Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises
From: Peter Kinane (pkinane_at_iol.ie)
Date: 09/15/04
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Reaching Light Speed,"
- Previous message: John Kennaugh: "Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Sep 2004 12:45:33 -0700
"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:e0K1d.31099$D7.4690@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
> news:d8097fcc.0409140154.4b3591d9@posting.google.com...
> > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
> news:SXq1d.29958$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.
As the point of the thread was- -is to suggest using a particular new
approach to developing a Physics system, together with your total
refusal to address the subject of an earlier thread - the Eff.
approach to cosmological navigation, even after much attempted
humouring of you - I did not wish to invest much effort again in reply
to some of the points you raised.
We have rather different philosophy systems - even if you think of
yours as none. I believe that different systems feature different
concepts - in effect, different Physics. So, your "In other words
there is preferred frame of reference []" point together with the
subsequent "If the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames
[]" point are an argument against the proposal of the thread. I'm not
here to persuade you to consider a particular new approach to
developing a Physics system. People can decide whether to do so based
on there own sense of 'things'.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to develop a system of Physics from here, but quite
> > > > independently of (Einstein's) Relativity? In effect, what equations
> > > > would hold for relationships of 'forces'? Perhaps this leads to
> > > > Maxwell's electrodynamics and perhaps to this concept expressed here
> > > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "But if the
> > > > magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
> > > > arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
> > > > we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
> > > > corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of
> > > > relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of
> > > > the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces
> > > > in the former case".
> > > >
> > > > It is not that I am particularly clear about what is meant in the last
> > > > quote, but perhaps the last sentence of same may be a good basis from
> > > > which to experiment and develop equations.
> > >
> > > What is meant Peter is a demonstration of the POR. Regardless of what
> > > frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of
> the
> > > conductor then the forces (on the charges in the wire) are the same (as
> is
> > > required by classical mechanics) yet it traditionally (according to
> > > Maxwell's equations) it has a different physical explanation - one
> results
> > > from the lorentz force law (the conductor is moving and contains charges
> > > that have a velocity relative to a magnetic field) the other results
> from a
> > > changing magnetic field creating an electric field that moves the
> charges
> > > (in this case the wire is considered stairtonary).
> >
> > Good; it suggests that the proposal of this thread has some weight.
> > Let's simply select one FOR and get on with business.
>
> Since the context of your post so far content your usual drivel against
> frame jumbling it suggests nothing of the sort.
It is "good" in that it shows that "a different physical explanation"
arises from different approaches.
>
> >
> > The point is the only
> > > thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics
> must
> > > really be the same - this leads to the idea of the equations of EM being
> > > Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in
> all
> > > frames. And indeed Einstein demonstrated with the Lorentz
> transformations,
> > > for EM, they do. But it is my understanding Poincare had already done
> > > that - but Einstein's methods were more fundamental.
> >
> > Good; same as above.
>
> Same as above for me.
It is "good" in that it shows that "a different physical explanation"
arises from different approaches.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Peter - the above is really fundamental to an understanding of EM. May
> I
> > > suggest you acquaint yourself with what is going on - see
> > > http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/SpecialRelativity.htm
> > >
> >
> > So, perhaps now you can focus on selecting a FOR, in accordance with
> > the proposal of the thread.
>
> Your [frame] of refernece where 'effects effect'
I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "'the forces' through which
effects effect".
However, in saying "Also, this system would only trade in effects -
not 'the forces'
through which effects effect.", I was recording a thought which seemed
possibly of some worth. It is fairly analagous to this: Having
selected a position from which one is walking Eastward, the best way
to appraoch it from the West may be through continuing to walk
Eastward.
No need to make a big deal, or big excuse, of it.
>
> >
> > Re "In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to
> > which in itself there is no corresponding energy []": For now, when I
> > said I am not particularly clear about what is meant here I
> > principally had in mind the meaning of "to which in itself there is no
> > corresponding energy"?
>
> The energy to move the electrons comes from the electric field for the
> stationary conductor - or do you wish to deny faradays law?
>
I am enquiring about the clause "to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy"?
-- Peter Kinane http://www.effectuationism.com/
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Reaching Light Speed,"
- Previous message: John Kennaugh: "Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?"
- In reply to: Bill Hobba: "Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
