Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 09/14/04 

Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:11:22 GMT

"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0409140154.4b3591d9@posting.google.com...
> "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.

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

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

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

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

Same as above for me.

>
> >
> > 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.

Your of refernece where 'effects effect'

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

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

Bill

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Address bar
    ... Another thing is that the web server can't just tell what page you want to display so I will have to use one or more of file names, path info, query string, posted data. ... You can on the other hand hide all the above from the main address by using frames, iframes or AJAX to dynamically load content to the page. ... If you want some cool looking URLs, use file names with no extensions or your own extension. ... Peter wrote: ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet)
  • Re: Win2k Frames and IExplorer
    ... Peter ... >frames, ... On my Internet ... >Explorer, whenever I open it, is goes to the ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
  • Re: VBA Option Button question
    ... Frames also have advantages depending on what else might want to do. ... Peter T ... I have a multipage of 6 tabs 4 tabs have the same questions, ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
  • Re: VBA Option Button question
    ... Frames also have advantages depending on what else might want to do. ... Peter T ... I have a multipage of 6 tabs 4 tabs have the same questions, ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)