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

James Maxwell and some Boscovich links Part 1-2

Unread post by StefanR » Sat May 23, 2009 1:14 pm

Boscovich’s Principle: foundation of relativity
The scientific community that ignores Boscovich’s theory ignores the foundation upon which relativity theory is built. If the foundation of a theory is ignored, little wonder the theory is not properly understood by its followers; in this case the relativists- who are unaware of the deeper levels of the theoretical tradition from which they work.
http://wbabin.net/science/anderton14.pdf
The attempt to revive interest in Boscovich’s theory
“The 1922 translation appeared at the time when physical theory had absorbed many of Boscovich’s basic ideas and atomic physics was becoming a specialized science firmly based on experiment. Few physicists imagined that anything further could be learnt from a speculative theory dating from the eighteenth century. As already mentioned most histories of atomism written between 1920 and 1950 failed to make adequate reference to his special contribution and influence, perhaps because they were mainly written by chemists more concerned with experiments than with fundamental physical ideas.”
http://www.wbabin.net/science/anderton12.pdf
Boscovich’s theory: strict Newtonian physics
I will now look at Boscovich’s theory according to Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell was one of the pro-Einstein supporters in the early days of Einstein becoming a celebrity, so this article highlights the relationship of the pro-relativity camp with respect to Boscovich in the early 20th Century.
http://wbabin.net/science/anderton13.pdf
Boscovich’s Theory and Newton’s Third Law
The Acceptance of Newton’s Third Law is interconnected with the Acceptance of Boscovich’s theory; which gives a proper understanding of that Law namely in terms of Field interactions.
The article I am referring to below is by David Papineau, [1] and is dealing with Newton and Boscovich. Objective is to explain Boscovich’s theory and why we have the Third Law of Newton in Physics
David Papineau points out that in the period 1687-1745: “The only natural philosophers in the period who didn't analyse impact in terms of forces of motion were those who, like d'Alembert, adopted a strictly positivist attitude to forces of any kind, and argued that natural philosophy ought to restrict itself entirely to charting the effects observed in different situations, without worrying about the forces responsible for those effects. This kind of positivism became increasingly popular in the early 1740s.”
Different philosophic points-of-view have sought to impose themselves on Physics
and has made it a mess. The Positivist philosophic interpretation has sought to delete
certain ideas that are outside experiment and observation; this has often been a
hindrance because for instance an idea such as atoms pre-20th Century were not
observable of how Physics, and trying to not talk about atoms pre-20th Century
stunted theoretical progress.
As David Papineau points out Newton’s Third Law was ignored for sixty years
because it ran counter to intuition, then Boscovich in 1745 revived it. He thinks that it
might have been the Positivistic philosophy (of such people as D’Alembert) of
discarding ideas that did not have experimental confirmation that might have made
room for Newton’s Third Law as a need for explanation.
http://wbabin.net/science/anderton3.pdf
THE ATOMIC PROBLEM
A CHALLENGE TO PHYSICISTS AND MATHEMATICIANS
Lancelot Law Whyte

The decisive advances of this century in theoretical physics have been made in a period of a few years within a single mind. A new idea led to new algebra and so to new predictions in the thought processes of one person, from Planck and Einstein to Dirac and Pauli. It is unusual to suggest novel physical principles without simultaneously clothing them in mathematical expressions permitting quantitative predictions in particular experiments. Yet there have been times in the past, and the present moment may also be one, when, owing to a special need for reorientation, the presentation of a speculative theoretical programme, emphasizing new or neglected physical ideas, has proved fertile. One example of special relevance is R. J. Boscovich’s Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis, redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium (Vienna, 1758. * The mathematics in this work was trivial relatively to the novelty of the ideas, and no new measurements were predicted. Yet its influence on the history of physical ideas was profound. Boscovich’s ‘Theory’ was the formulation of a programme for atomic physics which is still being carried out, though some are unaware of this. ). [* On the relation of Boscovich’s atomism to the present essay, and for references on Boscovich, see W 21, W 24, W 26.]
This Challenge is also the announcement of a programme, and one based partly, like
contemporary physics, on Boscovichian atomism. But in several respects it parts company with Boscovich and with the Newtonian residuals in relativity and quantum theory and points towards a new post quantum realm of inquiry appropriate to the late twentieth century. It is a challenge in the sense of an invitation to attempt the solution of a challenging problem by using a particular method.
This is not a personal programme, but that, I hope, of an invisible college of tomorrow. These ideas may be neither new, nor perfect, nor complete. Yet this essay will serve a purpose if it leads to new explorations. It is as a pointer that I ask this statement to be judged. For I have no doubt that these or similar ideas, or other ideas provoked by their inadequacy, will in someone’s mind during this century prove fertile. They may help, as James Clerk Maxwell * put it, ‘to drive us out of the hypotheses in which we have hitherto taken refuge into that state of thoroughly conscious ignorance which is the prelude to every real advance in science’.
[*James Clerk Maxwell, Nature, March 3, 1875.]
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/mysterie ... ROBLEM.pdf
Back to James Maxell’s and Nikola Tesla vision about space
Today, the academicians of Modern Physics try to imply that James Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is not based upon the Ether. From his original publications, however, it is clear that Maxell has been a strong supporter of the Ether concept and rigorous attacker of those who ignores this objectivity [1] (see article four, section: Maxwell supports Ether). In A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism vol. II [2] James Maxwell concludes on the last page in favor of the Ether:
".....whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other”
Attacking the opponents of his concept Maxwell say: My further researches lead me to find that these 'eminent men’ who take upon themselves the task of ignoring anything that contradicts their cherished beliefs, follow what is called Scientism. And Scientism is well known by some people as a corruption of Science that is really a ‘pseudo religion.’ With so many ‘eminent men’ following their religion of Scientism and pretending it to be Science, it is little wonder that the world is in a very ‘sorry state’ of affairs.
,,,,,,,,,,
The price for tailoring the Maxwell’s equations to the known today vector form could be the exclusion of the transient state properties of the vacuum. That’s why some physical phenomena may look like paradoxes and some experiments seam to contradict to the “laws of physics”. In other words the transient state of the vacuum is outside of the filed of view of the Modern physics today. It stands to reason that the dark matter whose signature is now observable in all galaxies [11,12] is in fact an underlying superfine structure of the space we live.
In the most of the standard physics textbooks it is written that Einstein disproved the Ether (aether), when it talks about the Michelson Morley experiment. However, if you look at the book: Sidelights on Relativity - Einstein says he did not disprove the ether, just showed that one version of it was wrong [5]. Really the "ether" concept evolved in General relativity and becaming a "space-time." But that interpretation gets lost in confusion as people try to think from the formulated postulates in Quantum Mechanics. As a result the General relativity gets interpretation different than the original concept. In fact Einstein did not agree with the 1925 theory of Quantum Mechanics [1,5,6]. Today physicists are taught that the ‘ether’ concept is part of history. In fact, in the Modern physics the natural media or “ether” is replaced by some of its attributes, such as: quantum fluctuations of the physical vacuum, zero-point energy, space-time metrics and other names [1]. Now the Modern physics is deprived to solve the paradox: studying the properties of the physical vacuum while ignoring the existence of the carrier of these properties. Such approach led to development of abstractive theories where the human logic fails. While this has been opposed by some open minded scientists in the beginning of the 20th century, now the replacement of the human logic by mathematical one is silently acceptable.

http://www.helical-structures.org/new_e ... vision.pdf

The Einstein Conspiracy
4. Newton- Boscovich Research programme

Newton set in place a research programme that led to Boscovich’s theory (a theory that unified Relativity and Quantum Ideas in its own version of physics). It is another part of History that the Science Community chooses to ignore, because it does not want to believe in a Unified Theory any more.

In the A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee tells us: [1]

"...In Query 31 of Opticks, he [Newton] set forth a research programme to uncover the forces that govern the interactions of the minute parts of bodies. Newton expressed the hope that the study of short-range forces would achieve an integration of physico - chemical phenomena such as changes of state, solution, and the formation of compounds, in much the same way as the principle of universal gravitation had achieved the integration of terrestrial and celestial dynamics. Subsequently, Newton’s research programme received theoretical development from Boscovich and Mossotti, and practical implementation in the electromagnetic researches of Faraday and the various attempts to measure the elective affinities of the chemical elements."

Here the queries left by Newton in his book Opticks is seen as a research programme. This research programme was Newton- Boscovichian and was what many scientists were using up to circa 1920s. After the Physics Revolution, the Boscovich bit was dropped, leaving Newton theory defined with its queries becoming its assumptions and the Modern Physics as taking a different stance to that Newton theory.

The theory Newton- Boscovich disappeared. Parts of Boscovich’s theory were used in Modern Physics and other parts were not used.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

In A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism vol. II James Maxwell concludes on the last page in favour of the Ether:

".....whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, for energy, as Torricelli remarked, ‘is a quintessence of so subtle a nature that it cannot be contained in any vessel except the inmost substance of material things.’ Hence all these theories lead to the conception of a medium in which the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as an hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our investigations, and that we ought to endeavour to construct a mental representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my constant aim in this treatise."

If you are interested in the lead-up to Maxwell’s conclusion it is as follows:

"There appears to be, in the minds of these eminent men, some prejudice, or a priori objection, against the hypothesis of a medium in which the phenomena of radiation of light and heat and the electric actions at a distance take place. It is true that at one time those who speculated as to the causes of physical phenomena were in the habit of accounting for each kind of action at a distance by means of a special aethereal fluid, whose function and property it was to produce these actions. They filled all space three and four times over with aethers of different kinds, the properties of which were invented merely to ‘ save appearances’, so that more rational enquirers were willing rather to accept not only Newton’s definite law of attraction at a distance, but even the dogma of Cotes, that action at a distance is one of the primary properties of matter, and that no explanation can be more intelligible than this fact. Hence the undulatory theory of light has met with much opposition, directed not against its failure to explain the phenomena, but against the assumption of the existence of a medium in which light is propagated."

"We have seen that the mathematical expressions for electrodynamic action led, in the mind of Gauss, to the conviction that a theory of the propagation of electric action in time would be found to be the very keystone of electrodynamics. Now we are unable to conceive of propagation in time, except either as the flight of a material substance through space, or as the propagation of a condition of motion or stress in a medium already existing in space. In the theory of Neumann, the mathematical conception called Potential, which we are unable to conceive as a material substance, is supposed to be projected from one particle to another, in a manner which is quite independent of a medium, and which, as Neumann has himself pointed out, is extremely different from the propagation of light. In the theories of Riemann and Betti it would appear that the action is supposed to be propagated in a manner somewhat more similar to light."

"But in all of these theories the question naturally occurs:- If something is transmitted from one particle to another at a distance, what is its condition after it has left the one particle and before it has reached the other? If this something is the potential energy of the two particles, as in Neumann’s theory, how are we to conceive this energy as existing in a point of space, coinciding neither with the one particle nor with the other? In fact, whenever energy is transmitted from one body to another in time, there must be a medium or substance in which the energy exists after it leaves one body and before it reaches the other, for energy, as Torricelli remarked, ‘is a quintessence of so subtle a nature that it cannot be contained in any vessel except the inmost substance of material things.’ Hence all these theories lead to the conception of a medium in which the propagation takes place, and if we admit this medium as an hypothesis, I think it ought to occupy a prominent place in our investigations, and that we ought to endeavour to construct a mental representation of all the details of its action, and this has been my constant aim in this treatise."

Maxwell’s statement that "There appears to be, in the minds of these eminent men, some prejudice, or a priori objection, against the hypothesis of a medium...." is most enlightening ‘these eminent men’ with their ‘prejudice’ see it as their duty to ignore any evidence that they are wrong, and hence when they get their greasy little hands on science they corrupt it. They start asking for evidence that Ether exists if they are to believe in it, and ignore that Ether is required to make sense of the physical theories created by the ‘greats’ such as Maxwell.

My further researches lead me to find that these 'eminent men’ who take upon themselves the task of ignoring anything that contradicts their cherished beliefs, follow what is called Scientism. And Scientism is well known by some people as a corruption of Science that is really a ‘pseudo religion.’ With so many ‘eminent men’ following their religion of Scientism and pretending it to be Science, it is little wonder that the world is in a very ‘sorry state’ of affairs.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

When the orbits of electrons was worked out by Thomson, then later by Bohr and others; what it was originally based upon was Boscovich’s theory, where this theory was treating the scenario as being like music. Boscovich’s theory is a Pythagorean theory of physics, and Pythagoras based his description of the universe as being based upon maths and upon musical harmony (the music of the spheres etc.). Within this description one has waves that form into standing patterns around the nucleus, and hence giving the appearance of allowed and forbidden positions around the nucleus.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Thomson used Boscovich’s theory to get the ‘allowed’ and ‘forbidden’ orbits of an electron round a nucleus.

Book Reference: Roger Boscovich,S J (1711 - 1787): the forerunner of Modern Physical Theories, H G Gill, S J, M H Gill and Sons Ltd., Dublin 1941, p 18 - 19, 30

"Between 1903 and 1906 Thomson gave a course of lectures at the Royal Institution of London, which were published in the following year under the title The Corpuscular Theory of Matter. Much work had been done during these years in investigating the number of electrons in an atom. In the preface of this work we read :"
"There was, then, about this time-1906-an effort to devise a theory in which the electron could only revolve in what we shall call " allowed " orbits. It may be said at once that no theory has ever yet been devised in which, according to the recognised laws of electro-dynamics, electrified particles can be restricted to or excluded from any orbit. J. J. Thomson deducted his hypothesis directly from the theory and curve of Boscovich, and showed that the notion of " allowed " and " forbidden " orbits follows from it, and thus laid the foundations of the theory developed later by Bohr and others."

The relevant point to Boscovich is:

"...........J. J. Thomson deducted his hypothesis directly from the theory and curve of Boscovich, and showed that the notion of " allowed " and " forbidden " orbits follows from it, and thus laid the foundations of the theory developed later by Bohr and others."

i.e. Bohr and others Quantum Theorising arises from Boscovich’s Theory.

The strange thing to note above is:

"It may be said at once that no theory has ever yet been devised in which, according to the recognised laws of electro-dynamics, electrified particles can be restricted to or excluded from any orbit."

But one must bear in mind that Gill’s book was in 1941, and the situation is now not quite like that.

Back to the main issue: Boscovich’s theory unifies Relativistic and Quantum ideas. But the theory from Bohr and others, namely Modern Quantum Theory is not unified with Relativity. So, there is some difference between Modern Quantum Theory and Boscovich’s Theory, i.e. Modern Quantum Theory does not adopt all the assumptions of Boscovich’s theory. So, although Boscovich’s theory gave rise to being developed as Modern Quantum Theory, they are NOT the same theory.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

7. Musical Appreciation of the Universe


Boscovich’s Theory is a Unified Pythagorean theory of physics, and the Pythagoreans viewed the universe as obeying the rules of music and number, so it in other words Boscovich’s Theory is a Musical description of the universe. Waves play a very big part in music, and resonance has a very big part to play with waves. Tesla’s physics is based on resonance. So, all is interconnected: Tesla, Boscovich, Pythagoras, Music.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

8. The Founders of Modern Physics were working from a Unified Physics


The Founders of Modern Physics (in the 1920s), were working from a Unified Theory (i.e. Boscovich). But this Unified Theory is no longer taught to Students. It has been deleted from their education, because of a strange philosophical movement (logical Positivism) that has rejected such a unified approach to physics, and making modern Physics (from the 1940s) a collection of unconnected theories.

Niels Bohr was one of the main founders of Quantum Mechanics, and he was working from Boscovich’ Unified Theory. This can be inferred from the praises that Niels Bohr gave for Boscovich (also spelt ‘Boskovic.’) At the International Symposium in 1958, attended by many of the top physicists, Niels Bohr gave this speech:

"Ruder Boskovic, whose life-work is receiving greater and greater attention in the scientific world of today, was one of the most prominent figures among the 18th century philosophers who enthusiastically elaborated the fundamental conceptions of Newtonian mechanics. Indeed, he did not only make important contributions to mathematics and astronomy, but strove with remarkable imagination and logical power to develop a systematic account of the properties of matter on the basis of interactions of mass points through central forces. In respect, Boskovic’s ideas exerted a deep influence on the work of the next following generation of physicists, resulting in the general mechanistic views which inspired Laplace and, perhaps less directly, even Faraday and Maxwell."

Bohr is downplaying Boskovic’s contributions; other sources refer to Boskovic as being the 18th Century’s version of Newton. But he says that Boskovic is receiving greater attention in the scientific world, indicating Boskovic’s importance to Physics. This speech was in 1958, and the West did not pursue that interest. Bohr waffles on :

"It is true in our days the approach to such problems has undergone essential changes. Above all, it has been recognised that the consistent description of atomic processes demands a feature of indivisibility, symbolised by the quantum of action and which goes far beyond the old, much debated doctrine of a limited divisibility of matter. This development has revealed an unsuspected limitation of the scope of mechanical pictures and even of the deterministic description of physical phenomena. However, it has been possible, through a most efficient collaboration between physicists from many countries, gradually to develop a rational generalisation of the classical theories of mechanics and electrodynamics, which has proved capable of accounting for an ever increasing wealth of experimental data concerning the properties of matter."

When, against this background, one reflects on the development of natural philosophy through the ages, one appreciates the wisdom of the curious attitude towards atomic problems, which reigned until the last century. I think not only of the belief that, owing to the coarseness of our tools and sense organs, it would never be possible to obtain direct evidence of phenomena on the atomic scale, but also of the often expressed skepticism as to the adequacy of pictorial models in a domain so far removed from ordinary experience. Although the marvellous development of experimental technique has permitted us to record effects of single atomic objects, we are here in a novel situation which has necessitated a radical revision of the fundaments for the unambiguous use of the elementary conceptions, like space and time, and cause and effect, embodied in the language adapted to our orientation in practical life.

The elucidation of the situation with which we are confronted in atomic physics has been obtained by raising anew the old problem of what answers we can receive to questions put to nature in the form of experiments. Of course, no physicist from earlier times has ever thought that he could augment physical knowledge in any other way than by accounting for recordings obtained under well-defined experimental conditions. While, in this respect, there is no change of attitude since Boskovic’s time, we have in our days, as is well known, received a new lesson regarding our position as to analysis and synthesis of such knowledge.

Now, this is the important bit about Boskovic:

"Our esteem for the purposefulness of Boskovic’s great scientific work, and the inspiration behind it, increases the more as we realise the extent to which it served to pave the way for later developments. In friendly and fruitful international co-operation physicists are working today, in Yugoslavia as in all other countries, for the progress of our knowledge of the atomic constitution of matter and for the application of this knowledge, which holds out promises surpassing even those of the technology based on classical physics. In the pursuit of such novel developments, it is essential that we not only keep an open mind for unforeseen discoveries, but that we are conscious of standing on the foundations laid by the pioneers of our science."

Boskovic was the main pioneer for what became Modern Physics (as created in 1920s) by Bohr and his contemporaries. But Bohr is trying to be rather ‘vague’ in saying this. He finishes his speech by saying:

"The 200th anniversary of the publication of Boskovic’s famous Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis could hardly be commemorated in a more fitting manner than by an international congress in the country of his birth, convened on the occasion of the opening of the museum in Dubrovnik with its historical treasures. In pointing to the future, it is also a most fortunate omen that the great occasion could be combined with the inauguration of the modern research institute in Zagreb, which bears Ruder Boskovic’s name and where Mestrovic’s impressive statue will daily remind students of the traditions on which they are building and inspire them to fruitful contributions to common human knowledge."

There is a Physics Research Institute in Yugoslavia, which is dedicated to Boskovic. This speech was given in 1958. Yugoslavia was in the Soviet Union then, and the Soviets were well aware of the importance of Boskovic to modern Physics, but the West decided to ignore him. This is suggestive of some Cold War Cover-up in Physics. We can see why Bohr in 1958 thought that the scientists were getting more interested in Boskovic, and the West’s subsequent lack of interest, as indicating that the West was curtailing certain physics information.

In the USSR, there was less personal freedom, and it appears that there might have been no suppression of information on Boskovic in connection with Modern Physics. But in the West, where there is personal freedom, it appears that this freedom requires certain information to be denied people, else they know too much and present too big a security risk.

In WWII, scientists were placed into a compartmentalisation approach to scientific research, because of national security reasons they were not allowed to communicate with scientists outside of the speciality they were working on. This was to try to keep scientists with no overall picture of any science project that they were working on, so as to prevent them leaking too much information if they were to defect. If they had knowledge of a Unified Theory of physics (a la Boskovic) then they could have worked out all of the details of the projects they were working on, and presented a bigger security risk. Hence giving people personal freedom, meant that people must not be allowed to know too much, or they could present too big a danger, if they did deviate and go ‘bad’.

One wonders how much of this is still going on today. From certain Conspiracy Theorists, we are told that Secret Agencies are often engaged in deliberate Disinformation Campaigns. There is freedom of information, so there must be a lot of truth out there, which if people believed in, would make them dangerous, and so in order to combat this, the Secret Agencies then engage in spreading disinformation. A person then seeking the truth, has the truth hidden within layers of lies. Personal freedom in the West leads to these sorts of actions by the Authorities. There seems a positive and negative aspect to all matters. Personal freedom entails a dark side.

Reference:
Actes Du Symposium International R J Boskovic 1958, Beograd, Zagreb, Ljubljana, 1959, p 27 - 28
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/e ... piracy.htm
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

James Maxwell and some Boscovich links Part 2-2

Unread post by StefanR » Sat May 23, 2009 1:17 pm

GEOMETRY, TIME AND THE LAW OF CONTINUITY
(Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis and Boscovich’s synthesis of the continuous and the discontinuous; Criticisms of Boscovich's concepts of motion space and structure of matter)

After these geometrical and physical proofs we shall also cite Boscovich's metaphysical proof of the law of continuity:

"The continuum only has one limit, as in geometry, ... this results from the very nature of continuity ... as Aristotle himself remarked ... and in it there must be a common limit which connects the preceding with the succeeding and, therefore, it must be indivisible, for that is a property of the limit ... A surface which separates two bodies has no thickness ... therefore the immediate transition from one side to the other occurs in it.... Two consecutive continuous indivisible and inextensive points cannot exist without some mutual interpenetration and some merging ... Likewise, this must be the case with time, so that between a previous continuous time and that which immediately follows there is only one moment, which is the indivisible limit of both and, therefore, ... there cannot be two consecutive connected moments, but between them there must always be a continuous time which is divisible to infinity" (par. 47-49, p.22-23). In defending the idea of the tempusculum as a continuous moment of time (to prevent the contraction of the whole world and the cosmos into one point, for if two points coincide, everything will collapse), Boscovich argued further: "If the line of motion were somewhere interrupted, would the moment of time, in which the motion would have taken place, at the first point of the second part of the motion line follow the moment, in which the motion would have taken place, at the last point of the first part of the motion line, or would the first moment be the same as the second moment or would it precede it? In the first and the third cases, there would be some continuous time between these moments which would be infinitely divisible into other intermediate moments, since two moments of time, conceived in the sense I conceive them, cannot be continuously sequential ... Therefore, in the first case, the body would have been nowhere during all these infinite intermediate moments; in the second case, it would have been in two places at the same moment and, hence, it would have been replicated; in the third case, replication would have occurred, not only with regard to two moments, but also with regard to all the intermediate moments in which the body would have occupied more than one place. However, since an existent body cannot be without being somewhere and since it cannot be in several places simultaneously, the change in route and that sudden leap cannot occur ... and the distance of one body from another cannot be varied in leaps ... for it would be at two distances at the same time ....

"The objection which results from being and non-being merging during creation or annihilation:6 ... The creation or annihilation of any thing is impossible. If the end of a preceding series has to be merged with the beginning of the following series, in the very transition from non-being into being, or vice versa, both will have to be merged into one and, hence, both will simultaneously be and not be, and that is absurd. This is the answer. The real limited series, which exists, must have real transitional and final points which, similarly, actually exist, and not points which are nothing and do not possess the properties which the series requires. Therefore, if a series of real states is followed by another series of real states and if they were not connected by a common limit, then there would be two states at the same moment and these states would be two limits of the same series. And, since non-being is in fact the same as nothing, such a series would not require any final limit. It would be immediately and directly excluded by being itself. Therefore, in the first and last moments of that continuous duration in which the thing exists, it will actually exist and will not, at the same time, merge its non-being with its being ... True nothingness has no true properties ... being in itself excludes non-being” (par.52-55, p.22-26).
http://www.n01a.org/archive/continuity/index.html

Einstein, Ether and Unified Field

1. Introduction
Einstein derived his theory of Special Relativity (SR) from the philosophy of Positivism. However he derived his theory of General Relativity (GR) from a different philosophic point-of view than positivism. Yet, Quantum Mechanics (QM) was still derived from the Positivist point-of view. This led to conflict between the ideas of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.
Einstein wanted a quantum theory based upon the same philosophic point-of-view as
General Relativity; so that then both theories could be combined into one; this was what was called the Unified Field Theory (UFT), and was still within the old classical physics tradition. This means that the Unified Field is really just an evolution of the ether concept. However, there are philosophic problems (caused by Logical positivism) and psychological problems with making this deduction. Namely, a scientist working from the philosophy behind how Quantum Mechanics was first created, is not used to thinking about things in the old classical way; this can cause a mental block. (It should be noted that Quantum Mechanics is now attempted to be interpreted from different philosophies; but in its original formulation it was based upon Positivism. So, what I am referring to here in this article is the original formulation of the philosophy behind Quantum Mechanics.)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

“Light waves, were, after all, nothing more than undulatory states of empty space, and space thus gave up its passive role as a mere stage for physical events. The other hypothesis patched up the crack and made it invisible.” Einstein is jumping ahead of himself here. When he is talking about waves of light being undulatory states of empty space, he is referring to space acting like a medium for light waves. However, before that idea came the idea of ether; where space was filled with an ether in which the light waves travelled using the ether as a medium. He backtracks and now talks about ether: “The ether was invented, penetrating everything, filling the whole of space, and was admitted as a new kind of matter. Thus it was overlooked that by this procedure space itself had been brought to life.”
Saying that space was brought alive is also very unhelpful, what is meant was space had ether in it, and had phenomenon (namely light) happening in it, so it was not an inactive thing. “ It is clear that this had really happened, since the ether was considered to be a sort of matter which could nowhere be removed. It was thus to some degree identical with space itself; that is, something necessarily given with space.”
What is meant is that ether and space was becoming viewed as one could not have space without ether filling it, so that ether and space were almost as “one”. “ Light was thus viewed as a dynamical process undergone, as it were by space itself. In this
way the field theory was born as an illegitimate child of Newtonian physics, though it was cleverly passed off a first as legitimate.”
Meaning the idea that space and a type of ether were connected together as one inseparable thing was the Field concept. Talking about illegitimate and legitimate is also unhelpful. What is meant is that Newton’s original theory did not have the field concept properly incorporated into it. It required the extension to Newton’s theory by Boscovich to properly incorporate field.
“To become fully conscious of this change in outlook was a task for a highly original mind whose insight could go straight to essentials, a mind that never got stuck in formulas. Faraday was this favoured spirit. His instinct revolted at the idea of forces acting directly at a distance which seemed contrary to every elementary observation. If one electrified body attracts or repels a second body, this was for him brought about not by a direct action from the first body on the second, but through an intermediary action. The first body brings the space immediately around it into a certain condition which spreads itself into more distant parts of space, according to a certain spatio-temporal law of propagation. This condition of space was called "the electric field." The second body experiences a force because it lies in the field of the first, and vice versa. The "field" thus provided a conceptual apparatus which rendered unnecessary the idea of action at a distance. Faraday also had the bold idea that under
appropriate circumstances fields might detach themselves from the bodies producing them and speed away through space as free fields: this was his interpretation of light.”
Einstein misses out mentioning that the idea that objects influence themselves through forces which operate through empty space was proposed by Boscovich, and it was an idea taken up by Faraday and called field.
“Maxwell then discovered the wonderful group of formulae which seems so simple to us nowadays and which finally build the bridge between the theory of electromagnetism and the theory of light. It appeared that light consists of rapidly oscillating electromagnetic fields.” Maxwell was working on the experimental work of Faraday.
http://www.wbabin.net/science/anderton4.pdf
A Note on Bošković’s Distinction between Two Kinds of Velocities
Contrary to the seeming inconsistency of Bošković’s duality of velocities and the concept of instantaneous velocity, due to a critical examination of logical and methodological foundations of the calculus, the article shows that the duality of velocities is consistent with the interpretations of instantaneous velocity given by Oresme, Euler and Maclaurin, as with the definition of instantaneous velocity according to the rigorous Cauchyan founding of the calculus. Bošković’s duality of velocities is also shown to be consistent with Aristotelian-scholastic doctrine of potentiality and actuality, especially in its domain related to the nature of continuous motion.
http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=173913&toc=y
Atomic Theory
The most prominent representative of atomism in Renaissance was Giordano Bruno (1548-1600). Introducing elements of Platonic idealism into atomic theory, he expanded the traditional definition of the atom, adding specific spiritual attributes, such as the possession of a soul, in an effort to reconcile a corpuscular theory of matter with his grand vision of an essentially spiritual universe. It is ironic that this passionate believer in the divine origin of scientific knowledge was burned as a heretic in Rome.

In the seventeenth century, as scientists and philosophers started turning to empirical research in order test their theories, atomists approached atomic theory as a key to nature's secret. Thus Robert Boyle (1627-1691), who was a chemist, strove to establish the connection between particular types of atoms, which he imagined appeared in specific shapes, and certain perceived characteristics of material substances. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) accepted atomism, but raised the question of creation as a result of pure chance which traditional atomic theory implied. For Newton, creation could only the work of a Divine Intelligence, and he accordingly adapted atomism to fit his conception of God's role in creation; however, Newton's universal law of gravitation, which applies to both macroscopic and microscopic phenomena, opened new theoretical vistas which greatly enhanced the development of atomic theory. For example, Rudjer Boskovic (1711-1787), building on Newton's theory of universal gravitation, created an atomic theory that was clearly ahead of its time. Namely, Boskovic, who accepted Newton's gravitation theory as valid in macrocosmic realm, posited that, as the distance between physical objects diminishes, attraction is replaced by a repulsive force. Thus, while attraction provides the atomic cohesion needed for the construction of physical objects, a repulsive force keeps individual atoms at a certain distance from each other. It is Boskovic's conception of an atom--lacking spatial extension, resembling a geometrical point--that conjures up the world of subatomic particles, discovered in the twentieth century.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
One of the great accomplishments of contemporary atomic theory, as Pullman, has written, is the "remarkable effort to synthesize the two major theoretical contributions of the twentieth century, namely, the theory of relativity, with its fundamental law of equivalence between mass and energy, and quantum mechanics." According to Pullman, the paradigm emerging as a result of this synthesis is the relativistic quantum theory of fields, according to which reality can be defined in terms of interacting fields. "Fields," Pullman asserted, "are the ultimate reality, and there are as many fundamental fields as there are elementary particles."

Among the significant corollaries of the theory of fields, which offers a unified theory of reality, is a profound revision of the concept of vacuum. Thus, if reality is defined as a system of interconnected fields, the dichotomy, postulated by Democritus, between atoms and a vacuum in which they exist becomes meaningless. According to Pullman, vacuum "is a latent state of reality, while matter, made of elementary particles, is its actualized state." Finally, while many scientists accept the field paradigm as intellectually satisfying, the consensus among researchers is that further work in atomic theory will lead to many surprising discoveries.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/atomic-theory-woc/
ROGER BOSCOVICH'S THEORIA PHILOSOPHIAE NATURALIS AND THE RISE OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY
Why did Boscovich force us into this theoretical labyrinth? Why did he not simply call his book philosophie naturalis — natural philosophy? In his age there was a surfeit of hypothetical doctrines in and about natural philosophy, not necessitating another theoretical appendage, in this instance — theoria. Or perhaps Boscovich wanted us to understand the universe on the basis of both his philosophy and his experimental sciences. In a number of instances throughout the book Boscovich tells us that he has come to his conclusions by means of both his experiments and his thinking (per reflexionem) or by legitimate reasoning (legitima ratiocinatione). The very title of his work gives an indication that theory comes first and natural philosophy second. Consequently, his is a theory which explains and defines the sciences: it is a comprehensive reflection on the nature of sciences. By itself Boscovich's natural philosophy (basically physics) would be a torso.

To utilize today's definitions, we assume that sciences have done their work when they have reached the intended results. Why, for what reason, or of what value are these results is secondary to a scientist (not to everyone). Philosophy, specifically the so-called philosophy of science, does not stop at describing the procedures alone; it wants to give logical explanations to scientific processes. It wants to make clear to the general mind the nature of scientific work, to clarify the methods and concepts involved in the experiments, and, per reflection, to suggest further modes of investigation. In this respect Boscovich must have believed that the theoretical mind itself can open new avenues leading to the discovery of factual phenomena. As we know, in many instances, subsequent experiments only confirm the hypotheses reached by pure reasoning. Philosophy's task is, and this might have been Boscovich's intention, to put pure reason at the service of experimental sciences. Let us not then be surprised that a Catholic theologian wanted to see his discoveries confirmed by the perennial principles of philosophy.

Newton, the forerunner of Boscovich, and the latter's great idol, refuted the value of purely philosophical thinking in the study of nature. For Newton, philosophy is either philosophia experimentalis (experimental philosophy) or no philosophy at all. Boscovich thought differently
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Along with the theoretical, we must also pay attention to the experimental nature of Boscovich's scientific pursuits. He used tools, gadgets, followed special techniques. He was, after all, a physicist. In his theoria he even conceptualizes technical skills. In this respect, for Boscovich technology itself is a type of science, subject to its own "natural" laws to be discovered and explained.

Zenko gives us the final definition of Boscovich's theory as follows: 1) The theory (Theoria) is not a hypothesis which must be experimentally proved; 2) it is not simply natural philosophy because Boscovich goes beyond the sciences; 3) Boscovich' theory is a new and radical philosophical conceptualization of the essence of reality reached by means of experimental sciences (15).

As an "experimental science" Boscovich's theory should be further discussed by natural scientists as to the validity of its results, or by philosophers of science as to the clarity and logic of its concepts and methods. I am pursuing neither of these two lines of investigation. This year's published monograph on Boscovich by Professor Zarko Dadić, popularly written but sound in scholarship, gives us a logical, clear and succinct explanation of Boscovich's scientific accomplishments.

My concern here is with Boscovich's philosophical ideas, detached from experiments, which pursue the goals normally ascribed to metaphysics and ethics, the two traditional philosophical disciplines.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
My purpose in this study is to find in Boscovich's thought the aspects of, following in his wake, 19th century philosophy, the latter extending into our own times. We are entitled to look into this matter by the fact that Boscovich was a theologian and as such was well versed in classical and medieval philosophies. He "argued" with his immediate predecessors Descartes and Leibnitz, he worked in Paris from 1773 to 1783 in the heydays of the French enciclopaedists, and was honored by membership in the Royal Society of England at the time of Hume, barely missing during his lifetime the bishop and philosopher Berkeley.

Boscovich was not a pure philosopher and we cannot expect his philosophical thought to stretch into 19th and 20th century philosophy as separate from his scientific thought. However, Boscovich felt philosophical currents flowing from the 18th into the 19th century and expressed them in his own jargon. The latter could easily be translated into the language of our age.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Further studies would be necessary to relate Boscovich's ideas on body, mind, instincts, etc., to the theories of our age, notably behaviorism. Boscovich was a physicist and he finally always reverts to this discipline for factual evidence.

Boscovich found a great admirer in the most unlikely philosopher of the 19th century — Nietzsche. Both Boscovich and Nietzsche directed the scalpel of their analyses to the everlasting dilemna agitating man — what forces, spiritual, and/or physical, are responsible for the functioning of the universe? And what type of activities of the human mind can make these forces clear to us (the theories of the acquisition of knowledge). And, finally, when these forces are found and defined, what role does a human being play in this thus fully revealed universe?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nietzsche, quite surprisingly, read Boscovich. He held him in high esteem, as the quotation from his Beyond Good and Evil makes this clear. Nietzsche states: "Thanks chiefly to the Dalmatian Boscovich ... materialistic atomism ... is one of the best refuted theories ... in Europe" (No. 12). (Boscovich "defined atoms as centers of energy, and not as particles of matter," according to the historian of science Gillespie, 455.). Then Nietzsche continues: "He (Boscovich) and the Pole Copernicus have been the greatest and most successful opponents of visual evidence so far. For while Copernicus has persuaded us to believe, contrary to all senses, that the earth does not stand fast, Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the last part of the earth that 'stood fast' — belief in 'substance', in 'matter,' in the earth-residuum and particle-atom: it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has been gained on earth so far" (ibid.) What Nietzsche found in Boscovich was that the latter had successfully proved that our senses misinform us about the phenomena of nature. And this all from Nietzsche who based his entire philosophy on the value of the senses as the sole source of knowledge and the only directing force in human existence. As a scientist Boscovich argued over and over that objective reality cannot be grasped through our senses. His very Theoria is shaped, as he told us, "per reflexionem", by means of reflection. Needless to add, per reflection which follows in the wake of scientific experiments, the latter again not tied to the senses. It was Boscovich's philosophical frame of mind, not his experiments, which conjured a new image of reality.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Jesuit Father Copleston, who wrote the best and the most voluminous history of philosophy in the Anglo-Saxon world, wrote two separate books on Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. What prompted this Jesuit to devote so much time to these two confirmed atheists? This may be beyond the goals of this study, but it is worth mentioning that Copleston also greatly valued Boscovich's theories. Although Boscovich was primarily a scientist, Copleston gave him three pages in his history of world philosophy.

Professor Zenko notes some similarities between Boscovich, Kant, Hegel and Heidegger (26). This is possible, but in order to prove this point research of an intricate nature would be required. One author who could be compared with Boscovich, more as to his personality and the character of his efforts than to his specialty, was Father Teilhard de Chardin, also a Jesuit. The latter, too, was a scientist (an anthropologist), a philosopher, and a visionary. Like Boscovich he too tried to outline a total vision of man's spiritual and material world. The church was hesitant to support either of them.

Conclusion. It would be foolish to deny the title of philosopher to Boscovich. He thought and reflected on life, nature, and God independently of his scientific experiments. Like Descartes and Leibnitz, he had a comprehensive vision of man's place in the universe and of the forces which shape our existence, — be they material or spiritual in nature. Had he had a home (he was a perennial vagrant), a circle of trusted friends, and a more flexible church, he might have philosophized more and become eventually another Aristotle — an all comprehensive scientist and philosopher. As we know him today, he remains basically a scientist, but one with a full awareness that the sciences do not offer a total picture of man and his universe.
http://www.studiacroatica.org/jcs/28/2803.htm
Atoms and the Ancients
It is common today to credit Newton with the discovery that the same laws of physics apply to the objects in the sky and the objects on the earth, though all the pre-Socratic philosophers were of the same opinion, as were, for that matter, Kepler and Bruno. The difference is just that Newton knew a mathematical formula that explained both orbits and falling. Empedocles and Anaxagoras knew how to conduct experiments and the value of doing so in physical investigations, a piece of knowledge that was also subsequently virtually lost for the next two millennia, though Archimedes also knew it. Empedocles and Anaxagoras likewise knew that people are descended from marine life. Empedocles even expanded this idea into a crude theory of survival of the fit, whereas Aristotle believed in fixed species. Perhaps the ancients also dealt with other explanations that will be credited to some future scientist.
The basic structure of matter might also have been a subject that the ancients had some insight into that has been lost in modern times. Thales and the other early Ionian physicists (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras and Heraclitus) believed that any form of matter could be transformed into any other. Thales stated that all the many apparently different substances were, in fact, different forms of the only substance. Parmenides and his students Zeno and Melissus, on the other hand, caused all later philosophers, even Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Leucippus and Democritus, to be confused about this.
,,,,,,,,
Lucretius, Epicurus, Democritus, Leucippus and probably Pythagoras before them believed that physical stuff is an aggregate of indivisible pieces. Since the Eleatics are known to have been Pythagoreans before they became Eleatics, this theory can
reasonably be nothing other than the teaching of Pythagoras. Examining the extant material concerning the teaching of Pythagoras tends to confirm this conjecture rather than to contradict it. The Eleatics, who are the outlying group of philosophers who are philosophically nearest to the early atomists, say that someone before Leucippus knew that matter is composed of a basic stuff. Though they chronologically precede the philosophers commonly recognized as atomists, their teaching can hardly be interpreted as anything other than a critique of a still earlier theory that is a version of the atomic theory.
This theory states that the smallest parts of things are the smallest parts of things because they have no parts themselves and that the reason for this is that they are too small to have any parts. The atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus differs from this theory only in rejecting the just stated hypothesis about smallest parts and replacing it with a "more sophisticated" doctrine that physical stuff consists of parts that, by virtue of being solid, are physically indivisible even though they are mathematically divisible. The original version of what is otherwise the atomic theory lacks this "sophistication" and is thereby more sensible.
Lucretius and Epicurus both clearly state that all the smallest parts of things move at the same constant speed, which is faster than anything else moves. Again, one may conjecture on the basis of what is preserved from earlier times that this was an original and integral portion of the smallest-parts doctrine and goes back to Pythagoras. It is apparently a proposition that has been unattended to in modern times even to declare it impossible to believe even though it appears in no uncertain terms in material that has been read at least once by every educated person.
http://wbabin.net/science/kelso5.pdf
Introduction to Pythagorean Physics
Overview
Pythagorean Physics postulates the existence of a basic unit of matter, the Pythagorean atom. It deals with discreteness in favor of continuity. It considers both time and space to be absolute. Motion is a function of space and time. Unlike classical mechanics, Pythagorean Physics considers mass to be a variable and has a different concept of what a particle is. Pythagorean Physics employs an axiomatic system that incorporates both philosophy and science in order to achieve meaning.
http://wbabin.net/physics/kelso.htm

9. Logical Positivism and Scientism

Modern Science has been corrupted by a philosophical movement called Logical Positivism, which is not Logical and is not Positive, which led rise to Scientism a pseudo religion that pretends to be a Science. The followers of Scientism, do not realise it is Scientism that they follow, and mistake it for Science.

In Unwin Hyman Dictionary of Philosophy, Logical Positivism is described as:

"the doctrine of the Vienna Circle, so called because it recognises only the positive sciences (as against systems of metaphysical speculation) as valid sources of human knowledge, and in this process attends to the logical structure of scientific (that is, acceptable) statements. Thus, the doctrine insists on the empirical approach (Empiricism), in some ways continuing the tradition that goes back to Locke and Hume. However, the thorough-going rejection of abstract theorising went too far: theoretical science seemed itself inadmissible."

Science likes to see itself as being Empirical, hence the Logical Positivism Movement tied itself to that, making it seem a Scientific Philosophy upon that matter. But Logical Positivism went too far and rejected Theories that went beyond what was directly provable by Empiricism. This Philosophical Movement which became powerful in the 1920s, the same time as Modern Physics (Relativity and Quantum) were taking hold, started to reject the parts of those theories that were not directly proven by experiment.

It is very unfortunate that this rejection happened, because it was a rejection of ‘Proper Science.’ Physics as started by Galileo and Copernicus, and extended into the Newtonian Research Program, was never anything more than a Working Hypothesis, which culminated in Boscovich’s theory that was predicting phenomenon that was beyond experimental testing when that theory was created. Logical Positivism then sought to destroy that Theory (that connected Relativity and Quantum ideas) as speculation, leaving unconnected pieces of theory. Physicists such as Bohr were working from the Unified Theory of Boscovich, but the Positivists rejected the unified theory, leaving only the bits of that theory which had so far been tested.

What is worse, the Positivists in their rejection of ‘Proper Science' Under the Newtonian Research Program, then rewrote history to suit what they wanted to believe. If one looks at what is said about Boscovich in the mainstream physics history, he is dismissed as an anomaly, when previously he was very prominent in the development of Modern Physics. Positivists corrupt everything, so that their point of view seems to be the only point of view, and the way they do this is to ignore the evidence that indicates that they are wrong. Anything that does not fit into their point of view, is either dismissed as an anomaly or there is found some other reason to reject it. Compare this to what Galileo faced. He tried to get the intellectuals of his day to accept his telescopic observations for the Copernican theory, but the intellectuals rejected the evidence as anomalies. Logical Positivism is thus a reinvention of the biased religious beliefs of the medieval intellectuals, and is thus a pseudo religion. In hung onto science like a parasite, and converted much of that science into what is called Scientism. Many scientists follow Scientism, in the mistaken belief that it is Science.

Dr Denis Alexander, Chairman of the Programme of Molecular Immunology at the Babraham Institute and a Fellow of St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, gives more information on Logical Positivism and Scientism in his book Rebuilding the Matrix: science and faith in the 21st Century.

Science should be based on rational thought. But Alexander notes:

"..... sociological insights suggest that the adoption of many of our beliefs occurs, in the first instance, not by rational argument at all, and least of all by evidence, but by a very different set of social processes." [ #]

i.e. Beliefs such as Scientific Beliefs are often not based on rational thought. When Scientists are informed of this, their response is:

"Scientists are generally wary of sociologists, and often downright hostile. The reasons for such hostility are not difficult to unravel. Sociologists who study science sometimes give the impression that the acquisition of scientific knowledge can be explained in purely sociological terms. Thus it appears that the main determinants of scientific theories are not the properties of the universe around us, but rather the power wielded by a certain school of scientists, or their ideological concerns, or economic forces which control scientific programmes. According to such sociological accounts, scientific knowledge is just one more type of human construct which has no more claim to our assent than any other form of knowledge. Not surprisingly, scientists become rather huffy when they read such material, for virtually all scientists believe that, in carrying out their research, they are gradually generating better descriptions of the physical world ........." [#]

i.e. Scientists like to believe that they are involved in discovering the ‘truth’, and do not like to be told that they are in fact adopting a Belief System that has no more validity than other Belief systems.

Many scientists recognise that their Belief System is incomplete, but believe that they are getting closer to the ‘truth’ as time passes.

"...... [Scientists believe that Science] while certainly incomplete, over time correspond more and more closely to reality Those descriptions are certainly not complete, but they are improving. Scientists point out that, while it is quite clear from the history of science that all kinds of economic, political and religious factors have played important roles in determining the direction of science, and even the content of some scientific theories, nevertheless, ultimately, scientific knowledge does provide reliable `maps' of the world around us. Science is not merely a social construct." [#]

The main point of this web site is that Modern Physics was working to a Unified Theory (under the Newtonian Research program), which was the ‘truth’, but then all the sociological, economic, philosophical factors etc., came into operation and science moved away from the ‘truth.’ A fact that many scientists would probably distasteful. But that is the way things are.

Alexander has an interesting comment about passionate emotions influencing belief:

"It is sometimes thought that the beliefs which are held most strongly by societies are those which are expounded with great passion, But a moment's thought will show that this is not the case, Passionate beliefs tend to be minority beliefs. The smaller your voice, the louder you need to shout in order to make yourself heard. The really strong beliefs in societies are those which are tacitly maintained, The strength of the belief is in direct proportion to the degree to which discussion of it is felt to be unnecessary The assumption that the belief is true runs so deep that to unearth it and critically discuss it would be like digging up the foundations of the Tower of London to show that the stones underneath were really as big as everyone knew they must be anyway." [#]

"How do we come to accept such deeply held assumptions? Most of them are simply 'given' to us as the earliest data of our lives. At the beginning we are presented with a language in which everything is already labelled. Language is not a matter for discussion, only something to be learned. Yet language is not a neutral medium to express meanings about objects and concepts that exist in the world around us. Words are loaded in different directions by connotations that derive from their use against the background of a particular history and/or geography The word `wicked' to my generation means something quite different from its meaning for my students." [#]

The influence of Logical Positivism has run so deep that the basic science and the language that we now speak, has been altered, so as to try to lead itself to the Belief System of the corrupted Science. Alexander tells us about Logical Positivism:

"According to Logical Positivism - an anti-metaphysical movement influential in the earlier half of the 20th century, promoted in Britain by A.J. Ayer in his Language, Truth and Logic (1936) - a sentence can only be true or false either il it can be justified as being true on the basis of sensory experience, i.e. it is empirically verifiable, or il' it can be shown to be true or false on the basis of meaning alone, i.e., it is logically consistent, The `scientific method' came to be the arbiter of what was designed as rational. The Positivists had a field day in declaring to be nonsense (in the strict sense of' that term) all kinds of claims and statements that did not seem meaningful according to these stringent criteria, not least in the arts

and in religion." [#]

This must have been when they were also deleting the parts of Physics, that they did not like. But after inflicting such damage, they then found:

"... they finally found themselves hoist by their own petard with the realisation that their own stringent criteria for meaning; rendered the criteria themselves meaningless as they could not be empirically supported. As it happens, the more extreme tenets of Positivism proved very stale for science, as men like Mach tried to eliminate reference to all unobservable entities from scientific discourse, a process that would rapidly reduce most laboratories to a state of complete silence!" [#]

i.e. Logical. Positivism was nonsense, but was discovered too late, after it had inflicted its damage to Science.

Alexander continues:

"Although Positivism as an organized philosophy is no longer with us, its ghost still lives on in popular culture under the label of 'scientism'" [#]

And Scientism is the corrupted science that masquerades as Proper Science. Alexander explains that it is :

"a view of scientific knowledge which lingers on in popular culture and which is also actively promoted by some scientists and philosophers of science, This comprises a rather amorphous mixture of beliefs, the mixture varying somewhat in emphasis depending on who is propounding it, but the beliefs are linked sufficiently to subsume them under the general title of 'scientific naturalism' or less formally, `scientism', In a way this latter term is , an unfortunate title since it implies that this is a philosophy which is inherent , in the scientific enterprise itself whereas it would be far closer to the truth to say , that 'scientism' is parasitic upon science but certainly not part of it, Scientific naturalism, or scientism refers to the view that only scientific knowledge is reliable and that science can, in principle, explain everything." [ #]

And Scientism has a strong hold because it enforces that things should be discussed in only that it deems fit, with many science journals following Scientism beliefs rather than Proper science. Alexander tells us:

"It has been suggested above that the price to be paid for the construction of a body of universally reliable scientific knowledge, fit to be published in reputable scientific journals, is the imposing of certain restrictions - restrictions on the type of questions addressed, restrictions on the language employed and restrictions on the methods used....." [ #]

The corruption of science runs very deep, creating ‘Scientism’ and then the corruption sets up its defences, by denying the evidence that proves that ‘Scientism’ in all its many forms is wrong. Hence why we have dropped out from the Proper Science of the Newtonian Research Program.

Reference:
Unwin Hyman Dictionary of Philosophy, G Vasey and P Foukles, 1999, p 176 - 7
Rebuilding the Matrix: science and faith in the 21st Century, Denis Alexander, A Lion book, UK 2001, p 13 -14, 231 - 2, 272
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/einstein3.htm
Our Minimum Consensus
Peter Marquardt, Cologne, Germany
In science, it is all too easy to jump to conclusions. As the development during the past century has shown, this seems particularly true of physics. Scientific modeling should and must be consistent and free of internal contradictions. This begins with the very first step: Analyze the vocabulary used in order to define the problem in question. Many a discussion is bound to remain fruitless if there is no consensus even about the basic terminology. For instance, ’relative velocity’ may have different meanings, depending on the view of velocity. The interpretation “two bodies are in relative motion if their mutual distance changes with time” does not respect the vector property of velocities. It is often easily overlooked ‘trifles’ like this that make consensus impossible. Likewise, ‘time’ and ‘space’ provide unexpected pitfalls if unspecified. ‘Time’ is not identical with ‘duration’ and ‘space’ is not ‘volume’. Time and space in their abstract general physical meaning provide the stage on which events happen. Hence they are not subject to the events themselves. Scientific language must be unique.

A major difference between physics and math is that pure numbers don’t give us physics. The dimensions of physical quantities must be respected, independent of the system of units chosen. This is a necessary, not sufficient, condition to formulate physical ideas correctly. We should have consensus about the use of mathematics in physics as an assistant science. Math is a wonderful and most valuable help in physics - if used properly; it is a catastrophe if allowed to enslave physical ideas as is the case in certain (you-know-which) 20th century cult theories. These cult theories blocked the progress of physics more than anything else and we should consider it our task to tell the public why they should be abandoned in spite of their pseudo-successes (with math, it is possible to make a physically untenable theory yield numerically correct results, just think of cosmology before Kepler). To rid physics of this burden is not only a matter of saving uncounted $$ spent by the taxpayer and wasted by the ‘science lords’ for fruitless research that serves only their (the lords’) purpose. This is also a matter of putting physics back on the track where it once was a real science, just think of the great achievements of the 17th to 19th centuries. Their progress in science deserves to be continued in all modesty. Do not “reach for the stars”. Looking for a world formula is like looking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Nature’s Giant Puzzle is impossible to solve completely. We are lucky if a few pieces fit.

Putting together a few pieces of the Giant Puzzle is enough work for a lifetime, no matter where we start our work. It is of utmost importance to strive for a correct analysis of any chosen physical scenario, which includes being aware of the necessary approximations and assumptions that are usually (and often tacitly) made. Long-standing discussions dealing with, say, the Doppler effect demonstrate the importance of careful analysis. If misunderstood or misinterpreted, physical effects lead to very strange theories that die hard (if ever).

True, we have to start somewhere with our modeling. That necessarily implies assump­tions, approximations, etc. Let us try to focus on the essence of physics: What are the iron princ­iples that never have been found to fail and still leave room for novel discoveries? Critically consider the observers’ role. There is no point in repeating old mistakes just to please the observ­ers’ view. Scientific modeling must be as objective (i. e. independent of the observers’ view; Kepler’s lesson) as can be. There are illusions galore that have been mistaken as being ‘equivalent’ with the actual event. According to my experience, the public (not specialized in physics) accepts this approach readily because it matches with their everyday experience. They find it rewarding to be invited to follow the scientific line of reasoning instead of being scared by weird ideas camouflaged with horrifying formulas. Their applause will be our greatest reward.
http://www.worldnpa.org/main/index.php? ... sition=2:2
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 25, 2009 7:58 am

One of the most stunning links you provided is the very first on Relativity:
"The name `theory of relativity' is connected with the fact that motion from the point of view of possible experience always appears as the relative motion of one object with respect to another.
(...)
"Motion is never observable as 'motion with respect to space' or, as it has been expressed, as 'absolute motion'.
(...)
"The 'principle of relativity' in it's widest sense is contained in the statement: The totality of physical phenomena is of such a character that it gives no basis for the introduction of the concept of 'absolute motion'; or shorter but less precise: There is no absolute motion. - "The Theory of Relativity and other Essays" 1996, Citidel Press
Yet again, has another's ideas been incorporated under the Einstein's synthesized quilt. Boscovich's. These ideas were totally culled from Boscovich's work. No wonder Rossler seemed to "downplay" Boscovich:
“However, the fact that Boscovich was unaware of the motionindependence of the speed of light necessarily diminished the impact of his impact that the state of motion of an observer relative to his world constitutes a primary reality.” [1]

Well that is what Rossler thinks. As dealt with in my previous article both Boscovich’s relativity theory and Einstein’s relativity theory work as mathematical descriptions of physical reality. [2] The fact that Rossler (and others) do not realise this fact about relativity, means they neglect part of the picture of relativity; and do not hence fully understand that relativity. But we get to the root cause of why Boscovich gets neglected; many relativists are under the false impression that there is only Einstein’s relativity that works.
But look at how relativist mutate it:
“One consequence of this principle is that a state of external motion of the observer relative to the world is equivalent to a state of motion of the whole world relative to a stationary observer. This insight forms the basis of both Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity.” [1]

That is the Principle of Relativity clearly stated, and it comes from Boscovich’s theory, and Einstein’s theories are based upon that foundation. – Boscovich’s Principle: foundation of relativity
I disagree. There is no such thing as a “stationary observer” at "rest". Consider Boscovich:
Mobility is usually considered as one. of the general properties of bodies; & indeed it follows immediately from the curve of forces. For, since this curve, by means of its ordinates, represents the propensity to approach or recede, it necessarily requires mobility, or the possibility of motion, without which approach or recession can certainly not be obtained. Now there are some, who ascribe quiescibility to bodies ; but I consider that absolute rest, at any rate in Nature as it is at present constituted, is impossible, as I explained in Art. 86. I think also that it must be excluded by the argument of infinite improbability, which I used in the dissertation De Spatio, & Tempore, which I have mentioned so many times already, & which I quote in this work as Supplement, I …

Finally, by the motion of all bodies about a common centre of gravity, whether this is at rest or travelling uniformly in a straight line, absolute rest is excluded from Nature. In my opinion also, there is another property that excludes absolute rest, one which I consider is common also to all points of matter & to the centres of gravity of all bodies ; namely, continuity of motion, with which I dealt in Art. 88 & elsewhere. – pg 281 sec 383 & 384
Either of these methods of explaining the matter reduces to the same thing, if by the term ' rest ' we understand not only absolute rest which, since the Earth is in motion, has in no sense been admitted by the Cartesians, but also relative rest. For, equal motions in the same direction are nothing else but the relative rest of the parts that have equal motions in the same direction.

(…)

Things which cohere are certainly relatively at rest ; or they have equal motions in the same direction.

(…)
But, in bodies in which we perceive coherent parts, those parts have no relative velocity with regard to ourselves, nor as one part flies off does another take its place. Therefore the matter has to be explained in a totally different manner; & we must find a totally different cause to the idea of mere equality of motion in the same direction, in order to solve the difficulty that is experienced in separating the parts & inducing in them motions that are not equal & in the same direction. – pg 293
The Newtonian idea of mass is replaced by something totally different; it is a mere number, without “dimension "; the “mass" of a body is simply the number of points that are combined to “form” the body. Each of these points, if sufficiently close together, will exert on another point of matter, at a relatively much greater distance from every point of the body, the same acceleration very approximately. - INTRODUCTION xiii
All Boscovich is saying is that you need the 'contrast' of individual motions in order to determine one's own direction and/rate of motion. But that you couldn't determine the Origin of all motion (absolute). Boscovich used the word ‘relative’ in the sense of its actual meaning i.e. something standing or having an influential relation to something else. But that the fact that everything is moving is indicative of Continuity of Motion - which, like Newton - he refused to identify. He simply reasoned this out and I find nothing wrong with it.

Einstein, on the other hand, invented something to facilitate Continuity i.e. the "space-time continuum" and framed it by imposing a speed limit on Light by fiat. No wonder Boscovich has been overlooked. This is jaw dropping story. I also like the way Boscovich sums Newton's idea of "mass" as an amalgamation of 'co-moving' points. Those 'co-moving points" are at "relative rest" in relation to one another as they form an object (resonant compactification of co-moving "points"), but nothing is ever really at "rest" at all. I think Tesla recognized the difference between Boscovich's practical (classical) reasoning and Einstein's phantasm:
...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists...

...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ruđer Bošković, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Bošković dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum ... - Tesla
What an amazing find Stephan!

p/s Found something pretty funny from Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis:
Finally, some persons raise the greatest objections to this Theory of mine, because they consider that all the phenomena must be explained by impulse and immediate contact; this they believe to be proved by the clear testimony of the senses. So they call forces like those I propose non-mechanical, and reject them, just as they also reject the universal gravitation of Newton, for the alleged reason that they are not mechanical, and overthrow altogether the idea of mechanism which the Newtonian theory had already begun to undermine. Moreover, they also add, by way of a joke in the midst of a serious argument derived from the senses, that a stick would be useful for persuading anyone who denies contact. – pg 109
"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 » Mon May 25, 2009 2:05 pm

Wow Stephen, what a wealth of info. I didn't know that Boscovich was the "first theoretical chemist". For that I suppose I owe him a particular debt of gratitude :).

In the 1st link:
Specifically, Boscovich claimed that the observer can never observe the
world as it is – he can only describe the interface (or difference) between
himself and the world.
But the observer does observe the world exactly how it is. How else? Of course the author himself said:
What we perceive through our senses is an
illusion, and at a deeper level there is a hidden reality, and as per my
philosophic dedication to the Pythagorean point-of-view I say that
underlying reality is mathematical.
Which is of course ridiculous. If the author REALLY believes that what we sense is an illusion then s/he should give up all scientific inquiry because s/he will never uncover any "Truth". Death and suicide are illusory sensations too, so why not?

The requirement that "reality is mathematical" makes no sense. Math was developed from observation (the senses). It was developed to describe and account for objects that exist. Humans have the ability to abstract away from the objects themselves, but the math rules and logic were originally motivated by observations.

Math might be the language of physics of people could agree on how to interpret this or that equation. But they cannot. The current state of mathematical physics is a perfect example. You have orthodox interps of quantum, unorthodox ones, and everything in-between and out-oftween. The equations don't really change, just the physical interpretation. We have Lorentzian vs. "special", and still the (practical) equations don't change, just the physical interpretation.

Obviously math is not the language of physics, or any kind of "universal language" for that matter. Obviously, also, specific experiments can't always resolve these issues either. Lorentz vs. special rel are empirically indistinguishable, as are many different "versions" of quantum. To distinguish the fantasy from the science we must employ logic and reason, we have no choice but to define the two most fundamental words of physics (object and exist.) in an unambiguous and non-circular way. Physics studies objects (at least sometimes) and studies ones that exist (always). We cannot avoid deciding exactly what we mean by "something" and "something that exists".

I'd venture definitions of absolute motion and relative motion:

Absolute motion: More than one location of an object

Since location is wrt *every* other object in the U, not some particular observer, it is absolute.

Relative motion: Successive distances between objects, excluding some objects in the U.

We're limiting our concept of "location" to ONLY these particular objects, making their motion relative only to each other, i.e. contextual. We are not tracking their full, actual motion (relative to everything else in the U).

In the second link:
Before 1920 many of Boscovich’s
admirers misinterpreted him through their inability to
conceive one or more of the following: material
permanence without spatial extension; spatial relations
without absolute space; or (and most difficult) kinematic
actions without Newtonian forces.
I can conceive of, and am comfortable with, all of these except the first. I simply cannot imagine that which lacks a boundary, although I am open to being convinced otherwise.

In the third link, I like the concluding remark comparing the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle with relativity. I would go further and say that"uncertainty" between location and velocity is inherent qualitatively (with no notions of quantum or rel) because of our very definitions of location (static) and velocity (dynamic).

When an object is movING, what is its location? Indeterminant, at best we can take some kind of mathematical average amongst multiple locations interpolated between the starting point and end point. When an object is motionLESS, what is its velocity? Undefined (the little "t" in the denominator is 0, therefor v=undef not v=0, mathematicians routinely confuse undef, infinite, 0, etc.) Fortunately everything "out there" is always moving (if one object moves every other object moves pursuant to the definition of absolute motion)so we can always measure a velocity and assign an "average location" parameter. Even while moving, a "precise velocity" cannot be assigned. Is any object in the U ever moving with "constant velocity"? No, this does not appear to be the case. Not only is every object moving, but every object's velocity is changing. So over any span we can only assign a "mathematical average" velocity. A priori, we have an uncertainty principle without modern relativity, no quantum weirdness, violation of determinism, multiple worlds, etc.

The precise quantity of the uncertainty depends on the mathematical model one decides to use. But Nature is not uncertain :).

In link 5, what is meant by a "transient aether"? Does this simply mean dynamic, i.e. a "moving aether"?

By the way Solar, I took this time to read your "Case Against Cosmology" and loved it. I share a lot of the same sentiments.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by seasmith » Mon May 25, 2009 3:54 pm

~
Time’ is not identical with ‘duration’ and ‘space’ is not ‘volume’. Time and space in their abstract general physical meaning provide the stage on which events happen. Hence they are not subject to the events themselves.
Stefan,

Did Boskovic somewhere offer a succinct descrption of 'time and space' ?
Would his view harmonize with that of Schopenhauer, on the subject ?

s

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 » Tue May 26, 2009 3:30 am

Hi Seasmith,
Did Boskovic somewhere offer a succinct descrption of 'time and space' ?
Would his view harmonize with that of Schopenhauer, on the subject ?
Yes there is a description made by Boskovich, but I'm affraid that you will have to look for it in the link to the pdf of the book that was linked to on the previous page of this thread, after the main body of text there are some supplements and it is I believe the first two of those supplements which deal with "time" and "space"
As for Schopenhauer, there is a link in the second post on this page that deals also with Schopenhauer, the writer of that text, which is one of the more qualitative texts above, seems to say that they don't harmonize that well
His greatest opponent in modem philosophy, but also confrere, was Schopenhauer. Schopenahuer was born only one year after Boscovich died. Like Boscovich, Schopenhauer (although a philosopher, and not a scientist) was passionately and irrevocably committed to the discovery of the final and irrefutable laws which govern our universe. Let us keep in mind that Schopenhauer, although a German, was thoroughly imbued with the Anglo-Saxon spirit of empirical modes of thinking.
http://www.studiacroatica.org/jcs/28/2803.htm

It goes on a little further, a real fun read, I think
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 » Tue May 26, 2009 4:19 am

Solar wrote:But that the fact that everything is moving is indicative of Continuity of Motion - which, like Newton - he refused to identify. He simply reasoned this out and I find nothing wrong with it.

Einstein, on the other hand, invented something to facilitate Continuity i.e. the "space-time continuum" and framed it by imposing a speed limit on Light by fiat. No wonder Boscovich has been overlooked. This is jaw dropping story. I also like the way Boscovich sums Newton's idea of "mass" as an amalgamation of 'co-moving' points. Those 'co-moving points" are at "relative rest" in relation to one another as they form an object (resonant compactification of co-moving "points"), but nothing is ever really at "rest" at all. I think Tesla recognized the difference between Boscovich's practical (classical) reasoning and Einstein's phantasm:
I think it is jaw dropping too, although I'm not sure Einstein did it himself out of malice, but I think he never truly heard of Boskovich in the earliest parts of the 20th century, a new translation of Boskovich was made in 1922 or something like that, but what Einstein did properly is to go about it from Maxwell and base his reasoning on that, but as Maxwell in his vectorial form is limited so the proofs Einstein found were rooted in that limitedness and by that producing limited conclusions
Of course Maxwell is still very valuable to this day and so is Einstein in relation to him also, Maxwell gave equations and a line of thinking that made electromagnetism workable in a sense, Einstein showed the limitations of that system, which it seems Einstein was percieving as in need to correction later, but instead of going back to the root of the problem, he tried to ammend the theoretical construct itself, a sort of epicycling so to say, perhaps more to do with the times and circumstances of his day, then with bad intentions, I'm also not sure in what sense Einstein was able to read latin as Tesla did

Didn't Tesla also have a quote in which he states about Einstein that Einstein set out to prove one thing and forgot the subject of his thesis along the way?
Tesla is a real genius, if you ever get to Belgrade, visit his museum there, it is quite fun and interesting, and one gets the opportunity to hail the copper sphere in which he resides :D ;)

But what I also still find stunning is not only the fact that relativistic ideas can be retrieved from Boscovich but also that folks like Bohr, knew about Boscovich and found him inspirational in relation to Quatum Mechanical considerations,
I still find it difficult to comprehend but highly entertaining to try to understand Boskovich's propositions as relating to 'points' , particles, substances and objects, there is something very classical going on which seems to go back to hellenic philosophy in a certain way, I personally think it has something to do with the dissemination of ancient texts in those days, starting with Ficino and Pico de Mirandola,
The close ties of Croatia with Italy, and the fact that Mossoti had more or less similar ideas points to something I do not quite discern quite clearly yet
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 » Tue May 26, 2009 4:24 am

altonhare wrote:I didn't know that Boscovich was the "first theoretical chemist". For that I suppose I owe him a particular debt of gratitude
Isn't it fun :D

You'll have to excuse me for now, as I'm short in time now after the previous posts, but I'll try to reply further later on :oops:
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
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by junglelord » Tue May 26, 2009 5:11 am

I also like the way Boscovich sums Newton's idea of "mass" as an amalgamation of 'co-moving' points. Those 'co-moving points" are at "relative rest" in relation to one another as they form an object (resonant compactification of co-moving "points"), but nothing is ever really at "rest" at all. I think Tesla recognized the difference between Boscovich's practical (classical) reasoning and Einstein's phantasm:
Bingo! Mass is the 2-d view of a circular string, EM Charge is the resulting 3-d view of the same string. It is therefore at relative rest to each other, but as the 2-d linear string scans an aether unit it aquires 3-d distributed EM charge which becomes a toroid geometry (resonate compatification of co moving "points")
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

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StevenO » Tue May 26, 2009 10:14 am

junglelord wrote:
...I think Tesla recognized the difference between Boscovich's practical (classical) reasoning and Einstein's phantasm:
Bingo! Mass is the 2-d view of a circular string, EM Charge is the resulting 3-d view of the same string. It is therefore at relative rest to each other, but as the 2-d linear string scans an aether unit it aquires 3-d distributed EM charge which becomes a toroid geometry (resonate compatification of co moving "points")
Nah... :idea: everybody knows mass is a 3D scalar inward motion of atoms and gravity is that motion respective to the aether. That fits very well with Tesla's notions of scalar propagation and his dynamic theory of gravity ;)
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

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 » Tue May 26, 2009 5:33 pm

I guess we agree to disagree.
:D
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

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

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by Solar » Wed May 27, 2009 5:21 pm

StefanR wrote:... I'm not sure Einstein did it himself out of malice, but I think he never truly heard of Boskovich in the earliest parts of the 20th century, a new translation of Boskovich was made in 1922 or something like that, but what Einstein did properly is to go about it from Maxwell ...

But what I also still find stunning is not only the fact that relativistic ideas can be retrieved from Boscovich but also that folks like Bohr, knew about Boscovich and found him inspirational in relation to Quatum Mechanical considerations,
I still find it difficult to comprehend but highly entertaining to try to understand Boskovich's propositions as relating to 'points' , particles, substances and objects, there is something very classical going on which seems to go back to hellenic philosophy in a certain way, I personally think it has something to do with the dissemination of ancient texts in those days, starting with Ficino and Pico de Mirandola,
The close ties of Croatia with Italy, and the fact that Mossoti had more or less similar ideas points to something I do not quite discern quite clearly yet
There could be a very long lineage associated with the concept of "relativity". I do consider that to be the case. But consider this:
The citizens of Dubrovnik are proud of Rudjer Josip Bošković, astronomer, mathematician, physicist, geodesist, hydrographer: philosopher and poet. They claim him as their illustrious citizen who merits world renown.

But there are other claims on him, too. Dubrovnik—Ragusa—is both geographically and historically part of Dalmatia. The Dalmatians, therefore, naturally consider him as their own. The Serbs emphasize his Serbian origin, for his paternal grandfather Boško came from Orahovo, a village in Popovo Polje in Hercegovina, the ancient Hum of medieval Serbia and part of Bosnia today. The Croats prefer to think of him as Croatian, for some 8 kilometres from Dubrovnik, which now falls within the present Republic of Croatia, there is a village of Orahov Dol, called Orahovo for short by its inhabitants. In both Orahovos the surname Boscovich figures in the old baptismal records, though in Orahov Dol the Boscovich family later became known as Krstić and Tomičić; in both the Rudjer Boscovich legend is cultivated. Today he can be described conveniently as a Jugoslav, for unquestionably he was born within the borders of the present Federation of the National Republics of Jugoslavia.

Yet despite these understandable local and national patriotisms, which are so confusing to those who are not Jugoslav, Roger Joseph Boscovich belongs to the wider, international field. The French can remind us that in 1774 Louis XV made him a French subject."Roger Joseph Boscovich". Studies in His Life and Work on the 250th Anniversary of His Birth
Interestingly:
In 1905, several articles bearing the name of Albert Einstein appeared in a German physics journal, Annalen der Physik. The most fateful among these, was a paper entitled Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper; von A. Einstein, Albert's supposedly breakthrough paper on the 'principle of relativity'. Though it was perhaps submitted as coauthored by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein, or solely by Mileva Einstein-Marity, Albert's name appeared in the journal as the exclusive author of their work.33
Abraham F. Joffe recounts that the paper was signed "Einstein-Marity". "Marity" is a variant of the Serbian "Maric", Mileva's maiden name. Joffe, who had seen the original 1905 manuscript, is on record as stating,

"For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation, that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles, who was an unknown at the time, was a clerk at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity is the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)." – The Special Theory of Relativity By Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Mileva’s maiden name was Serbian, Boscovich’s Grandfather was Serbian. Somewhere in the mix either, or both, of them would have known about Boscovich’s “relativity” and/or other historical references to it. I say not that this was malicious but that, like the big bang theory, an attempt is made to unite several aspects under one umbrella (UFT). For example, from Christopher Jon Bjerknes:
It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority.1 The historic record is readily available. Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Jules Henri Poincaré, and many others slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research. Albert may have made a few contributions to the theory, such as the relativistic equations for the Doppler-Fizeau Effect,2 though he may also have rendered an incorrect equation for the transverse mass of an electron, which, when corrected, becomes Lorentz' equation.3

If Albert Einstein did not originate the major concepts of the special theory of relativity, how could such a historically significant fact have escaped the attention of the world for nearly a century? The simple answer is that it did not.

Some called Albert's priority into question almost immediately. As early as the years 1905-1907, Planck, Kaufmann, Ehrenfest, Laue, Minkowski, and Albert Einstein, himself, referred to the Einstein theory as being a mere interpretation-generalization of Lorentz' theory, which interpretation was first accomplished by Poincaré and later became known as the "Special Theory of Relativity". Minkowski4 named Lorentz, Planck and Poincaré, together with Einstein, as the developers of the principle of relativity,

"H. A. Lorentz has found out the "Relativity theorem" and has created the Relativity-postulate as a hypothesis that electrons and matter suffer contractions in consequence of their motion according to a certain law."

and,

"The credit for the development of the general principle [the principle of relativity] belongs to Einstein, Poincaré and Planck, upon whose works I shall presently expound."
Einstein attempted to 'unify' several existing theories, hypothesis, and concepts along with contributing to them while working towards a UFT.
StevenO wrote: Nah... :idea: everybody knows mass is a 3D scalar inward motion of atoms and gravity is that motion respective to the aether. That fits very well with Tesla's notions of scalar propagation and his dynamic theory of gravity ;)
Very much like that.
"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 » Fri May 29, 2009 6:57 am

StevenO wrote:Nah... :idea: everybody knows mass is a 3D scalar inward motion of atoms and gravity is that motion respective to the aether.
I thought inertial mass was resistance to motion.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: James Maxwell's Physical Model

Unread post by StevenO » Fri May 29, 2009 12:19 pm

altonhare wrote:
StevenO wrote:Nah... :idea: everybody knows mass is a 3D scalar inward motion of atoms and gravity is that motion respective to the aether.
I thought inertial mass was resistance to motion.
Resistance to a change in motion indeed...
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

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 » Sun May 31, 2009 8:42 am

altonhare wrote:But the observer does observe the world exactly how it is. How else? Of course the author himself said:
What we perceive through our senses is an
illusion, and at a deeper level there is a hidden reality, and as per my
philosophic dedication to the Pythagorean point-of-view I say that
underlying reality is mathematical.
Which is of course ridiculous. If the author REALLY believes that what we sense is an illusion then s/he should give up all scientific inquiry because s/he will never uncover any "Truth". Death and suicide are illusory sensations too, so why not?

The requirement that "reality is mathematical" makes no sense. Math was developed from observation (the senses). It was developed to describe and account for objects that exist. Humans have the ability to abstract away from the objects themselves, but the math rules and logic were originally motivated by observations.

Math might be the language of physics of people could agree on how to interpret this or that equation. But they cannot. The current state of mathematical physics is a perfect example. You have orthodox interps of quantum, unorthodox ones, and everything in-between and out-oftween. The equations don't really change, just the physical interpretation. We have Lorentzian vs. "special", and still the (practical) equations don't change, just the physical interpretation.

Obviously math is not the language of physics, or any kind of "universal language" for that matter. Obviously, also, specific experiments can't always resolve these issues either. Lorentz vs. special rel are empirically indistinguishable, as are many different "versions" of quantum. To distinguish the fantasy from the science we must employ logic and reason, we have no choice but to define the two most fundamental words of physics (object and exist.) in an unambiguous and non-circular way. Physics studies objects (at least sometimes) and studies ones that exist (always). We cannot avoid deciding exactly what we mean by "something" and "something that exists".

I'd venture definitions of absolute motion and relative motion:

Absolute motion: More than one location of an object

Since location is wrt *every* other object in the U, not some particular observer, it is absolute.

Relative motion: Successive distances between objects, excluding some objects in the U.

We're limiting our concept of "location" to ONLY these particular objects, making their motion relative only to each other, i.e. contextual. We are not tracking their full, actual motion (relative to everything else in the U).
I think your quite correct in your criticism on the link you point out, it's one off the problems of posting some opinions of others about Boscovich it seems, as not much is easily to be found
I tried to find some opinions to just give a small overview of where the material seems to apply
Of course every link posted will have it's personal interpretations influenced by the theory or view proposed by the author, but for me that personal view is not so important
Nonetheless, what you say about mathematics is not so much different of what Boscovich says and does, as far as I can see at this moment, Boscovich seems to use mathematics (although he never uses that word, but makes a distinction between arithmatics and geometry) as analogical model, as model they can only be applied in relation to the function the analogy has, making the mistake of thinking that the relations are the same will make the terms or models/objects the same and one seems to make for instance a mathematical model the actual representation of a physical model, but this is not correct, as the relations are not the same but similar, and this makes the terms also be different in some way, and not taking account of that difference can lead to misconceptions
Take just for example this section 372, to just give an indication, and I will have to refrain for the moment to going into the descriptions of things just yet
372. This extension is not mathematically, but only physically, continuous ; & on the matter of the prejudgment, from which we have formed for ourselves the idea of absolutely continuous extension from infancy, enough has been said in the First Part, starting with Art. 158. There, too, we saw that there could not be brought forward against my Theory the arguments which of old were brought against the followers of Zeno, & which now are urged against the disciples of Leibniz, by which it is proved that extension cannot be produced from non-extension. For these disputants assume that their non-extended points are placed in contact with one another, so as to form a mathematical continuum ; & this
cannot happen, since things that are contiguous as well as non-extended must compenetrate ; but I assume non-extended points that are separated from one another. Nor indeed have the arguments, which some others use, any validity in opposition to my Theory ; when they say that there is no such extension, since it is founded on non-extended points & empty space, which is absolute nothing. According to my Theory, it is founded, not on points simply, but on points having distance relations with one another ; these relations, in my Theory, are not founded upon an empty intermediate space ; for this space has no actual existence. It is only something that is possible, indefinitely imagined by us ; that is to say, it is the possibility of real local modes of existence, pictured by us after we have mentally excluded every gap, as I explained in the First Part in Art. 142, & more fully in the dissertation on Space & Time, which I give at the end of this work. The relations are founded on real modes of existence ; & these in every case yield a real relation which is in reality, & not merely in supposition, different for different distances. Further, if anyone should argue that these non-extended points, or non-extended modes of existence, cannot constitute anything extended, the reply is easy. I say that they cannot constitute a mathematically extended continuum, but they can a physically extended continuum.
The latter only I admit, & I prove its existence by positive arguments ; none of these arguments being favourable to the other continuum, namely one mathematically extended. This latter, even apart from any arguments of mine, has very many difficulties. The extension, which I admit, is of such a nature that it has some points of matter that lie outside of others, & the points have some distance between them, nor do they all lie on the same straight line, nor all of them in the same plane ; but many of them are so close to one another that the intervals between them are quite beyond the scope of the senses. In that is involved the extension which I admit ; & it is something real, not imaginary, & it will be physically continuous.
altonhare wrote:
Before 1920 many of Boscovich’s
admirers misinterpreted him through their inability to
conceive one or more of the following: material
permanence without spatial extension; spatial relations
without absolute space; or (and most difficult) kinematic
actions without Newtonian forces.
I can conceive of, and am comfortable with, all of these except the first. I simply cannot imagine that which lacks a boundary, although I am open to being convinced otherwise.

In the third link, I like the concluding remark comparing the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle with relativity. I would go further and say that"uncertainty" between location and velocity is inherent qualitatively (with no notions of quantum or rel) because of our very definitions of location (static) and velocity (dynamic).

When an object is movING, what is its location? Indeterminant, at best we can take some kind of mathematical average amongst multiple locations interpolated between the starting point and end point. When an object is motionLESS, what is its velocity? Undefined (the little "t" in the denominator is 0, therefor v=undef not v=0, mathematicians routinely confuse undef, infinite, 0, etc.) Fortunately everything "out there" is always moving (if one object moves every other object moves pursuant to the definition of absolute motion)so we can always measure a velocity and assign an "average location" parameter. Even while moving, a "precise velocity" cannot be assigned. Is any object in the U ever moving with "constant velocity"? No, this does not appear to be the case. Not only is every object moving, but every object's velocity is changing. So over any span we can only assign a "mathematical average" velocity. A priori, we have an uncertainty principle without modern relativity, no quantum weirdness, violation of determinism, multiple worlds, etc.

The precise quantity of the uncertainty depends on the mathematical model one decides to use. But Nature is not uncertain
I can understand that the first point conflicts with you as it seems perhaps one of the distinctions between what you describe as objects and what Boscovich uses as description for objects and that is different from his matter or physical points which he describes as non-extended and indivisible, let me again just delay on that reasoning, for the seeming agreement on your point concerning uncertainty and relativity I place these sections 142 and 143 just for indication
142. Now, in this connection, whilst incidental mention has been made of the exclusion of continuity, it should be observed that the Law of Continuity is admitted by me, &proved for those quantities that change their magnitude, but which indeed I consider cannot pass from one magnitude to another without going through intermediate stages ;but that this does not lead to continuity in the case of the elements of matter, which neither change their magnitude nor have anything variable about them ; on the contrary it proves quite the opposite, as the argument given above shows. Moreover, I recognize no coexisting continuum, as I have already mentioned ; for, in my opinion, space is not any real continuum, but only an imaginary one ; & what I think about this, and about time as well, as far as this Theory is concerned, has been expounded clearly enough in the supplements to the first book of Stay's Philosophy. (A) For instance, I consider that any point of matter has two modes of existence, the one local and the other temporal ; I do not take the trouble to argue the point as to whether these ought to be called things, or merely modes pertaining to a thing, as I consider that this is merely a question of terminology. That it is necessary that these modes be admitted, I prove rigorously in the supplements mentioned above. I consider also that they are by their very nature incapable of being displaced ; so that, of themselves, such modes of existence lead to the relations of before & after as regards time, far & near as regards space, & also of a given distance & a given position in space. These modes, or one of them, must of necessity be changed, if the distance, or even if only the position in space is altered. Moreover, for any one mode belonging to any point, taken in conjunction with all the infinite number of possible modes pertaining to any other point, there is in my opinion one which, taken in conjunction with the first mode, leads as far as time is concerned to a relation of coexistence ; so that both cannot have existence unless they have it simultaneously, i.e., they coexist. But, as far as space is concerned, if they exist simultaneously, the conjunction leads to a relation of compenetration. All the others lead to a relation of temporal or of local distance, as also of a given local position. Now since existent points of matter always have some distance between them, & are finite in number, the number of local modes of existence is also always finite ; & from this finite number we cannot form any sort of real continuum. But I have an ill-defined idea of an imaginary space as a possibility of all local modes, which are precisely conceived as existing simultaneously, although they cannot all exist simultaneously. In this space, since there are not modes so near to one another that there cannot be others nearer, or so far separated that there cannot be others more so, there cannot therefore be a distance that is either the greatest or the least of all, amongst those that are possible. So long as we keep the mind free from the idea of actual existence &, in a series of possibles consisting of an indefinite number of finite terms, we mentally exclude the limit both of least & greatest distance, we form for ourselves a conception of continuity & infinity in space. In this, I define the same point of space to be the possibility of all local modes, or what comes to the same thing, of real local points pertaining to all points of matter, which, if they existed, would lead to a relation of compenetration ; just as I define the same instant of time as all temporal modes, which lead to a relation of coexistence. But there is a fuller treatment of both these subjects in the notes referred to ; & in them I investigate further the manifold analogy between space & time.

143. Hence I acknowledge continuity in motion only, which is something successive and not co-existent ; & also in it alone, or because or it alone, in corporeal entities at any rate, lies my reason for admitting the Law of Continuity. From this it will be all the more clear that, as I remarked above, Nature accurately observes the Law of Continuity,or at least tries to do so. Nature observes it in motions & in distance, & tries to in many other cases, with which continuity, as we have defined it above, is in no wise in agreement ; also in certain other cases, in which continuity cannot be completely obtained. This continuity does not present itself to us at first sight, unless we consider the subjects somewhat more deeply & study them closely. For instance, when the sun rises above the horizon,if we think of the Sun's disk as being continuous, & the horizon as a certain plane ; then the rising of the Sun is made through all magnitudes in such a way that, from the first to the last point, both the segments of the solar disk & the chords of the segments increase by passing through all intermediate magnitudes. But, in my Theory, the Sun is not something continuous, but is an aggregate of points separate from one another, which rise, one after the other, above that imaginary plane, with some interval of time between them in all cases. Hence accurate continuity does not fit this case, & it is only observed in the case of the distances from the imaginary plane of the single points that compose the mass of the Sun. Yet Nature, even here, tries to maintain a sort of continuity ; for instance, the little points are so very near to one another, & so evenly spread & placed that, even in this case, we have a certain apparent continuity, and even in this distribution, on which the density depends, there do not occur any very great sudden changes.
altonhare wrote:In link 5, what is meant by a "transient aether"? Does this simply mean dynamic, i.e. a "moving aether"?
Can you perhaps give a more specific link?
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.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests