Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises

From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 09/14/04 

Date: 14 Sep 2004 02:54:48 -0700

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:SXq1d.29958$D7.23831@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:d8097fcc.0409131521.15564658@posting.google.com...
> > Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises
> >
> >
> > This subject is somewhat in the context of Einstein's paper,
> > reproduced here
> > http://leiwen.tripod.com/eingra.htm
> >
> > "In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the
> > theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material
> > point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be
> > discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of
> > material points on one another as "action at a distance." ": So, with
> > Eff. premises the elementary theoretical concept on which the
> > theoretical description of material bodies is based is that of matter
> > effecting through relationship of 'forces'. Thus matter is considered
> > a priori to be a demarcatory interactivity (somewhat discontinuous,
> > but yet somewhat continuous, indefinite, dynamic, relationships). This
> > would not give rise to the concept of "action at a distance".
> >
> > Also, this system would only trade in effects - not 'the forces'
> > through which effects effect.
>
> 'effects effect'?

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

>
> >
> > Further, the system would employ just one frame of reference - there
> > would be no 'jumping' around of FORs.
>
> In other words there is preferred frame of reference and a violation of the
> POR - care to provide actual evidence rather than philosophical mumbo jumbo?

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

>
> >
> >
> > Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
> > independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
> > would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
> > Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
> > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
> > magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
> > arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
> > we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
> > corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
> > relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
> > the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
> > in the former case".
> >
> > It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
> > quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
> > which to experiment and develop equations.
>
> What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of what
> frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of the
> conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same (as is
> required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
> Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one results
> from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains charges
> that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results from a
> changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the charges
> (in this case the wire is considered stairtonary).

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

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

Good; same as above.

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

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

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

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises
    ... > Proposing Physics Experimentation with Effectuationism Premises ... In other words there is preferred frame of reference and a violation of the ... > Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here ... > arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are you an idealist? (was: Einsteins logic)
    ... > I KNOW that the LET current rest frame is the original rest frame. ... theory of relativity. ... > better than modern physics has. ... But you are correct, the scientific method requires ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... Therefore physics is a knowledge ... different than what it is in another reference frame. ... electrodynamics book. ... time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... Cartesian coordinates S to represent the frame of reference of the ... where it is reflected by the mirror. ... Nobody knows the essence of the physics they are talking ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why SR? (was: Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????)
    ... the longer wavelength of that wave (in your frame of reference) ... to the wave changes. ... physicists changed the nature of physics and declared that a physics ... satisfy the principle of relativity in its simple form using the Galilei ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)