that, can you point me where you show, where the chain-link is distinct in it's properties in relation to the whole chain?


The whole chain is flexible whereas a single link is not.

StefanR wrote:Personally, from what I can remember, I believe your chains would profit more if they were treated in respect to that principle of Continuity


How so, exactly?

StefanR wrote:but if by this sentence you are telling me you have read the book and have fully understood what he is claiming without agreeing/disagreeing


To fully agree or disagree I would have to know precisely what Bos means by "dimension".

StefanR wrote:you are not doing yourself justice with discarding a theory based on pure belief of knowing what Boskovic says, with such slight of hand


It's not a "sleight of hand". Words are how he is communicating his ideas, therefore the words and their exact meanings are crucial. However, I would need to read more to be sure of "exact meaning".


Hi Alton,

Perhaps I was myself a little quick on the draw concerning the chains, but I let me say I shall try to do my best to first get a more proper view of your chains and then perhaps will be better able to put into words of what I thought was possible, but I think I'm probably mixing up things that shouldn't be mixed
As for the need to read, consider it just a page in history, a link in a chain, so to say ;)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StefanR » Fri May 15, 2009 3:10 pm

Solar wrote:I’m not sure I’m seeing the relationship. Other than perhaps Boscovich’s hypothesis that our limited faculties prevent us from seeing absolutes and Farady’s comparison of the aether and matter, he used copper, possibly having similar characteristics insofar as quantum units or ‘points’ unique to each phase of their existence. One phase, matter, being something that is experiential as opposed to another phase, the aether being an aspect of the absolute condition which Boscovich *might say* we are not equipped to detect. It being another “mode” of "infinite time" and "infinite space". Care to share the relationship you see?
I shall try to share, as I do care, but it will not be easy and will take some time, as I don't want to misrepresent this by going too hastely about this,
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by Solar » Sun May 17, 2009 4:17 pm

Here's something interesting totally referenced to Boskovic:

A criticism of one of Newton's alleged proofs of absolute motion

Apparently Newton thought spinning two spheres attached with a rope demonstrated absolute motion around a common center. Boskovic didn't think so.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by altonhare » Sun May 17, 2009 5:33 pm

Solar wrote:Here's something interesting totally referenced to Boskovic:

A criticism of one of Newton's alleged proofs of absolute motion

Apparently Newton thought spinning two spheres attached with a rope demonstrated absolute motion around a common center. Boskovic didn't think so.
This is definitely criticizing Newton from a different slant. My view is typically very Machian. Space/space-time is convenient mathematically because we can specify an object's position/velocity without referencing any other object in the system. You simply assign it an x and v (or t). In an actual physical situation one needs the object's distance from every other object in the entire system.

So if you wanted to describe the uniform motion of two objects moving away from a common object along perpendicular paths you'd have something like:

AC=BC
AB=sqrt(2)*AC

Where sqrt(2) expresses how the length of a trapezoid joining two perpendicular lines approaches the length of a line as we make the trapezoid thinner and thinner while maintaining the angle of the trap's corners.

For object's A, B, and C. Two letters next to each other indicate a distance between those two objects.

But a mathematician would just say:

v(A) = i
v(B) = j

Where i and j are the unit vectors.

Anyway, I find Mach's a priori arguments much stronger, although I respect Boscovich for criticizing Newton's "experiment". I agree with Boscovich that this experiment is unable to "prove" anything about "absolute space".
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest