A Crackpot Theory is a theory that contradicts maistream science in a manner that is easy to spot if one pays attention to the following tell-tale signs
1. The theory is explained on a personal website (the mainstream way is to upload papers describing such theory into arxiv.org)
2. The opening salvo is "Einstein was wrong, my theory is right"
3. There is no or math, just granstanding statements and perhaps some pictures or flash animations
4. There is very little math and that is wrong
5. The theory is contradicted by experiments that have already been run
6. The website is already listed on crank websites suchs as:;
http://www.crank.net/relativity.html
http://www.crank.net/einstein.html
http://www.crank.net/aether.html
If you encounter such a site, it is best to submit it to the above. They will take care of doing all the PR.
7. The author trolls any imaginable forum trying to draw attention to the above mentioned theory despite being dismissed repeatedly
Examples?
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 18 2006, 03:15 AM)
Experimentally, you can compare it to criteria:
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
I like these two quotes the best:
"Quacks want only to talk and not to listen. "
"They are paranoids with delusions of grandeur: Their theory could never be wrong; therefore everyone else's must be"
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
I like these two quotes the best:
"Quacks want only to talk and not to listen. "
"They are paranoids with delusions of grandeur: Their theory could never be wrong; therefore everyone else's must be"
Pup',
Yes, there's a whole bunch of crackpots in this forum & judging from the aforementioned criteria I'm most certainly one of them i.e, prone to delusional thoughts & blatent absence of reams of equations in my theoretical musings.
However, I believe these traits stem from an over abundance of imagination as most of us crackpots were those daydreaming children, oddly separate from normal social interaction...more stimulated by their own mental processess than of the comparitively dull world/environment in which they lived.
Well I'm all growed up now...& still the world of numbers & convention appear as 'grey clouds', that fog greater understanding; I much prefer to be a crank, so it's 'up yours' calculator boy.
5-D.
Yes, there's a whole bunch of crackpots in this forum & judging from the aforementioned criteria I'm most certainly one of them i.e, prone to delusional thoughts & blatent absence of reams of equations in my theoretical musings.
However, I believe these traits stem from an over abundance of imagination as most of us crackpots were those daydreaming children, oddly separate from normal social interaction...more stimulated by their own mental processess than of the comparitively dull world/environment in which they lived.
Well I'm all growed up now...& still the world of numbers & convention appear as 'grey clouds', that fog greater understanding; I much prefer to be a crank, so it's 'up yours' calculator boy.
5-D.
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jul 18 2006, 01:48 AM)
A Crackpot Theory is a theory that contradicts maistream science in a manner that is easy to spot if one pays attention to the following tell-tale signs
Does Religion fall into that category?
- Dave
Does Religion fall into that category?
- Dave
"The world is round" - was considered a crackpot theory, once upon a time...
thanks for some interesting links!
thanks for some interesting links!
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jul 18 2006, 04:48 AM)
...A Crackpot Theory is a theory that contradicts mainstream science in a manner that is easy to spot if one pays attention to the following tell-tale signs...
I believe, this public forum is perfectly driven and very well suited for discussing new theories in publicity.
So under conditions, the information given herein will be quoted and separated from official interpretation by the clause:
By (my) theory/hypothesis/idea/opinion,...
I can see no problem in presentation and/or discussion of such ideas here.
After all, most of so called mainstream theories (like the super-string/M-theory, twistor theory, LQG theory, Heim's theory, etc...) are mutually less or more incompatible by the similar way, like the relativity theory and quantum theory - so here's a high probability, at least one of them is crackpot theory, too...
I believe, this public forum is perfectly driven and very well suited for discussing new theories in publicity.
So under conditions, the information given herein will be quoted and separated from official interpretation by the clause:
By (my) theory/hypothesis/idea/opinion,...
I can see no problem in presentation and/or discussion of such ideas here.
After all, most of so called mainstream theories (like the super-string/M-theory, twistor theory, LQG theory, Heim's theory, etc...) are mutually less or more incompatible by the similar way, like the relativity theory and quantum theory - so here's a high probability, at least one of them is crackpot theory, too...
The world has been considered round for more than 2,500 years. Greek philosophers made regular mention of it and one even calculated Earth's circumference to within 100 miles of it's true value. Even in the Dark Ages, the curvature of the Earth is mentioned a number of times.
When presented with contradicting evidence, a theory is either thrown in the bin or taken back to the drawing board to be reworked. Most cranks totally ignore contradicting evidence because they either don't understand it or are so blinded by their own arrogance that they are right.
The other comedy pages on his website are quite good, though you'd have to have read a few papers or textbooks to get some of the more physicy jokes.
When presented with contradicting evidence, a theory is either thrown in the bin or taken back to the drawing board to be reworked. Most cranks totally ignore contradicting evidence because they either don't understand it or are so blinded by their own arrogance that they are right.
QUOTE
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
That site makes a lot of good points, numerous people on this forum are guilty of things like points 2, 10, 12 and 19.The other comedy pages on his website are quite good, though you'd have to have read a few papers or textbooks to get some of the more physicy jokes.
What I love is when you can sit down for 10 minutes and rationalize something that it took days on a supercomputer to verify. Of course you can also rationalize something for 10 minutes and be wrong, but then again you can also run a program for days on a supercomputer and find out the assumptions were wrong, there was a mistake in the program, or find new observations contradict prior assumptions.
Yes, there are a lot of crackpot ideas. The main criteria should be utility. For some that measure of utility applies to their work and livelihood, for others that utility is in simply pondering 'what might be'.
One issue that seems important to recognize though is in the area of equivalencies - there are a myriad ways someone might describe the manner in which processes operate behind the scenes that can result in the same observations. In these cases it's best to use Occam's Razor, or in layman's terms - the KISS principle. The simpler you can describe things, the better.
I personally do enjoy diagrams and schematics much more than text and equations. Ultimately assuring everything fits together precisely does take math but math in itself can be very obfuscating (at least for me personally). I guess overall, the greater the breadth of description for an the more comprehensible it can be for a wider variety of people and the greater the value as a common model to communicate ideas into various realms are possible. Science shouldn't solely be limited to those things we can predict precisely and ignore the more statistical higher level observations that humanity tends to live in. It's more difficult to extrapolate things out to this level, but since when should a challenge stop science from pursing these? For example, science should be able to understand why many people pose crackpot idea. There's nothing unscientific about it ... people do this and it's a reality just as phase transitions for matter. We could hope everyone thinks and acts in the same way so everyone can communicate easily, or at least remain in a liquid, gas or solid form but when you see plasma, you've got to question whether simply describing matter as having 3 states is accurate enough. Expecting plasma to act like a solid, so that universe would be simpler and finally fit into some equations is as foolish as ignoring that young children don't always agree that 3+6=9 and instead to them mathematics is inherently statistical.
There's a wider view that's difficult to see and maybe it's not important that everyone see things the same way - people who prefer numbers will use numbers and those who enjoy looking at the 'Tao' in everything will do so etc., though I believe there are actually transforms that apply between these realms and in many ways simply make people appear to be speaking in different languages but they're actually saying much of the same things (of course this all dependents on what you use for a translation so it's likely subjective).
I admit I'm a contrarian and tend to always take an opposing viewpoint - if this thread had been about some legitimacies to crackpot sciences, I'd have probably pointed out the problems. What can I say except don't consider any of my posts as personal insults - I just enjoy broadening the view. You could probably create an entire branch of science studying crackpot science, but then again, there might be better things to do. Again, it seems the overriding issue is one of utility and this is more than simply a function of whether or not an idea can be shown to have a mathematical proof, though I would agree that a bit more math isn't a bad idea. Though personally, I enjoy diagrams along the lines of the Aether ideas from Zephir, at least to understand the concepts before mathematics fills in the details.
BTW, Einstein was likely considered a crackpot by many at some point to. This of course doesn't mean all crackpot ideas are valuable but the real nuggets tend to come from unexpected area often discounted by mainstream views. If you see the definition of a crack as someone who discounts Einstein then consider that Einstein himself said that it's insane to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Science is literally littered with crackpots like Euclid, Gallois, Einstein, Columbus etc. if everyone kept standing in the same box because someone had already proved the walls were impenetrable, then it would be a crowded field. Thankfully people keep trying to make mistakes so that they can learn from them, and if not the individuals making them, then at least those watching and taking notes (but someones got to at go out and see if the world really is flat ... if they fall off, we've got to at least give them some thanks for proving that that specific direction isn't a good path to follow).
So, yes, I agree that it's stupid to make the same mistakes over and over again but on the other hand, we don't all share the same knowledge and if everyone took every claim made by others as being the literal truth there'd be a similar problem - how could you verify which was the 'correct' scientific claim versus the 'incorrect' crackpot one, without trying to verify each of these yourself? So, without any other clues, you've got a 50/50 chance of trying out the crackpot idea, or an even greater chance of trying out the crackpot one if it only requires a magnifying glass versus using a scanning electron microscope. The textbooks aren't always right as is readily apparent from the revision histories and sometimes obvious inconsistancies. If you need to be correct 95% of the time and feel no need for exploration, that's fine - stick with the book but don't overly discount the people that helped write it.
Well I'm all growed up now...& still the world of numbers & convention appear as 'grey clouds', that fog greater understanding; I much prefer to be a crank, so it's 'up yours' calculator boy.
Looks like you are. Where is your website though?
Yes, there are a lot of crackpot ideas. The main criteria should be utility. For some that measure of utility applies to their work and livelihood, for others that utility is in simply pondering 'what might be'.
One issue that seems important to recognize though is in the area of equivalencies - there are a myriad ways someone might describe the manner in which processes operate behind the scenes that can result in the same observations. In these cases it's best to use Occam's Razor, or in layman's terms - the KISS principle. The simpler you can describe things, the better.
I personally do enjoy diagrams and schematics much more than text and equations. Ultimately assuring everything fits together precisely does take math but math in itself can be very obfuscating (at least for me personally). I guess overall, the greater the breadth of description for an the more comprehensible it can be for a wider variety of people and the greater the value as a common model to communicate ideas into various realms are possible. Science shouldn't solely be limited to those things we can predict precisely and ignore the more statistical higher level observations that humanity tends to live in. It's more difficult to extrapolate things out to this level, but since when should a challenge stop science from pursing these? For example, science should be able to understand why many people pose crackpot idea. There's nothing unscientific about it ... people do this and it's a reality just as phase transitions for matter. We could hope everyone thinks and acts in the same way so everyone can communicate easily, or at least remain in a liquid, gas or solid form but when you see plasma, you've got to question whether simply describing matter as having 3 states is accurate enough. Expecting plasma to act like a solid, so that universe would be simpler and finally fit into some equations is as foolish as ignoring that young children don't always agree that 3+6=9 and instead to them mathematics is inherently statistical.
There's a wider view that's difficult to see and maybe it's not important that everyone see things the same way - people who prefer numbers will use numbers and those who enjoy looking at the 'Tao' in everything will do so etc., though I believe there are actually transforms that apply between these realms and in many ways simply make people appear to be speaking in different languages but they're actually saying much of the same things (of course this all dependents on what you use for a translation so it's likely subjective).
I admit I'm a contrarian and tend to always take an opposing viewpoint - if this thread had been about some legitimacies to crackpot sciences, I'd have probably pointed out the problems. What can I say except don't consider any of my posts as personal insults - I just enjoy broadening the view. You could probably create an entire branch of science studying crackpot science, but then again, there might be better things to do. Again, it seems the overriding issue is one of utility and this is more than simply a function of whether or not an idea can be shown to have a mathematical proof, though I would agree that a bit more math isn't a bad idea. Though personally, I enjoy diagrams along the lines of the Aether ideas from Zephir, at least to understand the concepts before mathematics fills in the details.
BTW, Einstein was likely considered a crackpot by many at some point to. This of course doesn't mean all crackpot ideas are valuable but the real nuggets tend to come from unexpected area often discounted by mainstream views. If you see the definition of a crack as someone who discounts Einstein then consider that Einstein himself said that it's insane to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.
Science is literally littered with crackpots like Euclid, Gallois, Einstein, Columbus etc. if everyone kept standing in the same box because someone had already proved the walls were impenetrable, then it would be a crowded field. Thankfully people keep trying to make mistakes so that they can learn from them, and if not the individuals making them, then at least those watching and taking notes (but someones got to at go out and see if the world really is flat ... if they fall off, we've got to at least give them some thanks for proving that that specific direction isn't a good path to follow).
So, yes, I agree that it's stupid to make the same mistakes over and over again but on the other hand, we don't all share the same knowledge and if everyone took every claim made by others as being the literal truth there'd be a similar problem - how could you verify which was the 'correct' scientific claim versus the 'incorrect' crackpot one, without trying to verify each of these yourself? So, without any other clues, you've got a 50/50 chance of trying out the crackpot idea, or an even greater chance of trying out the crackpot one if it only requires a magnifying glass versus using a scanning electron microscope. The textbooks aren't always right as is readily apparent from the revision histories and sometimes obvious inconsistancies. If you need to be correct 95% of the time and feel no need for exploration, that's fine - stick with the book but don't overly discount the people that helped write it.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+)
... However, I believe these traits stem from an over abundance of imagination as most of us crackpots were those daydreaming children, oddly separate from normal social interaction...more stimulated by their own mental processess than of the comparitively dull world/environment in which they lived.
Hey, no personal attacks!
Seriously though, I can relate with that. In the areas I've pursued it's become "Been there. Done that" for most things. It's tough sticking to one subject (or job) for too long ... this probably generates more of a jack-of-all-trades skillset, though it must be possible to stick with something for a while as I'm still married to the same lady for 15 years (but changed jobs, yes voluntarily, every few years during that time).
Anyway, I've come to think life would be boring without crackpot ideas anyway. If I had to nitpick every episode of Star Trek on technicalities, I'd never get to enjoy the movie ... and without such corny ideas as a tricorder, we might not have cell phones today.
Hey, no personal attacks!
Seriously though, I can relate with that. In the areas I've pursued it's become "Been there. Done that" for most things. It's tough sticking to one subject (or job) for too long ... this probably generates more of a jack-of-all-trades skillset, though it must be possible to stick with something for a while as I'm still married to the same lady for 15 years (but changed jobs, yes voluntarily, every few years during that time).
Anyway, I've come to think life would be boring without crackpot ideas anyway. If I had to nitpick every episode of Star Trek on technicalities, I'd never get to enjoy the movie ... and without such corny ideas as a tricorder, we might not have cell phones today.
Why was Euclid a crackpot? Einstein wasn't a crackpot because when he published general relativity it came with a host of predictions which were already or would soon be in reach of the technology of the time. He predicted the deflection of light by the Sun to be twice that of Newtonian theory and got experimental evidence 3 years later. The last of his predictions were confirmed in 1960 by the Pound-Rebka experiment (though it's not actually a test for GR but one for the coinciding of frames from SR and Newtonian theories). Besides, his came with enormous amount of detail, he'd been in long correspondence with people like Hilbert, the mathematician of that era.
Galois was more sloppy than anything else. When someone actually put his work in decent order it made sense but Galois was too caught up in politics (and died in a dual aged 21 or 22).
Galois was more sloppy than anything else. When someone actually put his work in decent order it made sense but Galois was too caught up in politics (and died in a dual aged 21 or 22).
oh, you forgot one..
'Crackpots' also make up words and pretend they are real, or actually mean something, like... "physicy" for instance.
'Crackpots' also make up words and pretend they are real, or actually mean something, like... "physicy" for instance.
OK,
I will give a few examples of why certain websites are crank websites. I will take one website per day and demonstrate why it is a crank website.
I will give a few examples of why certain websites are crank websites. I will take one website per day and demonstrate why it is a crank website.
Here goes today's post.
The website in cause is in reality a whole array of websites by the same poster. Here is just one instance:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/relativityan...iscount=100&l=1
It is shaped in a form of a fake interview.
The problem is that the paper see here:
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
makes a gross error right off the bat, at equation (13) on page 201.
The author has as a starting point a famous Einstein paper seen here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
In it, Einstein derives the relationship between the mass and the energy variation. Einstein uses two symmetrical em waves radiating from the same body as it can be seen. The immediate consequence of the symmetry is that there is no momentum variation.
By conreast, Ajay Sharma, uses only one em wave. As such, instead of producing mass variation, the em radiation produces momentum variation thru recoil. A. Sharma incorrectly attributes the momentum variation to a "mass increase"
More specifically:
Ajay Sharma writes:
"Thus energy is emitted due to ‘annihilation of mass’ in Einstein’s derivation body remain at rest,
When I consider one wave is emitted at 89o , then body remain at rest . In this case equation is.
(ii) When one wave is emitted say at angle of 89o
Ho = H1 + β L( 1 – v/c cos89o)
Ho = H1 + β L (1– 0.017452406 v/c)
Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get
Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c2 (13)
Ma ( mass of body after emission) = 0.03490L/cv – L/c2 + Mb ( mass of body before emission)
which implies mass of body increases when light energy is emitted. It is contradiction of Law of Conservation of Matter. "
Well, the term – 0.03490L/c is not mass variation , it is momentum variation, it has the dimension mv. Einstein used the simple approach in his paper ( "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?") of :
1. Using TWO em waves in 180 degress opposition (in order to make sure that there is NO RECOIL)
2. divinding both the right hand and the left hand of his expression by v^2.
This is why the term 0.03490L/c can have any sign in the Ajay Sharma paper.
To prove this, if one changes the direction of the wave in the "experiment" :
Ho = H1 + β L( 1 +v/c cos89o)
Ho = H1 + β L (1+ 0.017452406 v/c)
Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get
Δ m = + 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2 (13)
Contrast this with your earliear expression:
Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2
The "mass variation" has changed sign with the change in the direction of the em radiation. This is obvious crackpottery.
The website in cause is in reality a whole array of websites by the same poster. Here is just one instance:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/relativityan...iscount=100&l=1
It is shaped in a form of a fake interview.
The problem is that the paper see here:
http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
makes a gross error right off the bat, at equation (13) on page 201.
The author has as a starting point a famous Einstein paper seen here:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
In it, Einstein derives the relationship between the mass and the energy variation. Einstein uses two symmetrical em waves radiating from the same body as it can be seen. The immediate consequence of the symmetry is that there is no momentum variation.
By conreast, Ajay Sharma, uses only one em wave. As such, instead of producing mass variation, the em radiation produces momentum variation thru recoil. A. Sharma incorrectly attributes the momentum variation to a "mass increase"
More specifically:
Ajay Sharma writes:
"Thus energy is emitted due to ‘annihilation of mass’ in Einstein’s derivation body remain at rest,
When I consider one wave is emitted at 89o , then body remain at rest . In this case equation is.
(ii) When one wave is emitted say at angle of 89o
Ho = H1 + β L( 1 – v/c cos89o)
Ho = H1 + β L (1– 0.017452406 v/c)
Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get
Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c2 (13)
Ma ( mass of body after emission) = 0.03490L/cv – L/c2 + Mb ( mass of body before emission)
which implies mass of body increases when light energy is emitted. It is contradiction of Law of Conservation of Matter. "
Well, the term – 0.03490L/c is not mass variation , it is momentum variation, it has the dimension mv. Einstein used the simple approach in his paper ( "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy-Content?") of :
1. Using TWO em waves in 180 degress opposition (in order to make sure that there is NO RECOIL)
2. divinding both the right hand and the left hand of his expression by v^2.
This is why the term 0.03490L/c can have any sign in the Ajay Sharma paper.
To prove this, if one changes the direction of the wave in the "experiment" :
Ho = H1 + β L( 1 +v/c cos89o)
Ho = H1 + β L (1+ 0.017452406 v/c)
Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get
Δ m = + 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2 (13)
Contrast this with your earliear expression:
Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2
The "mass variation" has changed sign with the change in the direction of the em radiation. This is obvious crackpottery.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Jul 18 2006, 05:52 AM)
Well I'm all growed up now...& still the world of numbers & convention appear as 'grey clouds', that fog greater understanding; I much prefer to be a crank, so it's 'up yours' calculator boy.
Looks like you are. Where is your website though?
There has always been a cetain amount of tension between three disciplines, math, physics and philosophy (of physics).
In an ideal world the three would peacefully coexist but the world is not ideal.
A couple of things I recall from somewhere:-
1) Advocates of Occam who forget the part that says "other things being equal".
2) The more a theory is understood the easier it is to explain.
Some say we need the math, others say we need the explanation.
What we actually need first is the set of assumptions that are contained either explicitly or implicitly in any theory.
Then argue about those first.
In an ideal world the three would peacefully coexist but the world is not ideal.
A couple of things I recall from somewhere:-
1) Advocates of Occam who forget the part that says "other things being equal".
2) The more a theory is understood the easier it is to explain.
Some say we need the math, others say we need the explanation.
What we actually need first is the set of assumptions that are contained either explicitly or implicitly in any theory.
Then argue about those first.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 18 2006, 11:13 AM)
Why was Euclid a crackpot? Einstein wasn't a crackpot because when he published general relativity it came with a host of predictions which were already or would soon be in reach of the technology of the time. He predicted the deflection of light by the Sun to be twice that of Newtonian theory and got experimental evidence 3 years later. The last of his predictions were confirmed in 1960 by the Pound-Rebka experiment (though it's not actually a test for GR but one for the coinciding of frames from SR and Newtonian theories). Besides, his came with enormous amount of detail, he'd been in long correspondence with people like Hilbert, the mathematician of that era.
Galois was more sloppy than anything else. When someone actually put his work in decent order it made sense but Galois was too caught up in politics (and died in a dual aged 21 or 22).
Yes, they weren't crackpots but they were simply viewed by many as crackpots because they went beyond the commonly accepted realm of science at the time.
Euclid went to prison for his ideas. Gallois was entirely ignored and his work was basically rediscovered independently later. I'm certain there were a few bets placed upon whether or not Columbus would ever be seen again and many people even to this day still love to harrass Einstein.
It's the people who push the envelope that make the discoveries and that most attempts at pushing the envelope are failures, versus the few successes, but the value of knowing of the successes are a product of the failures. It's only because of the large number of examples of how people can fail that demostrates why understanding ways to avoid these is so valuable.
I'd also hazard a guess that even those who managed to make large steps of progress had their share of failures along the way and could even have been legitimately considered as crackpots at some point.
Galois was more sloppy than anything else. When someone actually put his work in decent order it made sense but Galois was too caught up in politics (and died in a dual aged 21 or 22).
Yes, they weren't crackpots but they were simply viewed by many as crackpots because they went beyond the commonly accepted realm of science at the time.
Euclid went to prison for his ideas. Gallois was entirely ignored and his work was basically rediscovered independently later. I'm certain there were a few bets placed upon whether or not Columbus would ever be seen again and many people even to this day still love to harrass Einstein.
It's the people who push the envelope that make the discoveries and that most attempts at pushing the envelope are failures, versus the few successes, but the value of knowing of the successes are a product of the failures. It's only because of the large number of examples of how people can fail that demostrates why understanding ways to avoid these is so valuable.
I'd also hazard a guess that even those who managed to make large steps of progress had their share of failures along the way and could even have been legitimately considered as crackpots at some point.
QUOTE (Contrarian+)
Advocates of Occam who forget the part that says "other things being equal".
Ah, another contrarian. Assuming this comment was directed at me, I must happen to agree with you (ironic) because my quote was:
One issue that seems important to recognize though is in the area of equivalencies - there are a myriad ways someone might describe the manner in which processes operate behind the scenes that can result in the same observations. In these cases it's best to use Occam's Razor, or in layman's terms - the KISS principle. The simpler you can describe things, the better.
Ah, another contrarian. Assuming this comment was directed at me, I must happen to agree with you (ironic) because my quote was:
One issue that seems important to recognize though is in the area of equivalencies - there are a myriad ways someone might describe the manner in which processes operate behind the scenes that can result in the same observations. In these cases it's best to use Occam's Razor, or in layman's terms - the KISS principle. The simpler you can describe things, the better.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 18 2006, 05:41 PM)
Euclid went to prison for his ideas.
Where are you getting your biographical data on Euclid from? Space aliens?
http://fermatslasttheorem.blogspot.com/200...alexandria.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
I can't find a reference to imprisonment as a form of punishment prior to the 18th century. Euclid lived and died before Christ.
http://www.howardleague.org/index.php?id=historyofprison
Also, I can't find any reference which calls Euclid a crackpot, or even uncivil, or non-persuasive, or refuses to use math.
---
Galois was not ignored. Abel made his discovery simultaneously, not after Galois. Galois was not a physicist, but a mathematician, so all he had to do was write papers and live to see them published. At this, he was unlucky.
Rather than calling him crackpot, at the very minimum Galois was a political radical.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Galois.html
---
Columbus was a crackpot, or at least an unreliable theorist. He refused to believe good evidence that the world was 150% larger in radius than the calculations he depended on. He died refusing to believe that "The New World" wasn't Asia, as he claimed, despite many proofs to the contrary. Columbus, by all accounts, was damn lucky and had not Pangea broken up hundreds of millions of years ago, would have died at sea like a lot of explorers. There are good reasons that this continent I am writing from is not called "Columbia". Columbus -- failed in math and theory -- discovered something experimentally -- never corrected theory to match discovery.
---
AlphaNumeric may be mistaken when he says Pound-Rebka is the last demonstration of a prediction of Einstein. Einstein's theory predicts gravitaional waves as a simple consequence of the G_ab = k T_ab (Einstein's equation).
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node5.html
(They first published results in 1982, 22 years after Pound-Rebka -- direct GW detection would be yet later new demonstration.)
Here's a recent paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205280
Here's a review of the GW evidence: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
Where are you getting your biographical data on Euclid from? Space aliens?
http://fermatslasttheorem.blogspot.com/200...alexandria.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid
I can't find a reference to imprisonment as a form of punishment prior to the 18th century. Euclid lived and died before Christ.
http://www.howardleague.org/index.php?id=historyofprison
Also, I can't find any reference which calls Euclid a crackpot, or even uncivil, or non-persuasive, or refuses to use math.
---
Galois was not ignored. Abel made his discovery simultaneously, not after Galois. Galois was not a physicist, but a mathematician, so all he had to do was write papers and live to see them published. At this, he was unlucky.
Rather than calling him crackpot, at the very minimum Galois was a political radical.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Galois.html
---
Columbus was a crackpot, or at least an unreliable theorist. He refused to believe good evidence that the world was 150% larger in radius than the calculations he depended on. He died refusing to believe that "The New World" wasn't Asia, as he claimed, despite many proofs to the contrary. Columbus, by all accounts, was damn lucky and had not Pangea broken up hundreds of millions of years ago, would have died at sea like a lot of explorers. There are good reasons that this continent I am writing from is not called "Columbia". Columbus -- failed in math and theory -- discovered something experimentally -- never corrected theory to match discovery.
---
AlphaNumeric may be mistaken when he says Pound-Rebka is the last demonstration of a prediction of Einstein. Einstein's theory predicts gravitaional waves as a simple consequence of the G_ab = k T_ab (Einstein's equation).
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node5.html
QUOTE
Hulse and Taylor won the Nobel prize in 1993 for careful observations of a binary neutron star which is slowly spiraling down, just as general relativity predicts it should, as it loses energy by emitting gravitational radiation.
(They first published results in 1982, 22 years after Pound-Rebka -- direct GW detection would be yet later new demonstration.)
Here's a recent paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205280
Here's a review of the GW evidence: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
The Christos Tsolkas "Einstein / Galileo/ Newton are all wrong page"
http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/pr...quivalence.html
This is a pretty easy one to debunk. Here it goes:
Patently wrong, as always Tsolkas.
You write :
m1*v1+m2*v2+M*V= 0 (correct)
therefore:
m1*v1+m2*v2=M*V (grossly incorrect)
The remainder of your "proof" is pure garbage.
http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/pr...quivalence.html
This is a pretty easy one to debunk. Here it goes:
Patently wrong, as always Tsolkas.
You write :
m1*v1+m2*v2+M*V= 0 (correct)
therefore:
m1*v1+m2*v2=M*V (grossly incorrect)
The remainder of your "proof" is pure garbage.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Where are you getting your biographical data on Euclid from? Space aliens?
...
Thank you. I was thinking of Gallileo, not Euclid. He's a perfect example of running against the established grain and facing extreme consequences for this challenge.
But to most everyone his ideas simply appeared to be playing games with numbers that had no real use. Certainly a few people could have recognized the value at the time, but this never happened, though as you point out if he had managed to stick it out and lived longer this might not have remained the case.
---------------
That's an interesting annecdote about Columbus and I guess shows that risking mistakes can lead to discovers. Though I admit that there's a greater benefit in taking educated risks than there is blindly crashing into walls.
We are talking OBVIOUS crackpots, see the examples. This should settle it.
...
Thank you. I was thinking of Gallileo, not Euclid. He's a perfect example of running against the established grain and facing extreme consequences for this challenge.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Galois was not ignored. Abel made his discovery simultaneously, not after Galois. Galois was not a physicist, but a mathematician, so all he had to do was write papers and live to see them published. At this, he was unlucky.
Rather than calling him crackpot, at the very minimum Galois was a political radical.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Galois.html
But to most everyone his ideas simply appeared to be playing games with numbers that had no real use. Certainly a few people could have recognized the value at the time, but this never happened, though as you point out if he had managed to stick it out and lived longer this might not have remained the case.
---------------
That's an interesting annecdote about Columbus and I guess shows that risking mistakes can lead to discovers. Though I admit that there's a greater benefit in taking educated risks than there is blindly crashing into walls.
Rather than calling him crackpot, at the very minimum Galois was a political radical.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Galois.html
But to most everyone his ideas simply appeared to be playing games with numbers that had no real use. Certainly a few people could have recognized the value at the time, but this never happened, though as you point out if he had managed to stick it out and lived longer this might not have remained the case.
---------------
That's an interesting annecdote about Columbus and I guess shows that risking mistakes can lead to discovers. Though I admit that there's a greater benefit in taking educated risks than there is blindly crashing into walls.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 18 2006, 06:52 PM)
But to most everyone his ideas simply appeared to be playing games with numbers that had no real use. Certainly a few people could have recognized the value at the time, but this never happened, though as you point out if he had managed to stick it out and lived longer this might not have remained the case.
---------------
That's an interesting annecdote about Columbus and I guess shows that risking mistakes can lead to discovers. Though I admit that there's a greater benefit in taking educated risks than there is blindly crashing into walls.
We are talking OBVIOUS crackpots, see the examples. This should settle it.
Sergey Karavasking, major crackpot
Now, we meet a very special crackpot, well known on the internet see here http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...rch+this+group)
.
In this "paper"
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/grad01/grad01.html
Sergey "discovers that curl(grad F) is NOT zero!!!!
Sergey has many other "discoveries", feel free to pick them apart:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/SELFlab/index.html
The "linstitute" runs out of Karavashkin's kitchen, pretty much like Amit Sorli's
Now, we meet a very special crackpot, well known on the internet see here http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...rch+this+group)
.
In this "paper"
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/grad01/grad01.html
Sergey "discovers that curl(grad F) is NOT zero!!!!
Sergey has many other "discoveries", feel free to pick them apart:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/SELFlab/index.html
The "linstitute" runs out of Karavashkin's kitchen, pretty much like Amit Sorli's
One out of a billion pupa.
Sorry, but I'm compelled to speak after some delusional happening.
Crackpots, and trolls, their theories and views are derived from doing RANDOM, unethical, unsystematized, illogical research to find similarities and comparisons (they themselves only see) to be able to find proof for their own "beliefs" and agendas, grossly misinterpreting, misquoting, snipping the authors or people concerned and their views and words.
They are also very stubborn and think along the conspiracy lines very often, in everything. They often derive and have their own meanings to concepts, and matters, with very little if any actual translucent proof. They also embank on utilizing words embodying double or various meanings, as apart of their deceptive approach.
I don't have a sight to put forward, but why yes, many of the Internet members themselves are fully quack beings.
When faced with actual nutterz, I so wish I was living in the 15th Century
Crackpots, and trolls, their theories and views are derived from doing RANDOM, unethical, unsystematized, illogical research to find similarities and comparisons (they themselves only see) to be able to find proof for their own "beliefs" and agendas, grossly misinterpreting, misquoting, snipping the authors or people concerned and their views and words.
They are also very stubborn and think along the conspiracy lines very often, in everything. They often derive and have their own meanings to concepts, and matters, with very little if any actual translucent proof. They also embank on utilizing words embodying double or various meanings, as apart of their deceptive approach.
I don't have a sight to put forward, but why yes, many of the Internet members themselves are fully quack beings.
When faced with actual nutterz, I so wish I was living in the 15th Century
Jal
Your message is not clear.
I give the link of two papers here
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
My paper is available at
Sharma June 2004 paper is available http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
In case you want scientific discussion , kindly start.
I again maintain Einstein Sep 1905 paper is TRUE UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS ONLY.
I just learnt yesterday , some members have raised some onbjections on my work.
These were about 'momentum variations' or mass increase.
there is no term momentum variation in Einstein's Sep 1905 paper.
THESE ARE ABSOLUETELY BASELESS.
oNLY ONE SIDED STORY WAS PASTED.
I WILL WELCOME DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE NOW.
AJAY SHARMA
QUOTE
YOU MEAN SOMEONE POINTS OUT LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING THEORIES IS SPAM.
Let me again add , what ever is posted here is published in international journals and presented in international conferences in USA AND ENGLAND.
Let me again add , what ever is posted here is published in international journals and presented in international conferences in USA AND ENGLAND.
Your message is not clear.
I give the link of two papers here
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
My paper is available at
Sharma June 2004 paper is available http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
In case you want scientific discussion , kindly start.
I again maintain Einstein Sep 1905 paper is TRUE UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS ONLY.
I just learnt yesterday , some members have raised some onbjections on my work.
These were about 'momentum variations' or mass increase.
there is no term momentum variation in Einstein's Sep 1905 paper.
THESE ARE ABSOLUETELY BASELESS.
oNLY ONE SIDED STORY WAS PASTED.
I WILL WELCOME DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE NOW.
AJAY SHARMA
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Jul 18 2006, 04:48 AM)
...A Crackpot Theory is a theory that contradicts mainstream science in a manner that is easy to spot if one pays attention to the following tell-tale signs...
From Crackpot Index: 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
From this perspective, the Einstein Special Relativity Theory published in 1905 is using the same math, which was derived by Lorentz a ten years before (in 1895) on the base of Maxwell's aether theory, i.e. Lorentz invariance and Lorentz transforms simply hides the underlying mechanism of light speed invariance.
From Crackpot Index: 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
From this perspective, the Einstein Special Relativity Theory published in 1905 is using the same math, which was derived by Lorentz a ten years before (in 1895) on the base of Maxwell's aether theory, i.e. Lorentz invariance and Lorentz transforms simply hides the underlying mechanism of light speed invariance.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 9 2006, 01:35 PM)
From Crackpot Index: 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
That's a great site Zephir! That gives many people here scores well above 50...
I'll be quoting that page a lot from now on.
That's a great site Zephir! That gives many people here scores well above 50...
I'll be quoting that page a lot from now on.
Van I see you would like to think we know allot, for you really everything. Truth is we don't know much.
You can give names to everything and then think that you know the things when you don't. That is what theory is doing.
You can give names to everything and then think that you know the things when you don't. That is what theory is doing.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 9 2006, 03:35 PM)
Van I see you would like to think we know allot, for you really everything. Truth is we don't know much.
We do know a lot. Obviously we don't know everything. Obviously there is a lot more that we don't know.
Well obviously you could go through life saying that nothing is certain and we don't know anything about reality. So what do you want? It is human nature to want to learn. In science, there is this thing called the scientific method. It is based on the fact that things we observe are true. Either you agree with that or you don't. If you don't, you have no business being here at all, since this is a SCIENTIFIC forum. If you do, then you should know that theories are developed using the scientific method. If we do not formulate theories, how are we supposed to get anywhere? Are we just supposed to stare at the ceiling and wait for some magical being to relate to us the secrets of the universe? Good luck with that.
We do know a lot. Obviously we don't know everything. Obviously there is a lot more that we don't know.
QUOTE
You can give names to everything and then think that you know the things when you don't. That is what theory is doing.
Well obviously you could go through life saying that nothing is certain and we don't know anything about reality. So what do you want? It is human nature to want to learn. In science, there is this thing called the scientific method. It is based on the fact that things we observe are true. Either you agree with that or you don't. If you don't, you have no business being here at all, since this is a SCIENTIFIC forum. If you do, then you should know that theories are developed using the scientific method. If we do not formulate theories, how are we supposed to get anywhere? Are we just supposed to stare at the ceiling and wait for some magical being to relate to us the secrets of the universe? Good luck with that.
Truth is certain van. Science should be honest about where its at.
Okay. Science is just beginning. Are you happy now??
Pupamancur,
Why such a single minded focus on debasing the physics amateurs (crackpots)? What's the point? Isn't this equivalent to telling an art hobbyist to give up painting because Picasso did it so much better?
What master science works have you contributed? May I see them?
Why such a single minded focus on debasing the physics amateurs (crackpots)? What's the point? Isn't this equivalent to telling an art hobbyist to give up painting because Picasso did it so much better?
What master science works have you contributed? May I see them?
Pupamancur,
I dont know your qualifications and affiliations.
I am Ajay Sharma .
Recently I learnt that you have made some remarks about my my work regarding Einstein's paper. The links are quoted here again.
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
My paper is available at
Sharma June 2004 paper is available http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
Part I
LET ME ENSURE YOU ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE UNFOUNDED.
You should have learnt
(i) basic physics first
e.g applications and scopes of principle of conservation of linear momentum
and
principle of dimensional homogeinity
(ii) How an equation is derived and interpretted?
THE EINSTEIN'S 29 SEP. 1905 paper.
You should especially note that Einstein's derivation is applicable over wide range of parameters,
and Einstein has discussed under special conditions only.
Let me again reaffirm here
eq.(13) at page 201 is absolutely correct. Einstein's ep 1905 derivation under some conditons predicts that
'' when body emits light energy that mass of body must increase.''
It is not correct. So there are both correct and incorrect predictions frokm Einstein's paper.
PartII
You too have changed the sign arbitrarily.
Look there is first eqaution in Einstein's derivation which account for direction through angle 'phi' . So the sign of v vannot not changed at the stage you want .
Part III
If you have objections,
list here one by one I will remove.
This work is published in international journals and presented in international conferences in USA and England in past two years is correct. BUT SCOPES OF IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALWAYS IN SCIENCE.
I AM LOOKING FOR YOU REPLY AS on 18th July 2006 YOU HAVE MADE SOME ADVERSE REMARKS.
Fo quick communication you can also Email at physicsajay@yahoo.com
AJAY SHARMA
more information
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/prod...roducts_id=4554
I dont know your qualifications and affiliations.
I am Ajay Sharma .
Recently I learnt that you have made some remarks about my my work regarding Einstein's paper. The links are quoted here again.
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
My paper is available at
Sharma June 2004 paper is available http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
Part I
LET ME ENSURE YOU ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE UNFOUNDED.
You should have learnt
(i) basic physics first
e.g applications and scopes of principle of conservation of linear momentum
and
principle of dimensional homogeinity
(ii) How an equation is derived and interpretted?
THE EINSTEIN'S 29 SEP. 1905 paper.
You should especially note that Einstein's derivation is applicable over wide range of parameters,
and Einstein has discussed under special conditions only.
Let me again reaffirm here
eq.(13) at page 201 is absolutely correct. Einstein's ep 1905 derivation under some conditons predicts that
'' when body emits light energy that mass of body must increase.''
It is not correct. So there are both correct and incorrect predictions frokm Einstein's paper.
PartII
You too have changed the sign arbitrarily.
Look there is first eqaution in Einstein's derivation which account for direction through angle 'phi' . So the sign of v vannot not changed at the stage you want .
Part III
If you have objections,
list here one by one I will remove.
This work is published in international journals and presented in international conferences in USA and England in past two years is correct. BUT SCOPES OF IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALWAYS IN SCIENCE.
I AM LOOKING FOR YOU REPLY AS on 18th July 2006 YOU HAVE MADE SOME ADVERSE REMARKS.
Fo quick communication you can also Email at physicsajay@yahoo.com
AJAY SHARMA
more information
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/prod...roducts_id=4554
Ajay, long time no see. Do you have a report of your reception at the August event in Texas?
I think the central United States is pretty provincial, but I have been thinking about how to get America's to be more open-minded towards vegetarianism. I think a fast food restaurant could put put out a "Spicy Potato Taco" which in my conception is something like Shimla Potatoes in a corn taco shell, frozen and easily deep fat fried to order. I hear you are employed in Shimla, and have visited the US, so I'd like your opinion.
Do you think the fact that you have a book out on the subject renders you a biased judge of your own work? Do you have the names and CVs of the professional scientists who peer-reviewed your scientific article?
Do you have an explanation on how E = Amc^2 has already been tested, and A has been found indistinguishable from 1? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097 (Tests of SR)
Do you think that by going back to a English translation of a German paper in 1905 you might be perceived as disconnected with the modern state of physics? Are you, for example, aware of Minkowski's 1908 demonstration that SR is self-consistent mathematically? Do you see how this could have real impact on your derivation?
Others might want to read how Ajay responded to the fine work of ASH05 here: http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blogs/comme...=51500&pageno=6
Let's try not to be quite as abusive as "dr. Inpain" http://www.adamauton.com/cgi-bin/mb/22-6.shtml
I think the central United States is pretty provincial, but I have been thinking about how to get America's to be more open-minded towards vegetarianism. I think a fast food restaurant could put put out a "Spicy Potato Taco" which in my conception is something like Shimla Potatoes in a corn taco shell, frozen and easily deep fat fried to order. I hear you are employed in Shimla, and have visited the US, so I'd like your opinion.
Do you think the fact that you have a book out on the subject renders you a biased judge of your own work? Do you have the names and CVs of the professional scientists who peer-reviewed your scientific article?
Do you have an explanation on how E = Amc^2 has already been tested, and A has been found indistinguishable from 1? http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097 (Tests of SR)
Do you think that by going back to a English translation of a German paper in 1905 you might be perceived as disconnected with the modern state of physics? Are you, for example, aware of Minkowski's 1908 demonstration that SR is self-consistent mathematically? Do you see how this could have real impact on your derivation?
Others might want to read how Ajay responded to the fine work of ASH05 here: http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blogs/comme...=51500&pageno=6
Let's try not to be quite as abusive as "dr. Inpain" http://www.adamauton.com/cgi-bin/mb/22-6.shtml
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 10 2006, 01:07 AM)
Pupamancur,
Why such a single minded focus on debasing the physics amateurs (crackpots)? What's the point? Isn't this equivalent to telling an art hobbyist to give up painting because Picasso did it so much better?
What master science works have you contributed? May I see them?
It is the amateurs that pass themselves as "scientists" that "managed to refute mainstream science" . Painter hobbists have the common sense of not trying to replace Picasso's paintings with their own.
Why such a single minded focus on debasing the physics amateurs (crackpots)? What's the point? Isn't this equivalent to telling an art hobbyist to give up painting because Picasso did it so much better?
What master science works have you contributed? May I see them?
It is the amateurs that pass themselves as "scientists" that "managed to refute mainstream science" . Painter hobbists have the common sense of not trying to replace Picasso's paintings with their own.
QUOTE (NEWATOM+Sep 10 2006, 01:43 AM)
Pupamancur,
I dont know your qualifications and affiliations.
I am Ajay Sharma .
Recently I learnt that you have made some remarks about my my work regarding Einstein's paper. The links are quoted here again.
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
My paper is available at
Sharma June 2004 paper is available http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
Part I
LET ME ENSURE YOU ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE UNFOUNDED.
You should have learnt
(i) basic physics first
e.g applications and scopes of principle of conservation of linear momentum
and
principle of dimensional homogeinity
(ii) How an equation is derived and interpretted?
THE EINSTEIN'S 29 SEP. 1905 paper.
You should especially note that Einstein's derivation is applicable over wide range of parameters,
and Einstein has discussed under special conditions only.
Let me again reaffirm here
eq.(13) at page 201 is absolutely correct. Einstein's ep 1905 derivation under some conditons predicts that
'' when body emits light energy that mass of body must increase.''
It is not correct. So there are both correct and incorrect predictions frokm Einstein's paper.
PartII
You too have changed the sign arbitrarily.
Look there is first eqaution in Einstein's derivation which account for direction through angle 'phi' . So the sign of v vannot not changed at the stage you want .
Part III
If you have objections,
list here one by one I will remove.
This work is published in international journals and presented in international conferences in USA and England in past two years is correct. BUT SCOPES OF IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALWAYS IN SCIENCE.
I AM LOOKING FOR YOU REPLY AS on 18th July 2006 YOU HAVE MADE SOME ADVERSE REMARKS.
Fo quick communication you can also Email at physicsajay@yahoo.com
AJAY SHARMA
more information
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/prod...roducts_id=4554
Let's not waste time: starting from equation (13) at section 1.3.1 you get everything wrong. The reason is that there is no "mass increase" as a result of emitting em radiation. What you mistakingly take as mass increase, it is the recoil of the particle that emits em radiation.
Einstein got things right by arranging for the em radiation to be at 180 degrees, thus preventing any recoil, so all the em radiation turns into a mass decrease. You got everything backwards due to your mistake.
I dont know your qualifications and affiliations.
I am Ajay Sharma .
Recently I learnt that you have made some remarks about my my work regarding Einstein's paper. The links are quoted here again.
Einstein’s 27 Sep 1905 paper available at http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
My paper is available at
Sharma June 2004 paper is available http://www.burningbrain.org/pdf/ajaysharma_einstein.pdf
Part I
LET ME ENSURE YOU ALL YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE UNFOUNDED.
You should have learnt
(i) basic physics first
e.g applications and scopes of principle of conservation of linear momentum
and
principle of dimensional homogeinity
(ii) How an equation is derived and interpretted?
THE EINSTEIN'S 29 SEP. 1905 paper.
You should especially note that Einstein's derivation is applicable over wide range of parameters,
and Einstein has discussed under special conditions only.
Let me again reaffirm here
eq.(13) at page 201 is absolutely correct. Einstein's ep 1905 derivation under some conditons predicts that
'' when body emits light energy that mass of body must increase.''
It is not correct. So there are both correct and incorrect predictions frokm Einstein's paper.
PartII
You too have changed the sign arbitrarily.
Look there is first eqaution in Einstein's derivation which account for direction through angle 'phi' . So the sign of v vannot not changed at the stage you want .
Part III
If you have objections,
list here one by one I will remove.
This work is published in international journals and presented in international conferences in USA and England in past two years is correct. BUT SCOPES OF IMPROVEMENTS ARE ALWAYS IN SCIENCE.
I AM LOOKING FOR YOU REPLY AS on 18th July 2006 YOU HAVE MADE SOME ADVERSE REMARKS.
Fo quick communication you can also Email at physicsajay@yahoo.com
AJAY SHARMA
more information
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/prod...roducts_id=4554
Let's not waste time: starting from equation (13) at section 1.3.1 you get everything wrong. The reason is that there is no "mass increase" as a result of emitting em radiation. What you mistakingly take as mass increase, it is the recoil of the particle that emits em radiation.
Einstein got things right by arranging for the em radiation to be at 180 degrees, thus preventing any recoil, so all the em radiation turns into a mass decrease. You got everything backwards due to your mistake.
What is your qualification and profession?
Are you just 10th pass.
Firstly you claer, Then I would like to chcek from website of you institution.
HAVE YOU ANY IDEA OF DIMESNIONAL HOMogenisty .
LHS is mass and you say RHS is momentum.
Have you atteded any class of physics ?
I have written in Classical mechanics , change in mometum does nor affect mass.
Does mass increases under classical conditions.
Kindly consult 11th cal;ss physics Text book.
Again, What is your qualification and profession?
Are you just 10th pass?
AJAY SHARMA
Are you just 10th pass.
Firstly you claer, Then I would like to chcek from website of you institution.
HAVE YOU ANY IDEA OF DIMESNIONAL HOMogenisty .
LHS is mass and you say RHS is momentum.
Have you atteded any class of physics ?
I have written in Classical mechanics , change in mometum does nor affect mass.
Does mass increases under classical conditions.
Kindly consult 11th cal;ss physics Text book.
Again, What is your qualification and profession?
Are you just 10th pass?
AJAY SHARMA
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Sep 10 2006, 09:26 AM)
It is the amateurs that pass themselves as "scientists" that "managed to refute mainstream science" . Painter hobbists have the common sense of not trying to replace Picasso's paintings with their own.
Isn't astronomy an important branch of physics? Should all of those amateur astronomers that are regularly discovering whole new worlds, just quit?
Besides, you didn't answer the second question: What master science works have you contributed? May I see them? Are you being a hypocrite?
Isn't astronomy an important branch of physics? Should all of those amateur astronomers that are regularly discovering whole new worlds, just quit?
Besides, you didn't answer the second question: What master science works have you contributed? May I see them? Are you being a hypocrite?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 10 2006, 09:18 PM)
What master science works have you contributed? May I see them? Are you being a hypocrite?
The questions about personal qualification have nothing to do in relevant discussion, because they're just a sort of ad hominem fallacy and psychological attack (despite the fact, the Popamancur uses the same way of argumentation quite often, too).
I can be a true idiot without schools, but it doesn't mean, I cannot be right in some particular case anyway .
In Czech language we have a proverb for such situation:
"Even blind chicken can found its grain."
The questions about personal qualification have nothing to do in relevant discussion, because they're just a sort of ad hominem fallacy and psychological attack (despite the fact, the Popamancur uses the same way of argumentation quite often, too).
I can be a true idiot without schools, but it doesn't mean, I cannot be right in some particular case anyway .
In Czech language we have a proverb for such situation:
"Even blind chicken can found its grain."
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 10 2006, 06:34 PM)
The questions about personal qualification have nothing to do in relevant discussion, because they're just a sort of ad hominem fallacy and psychological attacks (despite the fact, the Popamancur uses such way of argumentation quite often, too).
I can be a true idiot without schools, but it doesn't mean, I cannot be right anyway in some particular case.
I disagree. In this thread Pupamancur has set forth an intent to debase the work of others. For his project to be credible, I think it's important that he be credible. As it is, for all we know he's a hair salon stylist.
I understand that he may wish to keep his anonymity, but surely he can provide some original examples of his skills.
Also, If I might pinpoint blatant fallacies in the work of recognized professional scientists, does this make me a better scientist? I think not. Why does he think this is the case?
It's not the mistakes you make that are important. It's what you get right.
I can be a true idiot without schools, but it doesn't mean, I cannot be right anyway in some particular case.
I disagree. In this thread Pupamancur has set forth an intent to debase the work of others. For his project to be credible, I think it's important that he be credible. As it is, for all we know he's a hair salon stylist.
I understand that he may wish to keep his anonymity, but surely he can provide some original examples of his skills.
Also, If I might pinpoint blatant fallacies in the work of recognized professional scientists, does this make me a better scientist? I think not. Why does he think this is the case?
It's not the mistakes you make that are important. It's what you get right.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 10 2006, 09:54 PM)
For his project to be credible, I think it's important that he be credible. As it is, for all we know he's a hair salon stylist.
Please, consider, I'm not personal friend of Popamancur by any way (compare my feedback list)...
I'm just explaining the general principles of matter of fact discussion here, that's all.
Please, consider, I'm not personal friend of Popamancur by any way (compare my feedback list)...
I'm just explaining the general principles of matter of fact discussion here, that's all.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 10 2006, 07:01 PM)
Please, consider, I'm not personal friend of Popamancur (compare my feedback list)...
I'm just explaining the general principles of matter of fact discussion here, that's all.
I understand. However, the fact remains that Pupamancur has taken it upon himself, in this thread, to debase and expose fallacies in other people's works, all the while hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
I think skeptics are an important moderating influence, but being skeptical of the skeptics is equally (perhaps more) important.
The behavior of folks like Pupamancur could conceivably cause potentially future greats to turn away from science altogether. Therefore, the potential for harm is great. This type of heavy criticism may endanger the scientst's willingness to explore new paths of thought and experimentation.
I'm just explaining the general principles of matter of fact discussion here, that's all.
I understand. However, the fact remains that Pupamancur has taken it upon himself, in this thread, to debase and expose fallacies in other people's works, all the while hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
I think skeptics are an important moderating influence, but being skeptical of the skeptics is equally (perhaps more) important.
The behavior of folks like Pupamancur could conceivably cause potentially future greats to turn away from science altogether. Therefore, the potential for harm is great. This type of heavy criticism may endanger the scientst's willingness to explore new paths of thought and experimentation.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 10 2006, 03:28 PM)
I understand. However, the fact remains that Pupamancur has taken it upon himself, in this thread, to debase and expose fallacies in other people's works, all the while hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
No, his intent is more subtle than that. He is pointing out to less knowledgeable members and guests that many of the people who post here do not represent the general society of scientists and are in fact just trying to disprove well-known theories with their own nonsense. These people usually do not understand the theory that they are trying to disprove, and their "reasoning" is based on flawed logic and/or math. I think that Pupamancur has been doing a good job on this forum exposing people who don't know what they're talking about. They deserve critisism if they haven't taken the time to actually study what they are supposedly disproving.
No, his intent is more subtle than that. He is pointing out to less knowledgeable members and guests that many of the people who post here do not represent the general society of scientists and are in fact just trying to disprove well-known theories with their own nonsense. These people usually do not understand the theory that they are trying to disprove, and their "reasoning" is based on flawed logic and/or math. I think that Pupamancur has been doing a good job on this forum exposing people who don't know what they're talking about. They deserve critisism if they haven't taken the time to actually study what they are supposedly disproving.
I don't care about what other people know. I only care about seeing it for myself.
Some people are talking above what education can provide. Einstein didn't care about education.
"Education is what is left after you forget everything that you ever learned in school."
Some people are talking above what education can provide. Einstein didn't care about education.
"Education is what is left after you forget everything that you ever learned in school."
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 10 2006, 05:50 PM)
I don't care about what other people know. I only care about seeing it for myself.
Some people are talking above what education can provide. Einstein didn't care about education.
"Education is what is left after you forget everything that you ever learned in school."
You're doing it again. Quoting people and twisting their words for your benefit, as if they somehow agree with what you're saying.
What Einstein meant (I think - he's not exactly here to explain it to us) was that when you go to school, you will probably not remember the information that you learned. That is not what is most important; there is more to education than that. Going to school teaches you how to learn and think. It teaches you to have an open mind, it teaches you of your own ignorance and your own intelligence. It gives you the ability to learn from other people. That is what many people here are missing. They refuse to listen when anyone else contradicts them. They do not try to understand things that they don't know. That is the problem.
Some people are talking above what education can provide. Einstein didn't care about education.
"Education is what is left after you forget everything that you ever learned in school."
You're doing it again. Quoting people and twisting their words for your benefit, as if they somehow agree with what you're saying.
What Einstein meant (I think - he's not exactly here to explain it to us) was that when you go to school, you will probably not remember the information that you learned. That is not what is most important; there is more to education than that. Going to school teaches you how to learn and think. It teaches you to have an open mind, it teaches you of your own ignorance and your own intelligence. It gives you the ability to learn from other people. That is what many people here are missing. They refuse to listen when anyone else contradicts them. They do not try to understand things that they don't know. That is the problem.
I don't care about the other people. I don't represent anyone but myself.
We have been dumbed down by our education. And it is deliberate.
Einstein had to survive his.
[Removed: Admin]
We have been dumbed down by our education. And it is deliberate.
Einstein had to survive his.
[Removed: Admin]
I'M LISTENING!
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE!
JAL
LET’S GO WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE! JAL
I have to ask why people decide that they need to go on a witch hunt in the first place. How does it become their job?
Sophomoric zealots.
Sophomoric zealots.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 10 2006, 06:05 PM)
We have been dumbed down by our education.
Well apparently some people have...
Sophomoric zealots.
I've noticed you never actually address the specific issues people bring up, but instead resort to name-calling and weird insults. Good luck with that.
Well apparently some people have...
QUOTE
Go look at your sheepskins.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Go look at your sheepskins. |
Sophomoric zealots.
I've noticed you never actually address the specific issues people bring up, but instead resort to name-calling and weird insults. Good luck with that.
Thank you.
Pupamancur,
Interestingly, your labeling others with fringe ideas as quacks etc. is somewhat disingenuous. Doesn't your web site jump right in by labeling the hard work of other established researchers as blunders and you have it right?
http://blackholethermodyn.site.voila.fr/enter.html
Has your work been validated?
I do find the information interesting but it also may be considered by some as in the realm of fringe thinking as well.
Interestingly, your labeling others with fringe ideas as quacks etc. is somewhat disingenuous. Doesn't your web site jump right in by labeling the hard work of other established researchers as blunders and you have it right?
http://blackholethermodyn.site.voila.fr/enter.html
Has your work been validated?
I do find the information interesting but it also may be considered by some as in the realm of fringe thinking as well.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 10 2006, 9:50 PM)
I don't care about what other people know. I only care about seeing it for myself.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 10 2006, 10:05 PM)
I don't care about the other people. I don't represent anyone but myself.
This reads to me that Nick doesn't respect anyone but himself. This goes a long way to explaining why Nick doesn't engage in logical debate.
Wikipedia: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Wikipedia: Standing on the shoulders of giants
QUOTE (John of Salisbury+1159)
Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness on sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size
Being part of society is standing of giants, giants who built the hundreds of parts that went into making the computer on which you read this. Being part of society requires respect for others. Being a scientist requires respecting others enough to believe that they are working honestly.
Being part of society is standing of giants, giants who built the hundreds of parts that went into making the computer on which you read this. Being part of society requires respect for others. Being a scientist requires respecting others enough to believe that they are working honestly.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 10 2006, 9:50 PM)
Some people are talking above what education can provide.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 10 2006, 10:05 PM)
We have been dumbed down by our education. And it is deliberate.
Incoherent. You weren't born knowing English. Learning English is education. You weren't born knowing how to solve coupled partial differential equations. How much time would be lost if each person had to invent mathematics on their own. Or puzzle out the meaning of traffic lights, or figure out the mass of the electron.
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 10 2006, 9:50 PM)
Einstein didn't care about education.
"Education is what is left after you forget everything that you ever learned in school."
"Education is what is left after you forget everything that you ever learned in school."
QUOTE (Nick+Sep 10 2006, 10:05 PM)
Einstein had to survive his [education].
http://www.heartquotes.net/Einstein.html
http://www.heartquotes.net/Einstein.html
QUOTE (A. Einstein+)
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
QUOTE (A. Einstein+)
The aim (of education) must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals who, however, can see in the service to the community their highest life achievement.
QUOTE (A. Einstein+ 1936)
The school has always been the most important means of transferring the wealth of tradition from one generation to the next. This applies today in an even higher degree than in former times, for through modern development of economic life, the family as bearer of tradition and education has become weakened.The continuance and health of human society is therefore in a still higher degree dependent on school than formally.
New York Times, October 16, 1936
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Einstein is one of those major iconic figures to whom many statements become attributed; unsourced attributions should usually be treated with some skepticism, and often a great deal of it.
New York Times, October 16, 1936
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Einstein is one of those major iconic figures to whom many statements become attributed; unsourced attributions should usually be treated with some skepticism, and often a great deal of it.
QUOTE (George Savile+)
Education is what remains when we have forgotten all that we have been taught.
George Savile, Marquis of Halifax (1633-1695) English statesman and author.
George Savile, Marquis of Halifax (1633-1695) English statesman and author.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 11 2006, 02:44 AM)
This reads to me that Nick doesn't respect anyone but himself. This goes a long way to explaining why Nick doesn't engage in logical debate.
I don't think so. For example, at the very beginning Nick has refuted the Aether concept obstinately, now he uses a lot of concepts of Aether theory (like the others, by the way). Frankly, I don't care about the stance of others very much as well, 'cause I've a strong & clean vision - so I'm just using the feedback for streamlining of my explanations, not the change of concept. With compare the people like Amrit, Jal, GoodElf or me the Nick is rather flexible personality.. .
The sometimes obstinate stance of Nick is rather a manifestation of lack of clear & relevant arguments from the other side. And he targets the problems with compare to twaddly people like GoodElf or StevenA, the reading of which is mostly just a waste of time for me.
I don't think so. For example, at the very beginning Nick has refuted the Aether concept obstinately, now he uses a lot of concepts of Aether theory (like the others, by the way). Frankly, I don't care about the stance of others very much as well, 'cause I've a strong & clean vision - so I'm just using the feedback for streamlining of my explanations, not the change of concept. With compare the people like Amrit, Jal, GoodElf or me the Nick is rather flexible personality..
. The sometimes obstinate stance of Nick is rather a manifestation of lack of clear & relevant arguments from the other side. And he targets the problems with compare to twaddly people like GoodElf or StevenA, the reading of which is mostly just a waste of time for me.
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Sep 10 2006, 09:37 PM)
No, his intent is more subtle than that. He is pointing out to less knowledgeable members and guests that many of the people who post here do not represent the general society of scientists and are in fact just trying to disprove well-known theories with their own nonsense. These people usually do not understand the theory that they are trying to disprove, and their "reasoning" is based on flawed logic and/or math. I think that Pupamancur has been doing a good job on this forum exposing people who don't know what they're talking about. They deserve critisism if they haven't taken the time to actually study what they are supposedly disproving.
Sure. This might be constructive if he could do it in a coherent manner. But since he inevitably resorts to insults, it is far from constructive.
I also think it becomes rapidly apparent to anyone reading this site (provided they have decent critical thinking skills) that 99.9% of everything in these forums (and most other science site forums) is pure baloney. The news reports, at least, are fairly accurate (although overly simplified).
The inflexibility of crackpot opinions is worrisome in that they aren't learning, but you can't make them learn. They have to want it. On the other hand, the inflexibility of the skeptics is even more worrisome. They often go on about how crackpots stick fervently to their opinions, but they themselves don't have the flexibility to at first understand the concept that the crackpot proposes without simply dismissing it out of hand. Do you think it's reasonable to be concerned they might miss something important utilizing this technique? Worse, might they inadvertently snub a young genius... just getting started?
I think a more understanding, educational and gentle technique would be far more effective in helping the willing students. As for the nut cases, just let 'em go on believing in themselves. It may be all they have.
Sure. This might be constructive if he could do it in a coherent manner. But since he inevitably resorts to insults, it is far from constructive.
I also think it becomes rapidly apparent to anyone reading this site (provided they have decent critical thinking skills) that 99.9% of everything in these forums (and most other science site forums) is pure baloney. The news reports, at least, are fairly accurate (although overly simplified).
The inflexibility of crackpot opinions is worrisome in that they aren't learning, but you can't make them learn. They have to want it. On the other hand, the inflexibility of the skeptics is even more worrisome. They often go on about how crackpots stick fervently to their opinions, but they themselves don't have the flexibility to at first understand the concept that the crackpot proposes without simply dismissing it out of hand. Do you think it's reasonable to be concerned they might miss something important utilizing this technique? Worse, might they inadvertently snub a young genius... just getting started?
I think a more understanding, educational and gentle technique would be far more effective in helping the willing students. As for the nut cases, just let 'em go on believing in themselves. It may be all they have.
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 10 2006, 08:06 PM)
The sometimes obstinate stance of Nick is rather a manifestation of lack of clear & relevant arguments from the other side. And he targets the problems with compare to twaddly people like GoodElf or StevenA, the reading of which is mostly just a waste of time for me.
Wow...
Nick has been refuted by many intelligent and knowledgeable people (like GoodElf and StevenA) with extremely coherent arguments. He may target "problems" but he doesn't listen to the solutions. I am sure that many people on this forum agree, as you can see from feedback scores.
Wow...
Nick has been refuted by many intelligent and knowledgeable people (like GoodElf and StevenA) with extremely coherent arguments. He may target "problems" but he doesn't listen to the solutions. I am sure that many people on this forum agree, as you can see from feedback scores.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+)
I think a more understanding, educational and gentle technique would be far more effective in helping the willing students.
Willing students who ask questions are almost always answered with wonderful responses. The problem is that the people who advertize their "theories" here seem to not want to learn about anything that contradicts them.
Willing students who ask questions are almost always answered with wonderful responses. The problem is that the people who advertize their "theories" here seem to not want to learn about anything that contradicts them.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+)
I also think it becomes rapidly apparent to anyone reading this site (provided they have decent critical thinking skills) that 99.9% of everything in these forums (and most other science site forums) is pure baloney.
Let's hope so.
The behavior of folks like Pupamancur could conceivably cause potentially future greats to turn away from science altogether. Therefore, the potential for harm is great. This type of heavy criticism may endanger the scientst's willingness to explore new paths of thought and experimentation.
I doubt it, the errors are quite clear.
Looks like MS (mainstream science) is a complete failure.
Also suggests some off-stream scientists understand much more.
Tell me where the mistake is !
Maybe some take their dreams for the reality?
Michel
Let's hope so.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+)
They often go on about how crackpots stick fervently to their opinions, but they themselves don't have the flexibility to at first understand the concept that the crackpot proposes without simply dismissing it out of hand. Do you think it's reasonable to be concerned they might miss something important utilizing this technique?
Of course this is possible... The problem is that most people have not come up with a new way of thinking about the things they are trying to disprove, their sole purpose is to disprove the theory. I agree with you that they should not be simply dismissed, as their view might be able to widen the view of others. However, many people have not come up with their ideas on their own and in fact many other people have tried to do the same thing they are doing.
Of course this is possible... The problem is that most people have not come up with a new way of thinking about the things they are trying to disprove, their sole purpose is to disprove the theory. I agree with you that they should not be simply dismissed, as their view might be able to widen the view of others. However, many people have not come up with their ideas on their own and in fact many other people have tried to do the same thing they are doing.
I have issue with some of your criteria for a crank theory. It is essential prejeduce and a very narrow minded suggestion that any and all websites which might possess some of your criteria are "crank"
I have a website which falls under some of your criteria. I use little mathand more diagrams and animations to get my point across. I have likewise tried to garner some attention for my idea by discussing it on some forums and such. I use some fringe ideas on my website as well but not in any actual discussion of my device or theory, ( only the facts there I'm afraid ) only as coincidental evidence or interest sake.
However, I assure you my idea is not a crank. I have physics experience but unfortunately do not have the time or resources to publish a white paper and look at my idea as more of a hobby which is most definitely not grounds for immediate dismissal of my idea. I do not require the reexamination of any physics theories nor am I saying present theory is wrong an. I have some mathematical equations on my website and I assure you are completely correct without any question whatsoever. I likewise have provided links to many reputed scientific articles and other websites supporting my claims. The only leap required to understand the concept I have put forth is to except that my webpage simply shows how the complicated math can be applied to " observable " reality in a manner anyone can understand.
The mathematics for what I describe on my website has already been published and discussed for many many years and the detail and mathematical understanding continues to increase. The problem is few mathematicians can really visualize what their theories and models are telling them about the real Universe around them. I am just bringing it down to a level for anyone who is sincerely interested in seeing things in a much broader sense.
http://ovalecotech.ca
I have a website which falls under some of your criteria. I use little mathand more diagrams and animations to get my point across. I have likewise tried to garner some attention for my idea by discussing it on some forums and such. I use some fringe ideas on my website as well but not in any actual discussion of my device or theory, ( only the facts there I'm afraid ) only as coincidental evidence or interest sake.
However, I assure you my idea is not a crank. I have physics experience but unfortunately do not have the time or resources to publish a white paper and look at my idea as more of a hobby which is most definitely not grounds for immediate dismissal of my idea. I do not require the reexamination of any physics theories nor am I saying present theory is wrong an. I have some mathematical equations on my website and I assure you are completely correct without any question whatsoever. I likewise have provided links to many reputed scientific articles and other websites supporting my claims. The only leap required to understand the concept I have put forth is to except that my webpage simply shows how the complicated math can be applied to " observable " reality in a manner anyone can understand.
The mathematics for what I describe on my website has already been published and discussed for many many years and the detail and mathematical understanding continues to increase. The problem is few mathematicians can really visualize what their theories and models are telling them about the real Universe around them. I am just bringing it down to a level for anyone who is sincerely interested in seeing things in a much broader sense.
http://ovalecotech.ca
QUOTE (Guest_glhayman+Sep 11 2006, 12:41 AM)
I have issue with some of your criteria for a crank theory. It is essential prejeduce and a very narrow minded suggestion that any and all websites which might possess some of your criteria are "crank"
I have a website which falls under some of your criteria. I use little mathand more diagrams and animations to get my point across. I have likewise tried to garner some attention for my idea by discussing it on some forums and such. I use some fringe ideas on my website as well but not in any actual discussion of my device or theory, ( only the facts there I'm afraid ) only as coincidental evidence or interest sake.
However, I assure you my idea is not a crank. I have physics experience but unfortunately do not have the time or resources to publish a white paper and look at my idea as more of a hobby which is most definitely not grounds for immediate dismissal of my idea. I do not require the reexamination of any physics theories nor am I saying present theory is wrong an. I have some mathematical equations on my website and I assure you are completely correct without any question whatsoever. I likewise have provided links to many reputed scientific articles and other websites supporting my claims. The only leap required to understand the concept I have put forth is to except that my webpage simply shows how the complicated math can be applied to " observable " reality in a manner anyone can understand.
The mathematics for what I describe on my website has already been published and discussed for many many years and the detail and mathematical understanding continues to increase. The problem is few mathematicians can really visualize what their theories and models are telling them about the real Universe around them. I am just bringing it down to a level for anyone who is sincerely interested in seeing things in a much broader sense.
http://ovalecotech.ca
Your site is positively entertaining! You should write a science-fiction novel around your concept.
I have a website which falls under some of your criteria. I use little mathand more diagrams and animations to get my point across. I have likewise tried to garner some attention for my idea by discussing it on some forums and such. I use some fringe ideas on my website as well but not in any actual discussion of my device or theory, ( only the facts there I'm afraid ) only as coincidental evidence or interest sake.
However, I assure you my idea is not a crank. I have physics experience but unfortunately do not have the time or resources to publish a white paper and look at my idea as more of a hobby which is most definitely not grounds for immediate dismissal of my idea. I do not require the reexamination of any physics theories nor am I saying present theory is wrong an. I have some mathematical equations on my website and I assure you are completely correct without any question whatsoever. I likewise have provided links to many reputed scientific articles and other websites supporting my claims. The only leap required to understand the concept I have put forth is to except that my webpage simply shows how the complicated math can be applied to " observable " reality in a manner anyone can understand.
The mathematics for what I describe on my website has already been published and discussed for many many years and the detail and mathematical understanding continues to increase. The problem is few mathematicians can really visualize what their theories and models are telling them about the real Universe around them. I am just bringing it down to a level for anyone who is sincerely interested in seeing things in a much broader sense.
http://ovalecotech.ca
Your site is positively entertaining! You should write a science-fiction novel around your concept.
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Sep 11 2006, 12:39 AM)
Willing students who ask questions are almost always answered with wonderful responses. The problem is that the people who advertize their "theories" here seem to not want to learn about anything that contradicts them.
Really? This doesn't seem to hold true for me. For instance, if I were to ask:
If a heavy ion cosmic ray struck an identical earth atmospheric ion, creating a nano blackhole, how fast would such a blackhole be traveling after the collision? How quickly might it transit through the earth?
Instead of getting a nice, sound, mathematical answer, I get accused of being a crank. Why?
Really? This doesn't seem to hold true for me. For instance, if I were to ask:
If a heavy ion cosmic ray struck an identical earth atmospheric ion, creating a nano blackhole, how fast would such a blackhole be traveling after the collision? How quickly might it transit through the earth?
Instead of getting a nice, sound, mathematical answer, I get accused of being a crank. Why?
Most all people have is their education. Of course new questions can penetrate at any time.
Then they go into denial ....
or convert
Then they go into denial ....
or convert
QUOTE (Guest_Link+Sep 10 2006, 11:10 PM)
Pupamancur,
Interestingly, your labeling others with fringe ideas as quacks etc. is somewhat disingenuous. Doesn't your web site jump right in by labeling the hard work of other established researchers as blunders and you have it right?
http://blackholethermodyn.site.voila.fr/enter.html
Has your work been validated?
I do find the information interesting but it also may be considered by some as in the realm of fringe thinking as well.
This is not my website, I don't write this sort of nonsense
Interestingly, your labeling others with fringe ideas as quacks etc. is somewhat disingenuous. Doesn't your web site jump right in by labeling the hard work of other established researchers as blunders and you have it right?
http://blackholethermodyn.site.voila.fr/enter.html
Has your work been validated?
I do find the information interesting but it also may be considered by some as in the realm of fringe thinking as well.
This is not my website, I don't write this sort of nonsense
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 10 2006, 06:18 PM)
Isn't astronomy an important branch of physics? Should all of those amateur astronomers that are regularly discovering whole new worlds, just quit?
Besides, you didn't answer the second question: What master science works have you contributed? May I see them? Are you being a hypocrite?
No they shouuldn't.
The issue is the crank theorists.
Besides, you didn't answer the second question: What master science works have you contributed? May I see them? Are you being a hypocrite?
No they shouuldn't.
The issue is the crank theorists.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Sep 10 2006, 07:28 PM)
The behavior of folks like Pupamancur could conceivably cause potentially future greats to turn away from science altogether. Therefore, the potential for harm is great. This type of heavy criticism may endanger the scientst's willingness to explore new paths of thought and experimentation.
I doubt it, the errors are quite clear.
all theories are relative
science is a dynamic process of "sharping" different theories
see home page of Bruce Lipton
it is incredible that today still on all universities teach Darvin that is aut of it totally
do you thing "main stream" is right always ?
forget all about
science is a dynamic process of "sharping" different theories
see home page of Bruce Lipton
it is incredible that today still on all universities teach Darvin that is aut of it totally
do you thing "main stream" is right always ?
forget all about
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 11 2006, 12:11 PM)
do you thing "main stream" is right always ? forget all about
The situation of mainstream physic is similar to the situation before one hundred years, when some crucial unsolved problems were cumulated. Currently here's the problem, the mainstream theories are able to compute, but not explain (they're based upon formal ad-hoc postulates), the situation of alternative theories is just an opposite. I suppose, after seamless integration of massive environment & hidden dimensions concept into present theories the situation of mainstream physic will be OK for long time, again.
It's normal process of evolution. If nothing else, it makes the physic entertaining...
The situation of mainstream physic is similar to the situation before one hundred years, when some crucial unsolved problems were cumulated. Currently here's the problem, the mainstream theories are able to compute, but not explain (they're based upon formal ad-hoc postulates), the situation of alternative theories is just an opposite. I suppose, after seamless integration of massive environment & hidden dimensions concept into present theories the situation of mainstream physic will be OK for long time, again.
It's normal process of evolution. If nothing else, it makes the physic entertaining...
I have pointed out the problems.
Nothing can be smaller than a Planck Length.
Can you fix your theory?
COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006
AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR
QUANTUM Gravity
SOLUTION
What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link to a fixed new theory = science.
Send out this invitation to everyone that you know.
jal
Nothing can be smaller than a Planck Length.
Can you fix your theory?
COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006
AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR
QUANTUM Gravity
SOLUTION
What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link to a fixed new theory = science.
Send out this invitation to everyone that you know.
jal
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 11 2006, 10:03 AM)
The situation of mainstream physic is similar to the situation before one hundred years, ...
It's normal process of evolution. If nothing else, it makes the physic entertaining...
Fine but TOO SLOW. Take a look around. "Situation", involving energies, concepts, everything is totally different comparing to 1900 - now there is the great acceleration, vortex.
Even "calculations" are incorrect, inadequate, total confusion. Question is about Change and Life. Mainstream-alternative, TR-antiTR...false illusory dilemmas. Pandora's box is widely open.
Maybe sort of real "science" is conducting behind "scene" but even that...!?
It's normal process of evolution. If nothing else, it makes the physic entertaining...
Fine but TOO SLOW. Take a look around. "Situation", involving energies, concepts, everything is totally different comparing to 1900 - now there is the great acceleration, vortex.
Even "calculations" are incorrect, inadequate, total confusion. Question is about Change and Life. Mainstream-alternative, TR-antiTR...false illusory dilemmas. Pandora's box is widely open.
Maybe sort of real "science" is conducting behind "scene" but even that...!?
QUOTE (Turya+Sep 11 2006, 10:24 PM)
...Even "calculations" are incorrect, inadequate, total confusion. Question is about Change and Life. Mainstream-alternative, TR-antiTR...false illusory dilemmas....
Well, this is why I'm explaining the old good Aether theory in modern habit.
Return to roots, it can be said...
The modern physic has a wide dilemma: on the one hand here's a big pressure for publishing, on the other hand here's the obvious inability to deal with increasing number of publications with mostly repetitive & trivial informations. On the one hand the mathematical exactness of science is emphasized, on the other hand the very basic consequences are ignored wittingly. Om the one hand here's a big emphasis for seriousness & peer2peer review - on the other hand the pressure for publicity and struggle for grant funding was never so significant, like at this time. As the result, everybody tries to bring a new concepts, new theoriess, new results, new theories about old concepts, because science was simply become a big business. As an illustration: the string theory is nearly forty years old, it passed by countless "revolutions", generated a thousands of publications - nevertheless we have no usable results yet! Simply amazing... On the other hand, the fundamental theories & concepts, very powerful at the first sight (like the Aether or Heim's theories) are simply ignored in quiet.
In consideration of the fact, the mainstream science doesn't understand the particle composition, photon, entanglement, light and gravity nature, universe expansion and most the classical concepts of physic (basically no progress in quantum mechanic and relativity theory principles understanding), the situation isn't very different to global understanding in beginning of the last century. From this point of view, the speed of mainstream science evolution is not very turbulent, the main progress is on the field of applied science an technology, not the basic research.
Well, this is why I'm explaining the old good Aether theory in modern habit.
Return to roots, it can be said...
The modern physic has a wide dilemma: on the one hand here's a big pressure for publishing, on the other hand here's the obvious inability to deal with increasing number of publications with mostly repetitive & trivial informations. On the one hand the mathematical exactness of science is emphasized, on the other hand the very basic consequences are ignored wittingly. Om the one hand here's a big emphasis for seriousness & peer2peer review - on the other hand the pressure for publicity and struggle for grant funding was never so significant, like at this time. As the result, everybody tries to bring a new concepts, new theoriess, new results, new theories about old concepts, because science was simply become a big business. As an illustration: the string theory is nearly forty years old, it passed by countless "revolutions", generated a thousands of publications - nevertheless we have no usable results yet! Simply amazing... On the other hand, the fundamental theories & concepts, very powerful at the first sight (like the Aether or Heim's theories) are simply ignored in quiet.
In consideration of the fact, the mainstream science doesn't understand the particle composition, photon, entanglement, light and gravity nature, universe expansion and most the classical concepts of physic (basically no progress in quantum mechanic and relativity theory principles understanding), the situation isn't very different to global understanding in beginning of the last century. From this point of view, the speed of mainstream science evolution is not very turbulent, the main progress is on the field of applied science an technology, not the basic research.
QUOTE
... mainstream science doesn't understand the particle composition, photon, entanglement ...
Looks like MS (mainstream science) is a complete failure.
Also suggests some off-stream scientists understand much more.
Tell me where the mistake is !
Maybe some take their dreams for the reality?
Michel
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Sep 11 2006, 11:23 PM)
Tell me where the mistake is ! Maybe some take their dreams for the reality?
For example the widespread Michelson-Morley experiment interpretation as the refusal of Aether hypothesis. This experiment has found the constant speed of light.
Surprisingly enough, the very same result (i.e. the constant speed of light) was derived by atherist Lorentz in 1895 using a equations of Maxwell's Aether theory of light, published in 1867...
Interesting failure of Aether theory, isn't it?
For example the widespread Michelson-Morley experiment interpretation as the refusal of Aether hypothesis. This experiment has found the constant speed of light.
Surprisingly enough, the very same result (i.e. the constant speed of light) was derived by atherist Lorentz in 1895 using a equations of Maxwell's Aether theory of light, published in 1867...
Interesting failure of Aether theory, isn't it?
Wow, this forum is arrogant.
QUOTE (ate+Sep 12 2006, 12:21 AM)
Wow, this forum is arrogant.
Well, some people don't like the brainwashing and close-minded stances...
Try to send some article about Aether into Nature or Science magazines and you'll see, what the arrogance is...
My personal problem with science is rather based on priorities, like the ignorance of cold fusion research. You should consider, the science is sponsored by energetic lobby. Alternative sources of energy aren't welcomed.
Well, some people don't like the brainwashing and close-minded stances...
Try to send some article about Aether into Nature or Science magazines and you'll see, what the arrogance is...
My personal problem with science is rather based on priorities, like the ignorance of cold fusion research. You should consider, the science is sponsored by energetic lobby. Alternative sources of energy aren't welcomed.
Zeph. I don't know where I tried to refute the aether theory. Maybe you saw I simply didn't understand you.
Aether has always been with me at least for many years.
Aether has always been with me at least for many years.
Zephir, regarding your 8:53 PM post of today, please take correction. Many of your dates are unsupported.
Follow the time-line:
1670 - Ole Römer demonstrates that the variation of the timing of the satellites of Jupiter could be evidence of a certain well-defined velocity of light which is classically associated with waves, not particles
1720s - James Bradley discovers the effect of stellar aberration, first direct astronomical evidence for Copernicus’ heliostatic model of the solar system, prove of the finite velocity of light
1808,1815 - Polarization effect studied, lends support to the particle theory again
Early 1800s - Young and Fresnel revive the wave theory of light -- Aberration is only understood in terms of an immobile ether -- Polarization is described in terms of transverse waves, which means the ether is solid.
Follow the time-line:
1670 - Ole Römer demonstrates that the variation of the timing of the satellites of Jupiter could be evidence of a certain well-defined velocity of light which is classically associated with waves, not particles
1720s - James Bradley discovers the effect of stellar aberration, first direct astronomical evidence for Copernicus’ heliostatic model of the solar system, prove of the finite velocity of light
1808,1815 - Polarization effect studied, lends support to the particle theory again
Early 1800s - Young and Fresnel revive the wave theory of light -- Aberration is only understood in terms of an immobile ether -- Polarization is described in terms of transverse waves, which means the ether is solid.
QUOTE (Thomas Young+ 1804)
Upon considering the phenomena of the aberration of the stars I am disposed to believe, that the luminiferous ether pervades the substance of all material bodies with little or no resistance, as freely perhaps as the wind passes through a grove of trees
1810,1815 - Arago and Frensel develop the "Frensel" ether to modify the Young theory to make it impossible to detect the motion of the Earth through the ether by refractive techniques.
1821 - Faraday invents the homopolar generator
1831, 1845 - Cauchy, then Stokes, proposed the "Dragged" ether hypothesis, because the super-rigid, immobile ether of Young seems unlike anything in physics. It also does away with the "Frensel coefficient"
1851 - Fizeau raises a serious objection to the Cauchy-Stokes ether model, as the "Frensel coefficient" is required to drag the ether, and the air has "Frensel coefficient" = 1
1864 - Maxwell's Equations Presented to the Royal Society -- predicts light is electromagnetism
1871 - Airy shows that a telescope filled with water does not change the measured angle of aberration, another nail in the coffin of dragged ether
Early 1870s - demonstrates dispersion, which means that Fresnel’s simple model transparent bodies would have to drag along different amounts of ether for different colors of light. Skepticism of a literal ether grows.
1881 - Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the luminiferous ether -- Michelson interprets his null results as evidence for a dragged ether.
1886 - Michelson-Morley repeat Fizeau and come to the conclusion of an immobile ether. (Logic Point! if A is B and A is !B, then something is rotten in Denmark.)
1887 - The Michelson-Morley repeat of the 1881 result. Still no evidence of the Earth's motion through ether.
1887 - Hertz confirms Maxwell's theory about light being electromagnetic waves, and dragged ether hypothesis is in trouble.
1889 - FitzGerald proposes equations for length contraction to solve the inexplicable null result of 1881
1891 - Lorentz explains Frensel's coefficient "In Lorentz’s account, it is the waves
that are partially dragged by the medium and not the ether."
1892 - Lorentz proposes same solution as FitzGerald -- with no mechanics to it other than to salvage the Maxwell's Equations - Neither FitzGerald nor Lorentz propose how the ether could have such an exact property and why.
1904 - Lorentz discovers that Length Contraction would seem to go hand in hand with Time Dilation
1905 - Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect shows that photons have both particle-like and wave-like properties
1905 - Einstein proposes the physics background of Special Relativity
1908 - Special Relativity proven mathematically self-consistent, Minkowski space is born.
1932 - Kennedy and Thorndike improve on Michelson-Morley by using a different angle than 90-degrees so that length-contraction could be factored out, and one arm much shorter than the other.
Extracted from 19th Century Ether Theory. (Including many references to the actual papers.)
What are the properties of the "ether"
But all of ether theory is based on electromagnetism, as there are only 2 types of transverse waves a solid medium can propagate. How does the time dilation of the non-electromagnetic decay of the muon get explained in any type of ether theory?
Why is c appearantly a limited velocity for neutrinos which are nearly massless. and have no EM interactions?
What is the substance of the ether that it supports no longitudinal waves?
What is the basis for length contraction?
Why is the vacuum dispersionless?
Other than carrying EM waves and causing length contraction, what are the properties of the ether?
Why is the ether unlike any other material? Even Dark matter has density variations.
What possible reason could an ether serve other to satisfy a metaphysical desire for a mechanical mechanism for EM phenomena, and how can this desire be assuaged when there is no model for the required behavior of the (Lorentzian) ether?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=121832
1810,1815 - Arago and Frensel develop the "Frensel" ether to modify the Young theory to make it impossible to detect the motion of the Earth through the ether by refractive techniques.
1821 - Faraday invents the homopolar generator
1831, 1845 - Cauchy, then Stokes, proposed the "Dragged" ether hypothesis, because the super-rigid, immobile ether of Young seems unlike anything in physics. It also does away with the "Frensel coefficient"
1851 - Fizeau raises a serious objection to the Cauchy-Stokes ether model, as the "Frensel coefficient" is required to drag the ether, and the air has "Frensel coefficient" = 1
1864 - Maxwell's Equations Presented to the Royal Society -- predicts light is electromagnetism
1871 - Airy shows that a telescope filled with water does not change the measured angle of aberration, another nail in the coffin of dragged ether
Early 1870s - demonstrates dispersion, which means that Fresnel’s simple model transparent bodies would have to drag along different amounts of ether for different colors of light. Skepticism of a literal ether grows.
1881 - Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the luminiferous ether -- Michelson interprets his null results as evidence for a dragged ether.
1886 - Michelson-Morley repeat Fizeau and come to the conclusion of an immobile ether. (Logic Point! if A is B and A is !B, then something is rotten in Denmark.)
1887 - The Michelson-Morley repeat of the 1881 result. Still no evidence of the Earth's motion through ether.
1887 - Hertz confirms Maxwell's theory about light being electromagnetic waves, and dragged ether hypothesis is in trouble.
1889 - FitzGerald proposes equations for length contraction to solve the inexplicable null result of 1881
1891 - Lorentz explains Frensel's coefficient "In Lorentz’s account, it is the waves
that are partially dragged by the medium and not the ether."
1892 - Lorentz proposes same solution as FitzGerald -- with no mechanics to it other than to salvage the Maxwell's Equations - Neither FitzGerald nor Lorentz propose how the ether could have such an exact property and why.
1904 - Lorentz discovers that Length Contraction would seem to go hand in hand with Time Dilation
1905 - Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect shows that photons have both particle-like and wave-like properties
1905 - Einstein proposes the physics background of Special Relativity
1908 - Special Relativity proven mathematically self-consistent, Minkowski space is born.
1932 - Kennedy and Thorndike improve on Michelson-Morley by using a different angle than 90-degrees so that length-contraction could be factored out, and one arm much shorter than the other.
Extracted from 19th Century Ether Theory. (Including many references to the actual papers.)
What are the properties of the "ether"
But all of ether theory is based on electromagnetism, as there are only 2 types of transverse waves a solid medium can propagate. How does the time dilation of the non-electromagnetic decay of the muon get explained in any type of ether theory?
Why is c appearantly a limited velocity for neutrinos which are nearly massless. and have no EM interactions?
What is the substance of the ether that it supports no longitudinal waves?
What is the basis for length contraction?
Why is the vacuum dispersionless?
Other than carrying EM waves and causing length contraction, what are the properties of the ether?
Why is the ether unlike any other material? Even Dark matter has density variations.
What possible reason could an ether serve other to satisfy a metaphysical desire for a mechanical mechanism for EM phenomena, and how can this desire be assuaged when there is no model for the required behavior of the (Lorentzian) ether?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=121832
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 7 2006, 11:17 PM)
Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, too, believed in an aether and in Galilean relativity. His 1892 paper "De relatieve beweging van de aarde en den aether." ("The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether.") proposed an explanation for why the Michelson-Morley experiment had failed to detect ether drift, following the identical proposal of George Francis FitzGerald in 1889.
But is it easy to understand? It clearly is a numerical effect that fits with the null result, but how does it arise? If it arises from relative motion to the immobile aether, then it must be caused by the aether, but the aether's only previously known property is as a medium of electromagnetism, so why would length contraction apply to points in space with neutral particles at them? It is not a material contraction, such as those that arise from different temperatures, but a disagreement of observers in relative motion about the length of an object. If it were electromagnetic, then it shouldn't necessarily have the same effect on the weak force, or the strong force, or gravity -- each of these could have a different media -- a gravitoferous aether, a chromoferous aether, etc. Indeed how could one medium support all these qualitatively different action-at-distances. Experiment shows that the effect of time-dilation/length-contraction applies equally well to the weak decay of the muon as the electromagnetic decay of the pion. Why?
According to http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/dept/einstein/reid.html
The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment and the results of Unipolar induction, using moving magnet are incompatible with stationary aether,
Lorentz contraction
What is the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment?
R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, "Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time", Phys. Rev. 42 400-418 (1932).
This uses an interferometer similar to Michelson's, except that its arms are of different length, and are not at right angles to each other. They used a spectacular technique to keep the apparatus temperature constant to 0.001° C, which gave them sufficient stability to permit observations during several seasons. They also used photographs of their fringes (rather than observing them in real time as in most other interferometer experiments). Their apparatus was fixed to the earth and could only rotate with it. Their null result is consistent with SR.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1932PhRv...42..400K
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v64/i15/p1697_1
What are the results of Unipolar induction, using moving magnet ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach...218unipolar.pdf
But is it easy to understand? It clearly is a numerical effect that fits with the null result, but how does it arise? If it arises from relative motion to the immobile aether, then it must be caused by the aether, but the aether's only previously known property is as a medium of electromagnetism, so why would length contraction apply to points in space with neutral particles at them? It is not a material contraction, such as those that arise from different temperatures, but a disagreement of observers in relative motion about the length of an object. If it were electromagnetic, then it shouldn't necessarily have the same effect on the weak force, or the strong force, or gravity -- each of these could have a different media -- a gravitoferous aether, a chromoferous aether, etc. Indeed how could one medium support all these qualitatively different action-at-distances. Experiment shows that the effect of time-dilation/length-contraction applies equally well to the weak decay of the muon as the electromagnetic decay of the pion. Why?
According to http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/dept/einstein/reid.html
The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment and the results of Unipolar induction, using moving magnet are incompatible with stationary aether,
Lorentz contraction
What is the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment?
R.J. Kennedy and E.M. Thorndike, "Experimental Establishment of the Relativity of Time", Phys. Rev. 42 400-418 (1932).
This uses an interferometer similar to Michelson's, except that its arms are of different length, and are not at right angles to each other. They used a spectacular technique to keep the apparatus temperature constant to 0.001° C, which gave them sufficient stability to permit observations during several seasons. They also used photographs of their fringes (rather than observing them in real time as in most other interferometer experiments). Their apparatus was fixed to the earth and could only rotate with it. Their null result is consistent with SR.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1932PhRv...42..400K
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v64/i15/p1697_1
What are the results of Unipolar induction, using moving magnet ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
QUOTE
Faraday's law does not apply to this machine.
Instead, the Lorentz force law is used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law, discovered thirty years after Faraday's death, states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction. The radial movement of the electron then creates an electric current between the centre of the disc and its rim.
There is a subtle difficulty in this explanation, which often leads to a misunderstanding of how the machine works. The key word in the preceding paragraph is velocity, which prompts the question, "velocity relative to what?". If the velocity relative to the magnet is assumed as the cause of the Lorentz force, then the explanation contradicts special relativity, which states that it is impossible to tell whether a uniform magnetic field is moving or stationary. This assumption would also imply that rotating the magnet and not the disc would cause a current to flow, which is not what experimenters have found.
The correct interpretation of the velocity of the electron is that it is relative to the static parts of the machine, which are the sliding contacts and the circuit to which they are connected. In the language of special relativity, these objects act as the 'observer'. It is the velocity of the electron relative to these components that causes it to experience the Lorentz force.
Instead, the Lorentz force law is used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law, discovered thirty years after Faraday's death, states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction. The radial movement of the electron then creates an electric current between the centre of the disc and its rim.
There is a subtle difficulty in this explanation, which often leads to a misunderstanding of how the machine works. The key word in the preceding paragraph is velocity, which prompts the question, "velocity relative to what?". If the velocity relative to the magnet is assumed as the cause of the Lorentz force, then the explanation contradicts special relativity, which states that it is impossible to tell whether a uniform magnetic field is moving or stationary. This assumption would also imply that rotating the magnet and not the disc would cause a current to flow, which is not what experimenters have found.
The correct interpretation of the velocity of the electron is that it is relative to the static parts of the machine, which are the sliding contacts and the circuit to which they are connected. In the language of special relativity, these objects act as the 'observer'. It is the velocity of the electron relative to these components that causes it to experience the Lorentz force.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach...218unipolar.pdf
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 12 2006, 01:57 AM)
..regarding your 8:53 PM post of today, please take correction. Many of your dates are unsupported...
Well, I've used just a two dates, but it's true the 1867 was last year of Maxwell's life, the first set of his equation was published in 1864, but many corrections were published later. I'll consider the 1864, instead for the future... Concerning the 1895 date, please consider this source, for example:
It had already been conjectured by George Fitzgerald in 1894 and independently by Lorentz 1895 that the Michelson-Morley result could be accounted for if moving bodies were contracted in the direction of their motion. Some of the paper's core equations, the Lorentz transforms, had been published by Joseph Larmor (1897, 1900), Hendrik Lorentz (1899, 1903, 1904) and Henri Poincaré (1905), in a development of Lorentz's 1904 paper. Einstein revealed underlying reasons for this geometrical oddity, which differed from the explanations given by FitzGerald, Larmor and Lorentz, but similar in many respects to the reasons given by Poincaré (1905).
The Maxwell's mechanical theory is based on the transversal wave spreading and it requires the light speed invariance to work as well. So if you're looking for working aether theory, which is using the c=const. So you should consider the Maxwell's model at first.
The Maxwell's mechanical theory is based on the transversal wave spreading and it requires the light speed invariance to work as well. So if you're looking for working aether theory, which is using the c=const. So you should consider the Maxwell's model at first.
... Why is c apparently a limited velocity for neutrinos which are nearly massless. and have no EM interactions?
Because the neutrinos are formed by standing waves of Aether like all the other particles, just smaller bubble generation, if we consider the recursive Aether foam model (i.e. the foam formed by foam in nested phase transforms).
Please consider, the modern Aether theory, like the AWT doesn't excludes the longitudinal waves, it just explain, why the energy portion would be insignificant with respect of transversal waves. The same situation is valid on water surface or in dense foam.
Please consider, the modern Aether theory, like the AWT doesn't excludes the longitudinal waves, it just explain, why the energy portion would be insignificant with respect of transversal waves. The same situation is valid on water surface or in dense foam.
... What is the basis for length contraction?
The deBroglie wave, which is similar to the wave formed above the fish, swimming near water surface.
Because the foam formed by foam recursively behaves like meta-material, i.e. the composite with autofocusation effect. At the higher energy densities a normal dispersion occurs into particles, after all (so called materialization of gamma ray).
Because the foam formed by foam recursively behaves like meta-material, i.e. the composite with autofocusation effect. At the higher energy densities a normal dispersion occurs into particles, after all (so called materialization of gamma ray).
... Other than carrying EM waves and causing length contraction, what are the properties of the ether?...
I've no reason not to consider, the other interaction would behave by the same way, like the light, for example at higher gravitational gradients inside quark stars and black holes, where the gluons and W/Z bosons would behave like common "long distance" interactions.
The Aether behaves fundamentally like quite normal matter - the only difference is, we are formed by it, too...
The Aether behaves fundamentally like quite normal matter - the only difference is, we are formed by it, too...
...What possible reason could an ether serve other to satisfy a metaphysical desire for a mechanical mechanism for EM phenomena, and how can this desire be assuaged when there is no model for the required behavior of the (Lorentzian) ether?..
Because such concept enables to introduce the mass-energy theorem E=mc^2 into field theory in quite deep level, thus simplifying the understanding of reality on the base of real life experience. It enables to derive the behavior of space-time just on the base of trivial wave equation
, which would be a truly wonderful thing (if confirmed, of course).
Well, I've used just a two dates, but it's true the 1867 was last year of Maxwell's life, the first set of his equation was published in 1864, but many corrections were published later. I'll consider the 1864, instead for the future... Concerning the 1895 date, please consider this source, for example:
It had already been conjectured by George Fitzgerald in 1894 and independently by Lorentz 1895 that the Michelson-Morley result could be accounted for if moving bodies were contracted in the direction of their motion. Some of the paper's core equations, the Lorentz transforms, had been published by Joseph Larmor (1897, 1900), Hendrik Lorentz (1899, 1903, 1904) and Henri Poincaré (1905), in a development of Lorentz's 1904 paper. Einstein revealed underlying reasons for this geometrical oddity, which differed from the explanations given by FitzGerald, Larmor and Lorentz, but similar in many respects to the reasons given by Poincaré (1905).
QUOTE
... all of ether theory is based on electromagnetism, as there are only 2 types of transverse waves a solid medium can propagate. How does the time dilation of the non-electromagnetic decay of the muon get explained in any type of ether theory?
The Maxwell's mechanical theory is based on the transversal wave spreading and it requires the light speed invariance to work as well. So if you're looking for working aether theory, which is using the c=const. So you should consider the Maxwell's model at first.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... all of ether theory is based on electromagnetism, as there are only 2 types of transverse waves a solid medium can propagate. How does the time dilation of the non-electromagnetic decay of the muon get explained in any type of ether theory? |
The Maxwell's mechanical theory is based on the transversal wave spreading and it requires the light speed invariance to work as well. So if you're looking for working aether theory, which is using the c=const. So you should consider the Maxwell's model at first.
... Why is c apparently a limited velocity for neutrinos which are nearly massless. and have no EM interactions?
Because the neutrinos are formed by standing waves of Aether like all the other particles, just smaller bubble generation, if we consider the recursive Aether foam model (i.e. the foam formed by foam in nested phase transforms).
QUOTE
... What is the substance of the ether that it supports no longitudinal waves?
Please consider, the modern Aether theory, like the AWT doesn't excludes the longitudinal waves, it just explain, why the energy portion would be insignificant with respect of transversal waves. The same situation is valid on water surface or in dense foam.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... What is the substance of the ether that it supports no longitudinal waves? |
Please consider, the modern Aether theory, like the AWT doesn't excludes the longitudinal waves, it just explain, why the energy portion would be insignificant with respect of transversal waves. The same situation is valid on water surface or in dense foam.
... What is the basis for length contraction?
The deBroglie wave, which is similar to the wave formed above the fish, swimming near water surface.
QUOTE
... Why is the vacuum dispersionless?...
Because the foam formed by foam recursively behaves like meta-material, i.e. the composite with autofocusation effect. At the higher energy densities a normal dispersion occurs into particles, after all (so called materialization of gamma ray).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ... Why is the vacuum dispersionless?... |
Because the foam formed by foam recursively behaves like meta-material, i.e. the composite with autofocusation effect. At the higher energy densities a normal dispersion occurs into particles, after all (so called materialization of gamma ray).
... Other than carrying EM waves and causing length contraction, what are the properties of the ether?...
I've no reason not to consider, the other interaction would behave by the same way, like the light, for example at higher gravitational gradients inside quark stars and black holes, where the gluons and W/Z bosons would behave like common "long distance" interactions.
QUOTE
...Why is the ether unlike any other material? Even Dark matter has density variations....
The Aether behaves fundamentally like quite normal matter - the only difference is, we are formed by it, too...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...Why is the ether unlike any other material? Even Dark matter has density variations.... |
The Aether behaves fundamentally like quite normal matter - the only difference is, we are formed by it, too...
...What possible reason could an ether serve other to satisfy a metaphysical desire for a mechanical mechanism for EM phenomena, and how can this desire be assuaged when there is no model for the required behavior of the (Lorentzian) ether?..
Because such concept enables to introduce the mass-energy theorem E=mc^2 into field theory in quite deep level, thus simplifying the understanding of reality on the base of real life experience. It enables to derive the behavior of space-time just on the base of trivial wave equation
, which would be a truly wonderful thing (if confirmed, of course).
But I have:
“De relatieve beweging van de aarde en den aether.” H.A. Lorentz, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis- en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Verslagen der Zittingen 1 (1892–93): 74–79. Reprinted in translation: “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether.” In: Collected Papers (P. Zeeman and A. D. Fokker, eds.), Vol. 4. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1937. Pp. 219–223
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_FitzGerald
“De relatieve beweging van de aarde en den aether.” H.A. Lorentz, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Wis- en Natuurkundige Afdeeling. Verslagen der Zittingen 1 (1892–93): 74–79. Reprinted in translation: “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Ether.” In: Collected Papers (P. Zeeman and A. D. Fokker, eds.), Vol. 4. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1937. Pp. 219–223
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_FitzGerald
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
However, he is better known for his conjecture in 1889 that if all moving objects were foreshortened in the direction of their motion, it would account for the curious result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. FitzGerald based this idea in part on the way electromagnetic forces were known to be affected by motion; in particular, he drew on equations that had been derived a short time before by his friend Oliver Heaviside. The Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz hit on a very similar idea in 1892 and developed it more fully the in connection with his theory of electrons. The so-called Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis later became an important part of Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity, published in 1905.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...0/Michelson.pdf
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...0/Michelson.pdf
QUOTE (Harvey R Brown+2003)
The conundrum of the MM null-result was surely in the back of FitzGerald’s mind when he made an intriguing suggestion in a letter to Heaviside in January 1889. The suggestion was simply that a Heaviside distortion might be applied “to a theory of the forces between molecules” of a rigid body. *3*
FitzGerald had no more reason than anyone else to believe in 1889 that these intermolecular forces were electromagnetic in origin. No one knew. But if these forces too were rendered anisotropic by the mere motion of the molecules, which FitzGerald regarded as plausible in the light of Heaviside’s work, then the shape of a rigid body would be altered as a consequence of the motion. This line of reasoning was briefly spelt out, but with no explicit reference to Heaviside’s work, in a note [9] that FitzGerald published later in the year in the American journal Science *4*
3 To my knowledge, the first historian to call attention to this letter was B. Hunt [8].
4 See FitzGerald [9]. The note is reprinted in Brush [10] and most of it in Bell [11].
B. J. Hunt (1988), ‘The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction’, British Journal for the History of Science 21, 61–76.
G. F. FitzGerald (1889), ‘The Ether and the Earth’s Atmosphere’, Science 13, 390.
S. G. Brush (1967), ‘Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction’, Isis 58, 230–232.
J. S. Bell (1992), ‘George Francis FitzGerald’, 1989 lecture, abridged by Denis Weare in Physics World 5, 31–35.
It's possible that some people have confused the date of the English translation of Lorentz with the actual publication of Lorentz. Or perhaps this much longer work is getting false priority:
Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1895). Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern. Leiden: Brill. Reprinted in Lorentz 1934–39, Vol. 5, pp. 1–138. Page references are to this reprint.
Edit: Confirmed:
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/litserv/dis...ss/Chapter3
FitzGerald had no more reason than anyone else to believe in 1889 that these intermolecular forces were electromagnetic in origin. No one knew. But if these forces too were rendered anisotropic by the mere motion of the molecules, which FitzGerald regarded as plausible in the light of Heaviside’s work, then the shape of a rigid body would be altered as a consequence of the motion. This line of reasoning was briefly spelt out, but with no explicit reference to Heaviside’s work, in a note [9] that FitzGerald published later in the year in the American journal Science *4*
3 To my knowledge, the first historian to call attention to this letter was B. Hunt [8].
4 See FitzGerald [9]. The note is reprinted in Brush [10] and most of it in Bell [11].
B. J. Hunt (1988), ‘The Origins of the FitzGerald Contraction’, British Journal for the History of Science 21, 61–76.
G. F. FitzGerald (1889), ‘The Ether and the Earth’s Atmosphere’, Science 13, 390.
S. G. Brush (1967), ‘Note on the History of the FitzGerald-Lorentz Contraction’, Isis 58, 230–232.
J. S. Bell (1992), ‘George Francis FitzGerald’, 1989 lecture, abridged by Denis Weare in Physics World 5, 31–35.
It's possible that some people have confused the date of the English translation of Lorentz with the actual publication of Lorentz. Or perhaps this much longer work is getting false priority:
Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1895). Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern. Leiden: Brill. Reprinted in Lorentz 1934–39, Vol. 5, pp. 1–138. Page references are to this reprint.
Edit: Confirmed:
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/litserv/dis...ss/Chapter3