- Thank you received: 0
Nonneta's Challenge
17 years 7 months ago #19428
by nonneta
Replied by nonneta on topic Reply from
On 8 March 2007, (Time 16:35:17) in the thread on "Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces" (which was the predecessor of the current thread that you are reading) TVF wrote:
"By contrast, both gravitational and electric forces propagate at strongly FTL speeds."
On May 4, 2005 in a TVF message he quoted DaveL and then gave his reply:
DaveL wrote: "After having read Carlip's paper a bit more carefully, I am suspecting that the situation with general relativity is similar to the case of electrodynamics..."
TVF replied: "In both cases, forces propagate strongly faster than light, as shown for electrodynamic forces by the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment."
DaveL wrote: "I do not comprehend how TVF can take issue with Carlip's 1.6, which is merely the Lienard-Wiechert potential and is thus essentially a restatement of Maxwell's equations."
TVF replied: "Then you do not clearly understand the physical difference between forces and potential fields. See my paper addressing the L-W potential at:
“Reply to comments on ‘The speed of gravity’”, Phys.Lett.A 262, 261-263 (1999)."
In the article "The Speed of Gravity - Repeal of the Speed Limit" featured prominently on this web site, TVF writes:
"So ftl propagation in forward time is definitely possible; and gravitational and electrodynamic forces are examples of such ftl propagation."
I could proliferate such quotations ad nauseum. This has been one of the main points at issue in EVERY discussion that TVF has ever had (with any knowledgable person), and he fully stands behind his claim that the electric force propagates at many times the speed of light. I have now provided quotes extending over a period of years, including messages to this board, articles featured on this board, and a published paper. Frankly, why I should have to cite these references here, of all places, is baffling, but apparently none of the participants here has ever acquainted themselves with TVF's
actual ideas.
Anyway, it shouldn't surprise you that TVF claims superluminal electric force, because his whole rationale for claiming that the force of gravity propagates superluminally is that lack of aberration implies superluminal propagation. The first thing any knowledgable person points out in response is that this isn't limited to just gravity, because there is no aberration in the ELECTRIC force either, a fact which TVF does not dispute. Hence, if TVF's claim that lack of aberration in the direction of a force implies nearly instantaneous propagation is correct, then (as TVF has repeatedly and emphatically asserted) the electric force must propagate almost instantaneously.
Honestly, I can't tell if you folks are just pretending to be totally unfamiliar with TVF's ideas, or if you are really totally unfamiliar with his ideas. And I'm not sure which of those alternatives is more troubling to contemplate...
"By contrast, both gravitational and electric forces propagate at strongly FTL speeds."
On May 4, 2005 in a TVF message he quoted DaveL and then gave his reply:
DaveL wrote: "After having read Carlip's paper a bit more carefully, I am suspecting that the situation with general relativity is similar to the case of electrodynamics..."
TVF replied: "In both cases, forces propagate strongly faster than light, as shown for electrodynamic forces by the Sherwin-Rawcliffe experiment."
DaveL wrote: "I do not comprehend how TVF can take issue with Carlip's 1.6, which is merely the Lienard-Wiechert potential and is thus essentially a restatement of Maxwell's equations."
TVF replied: "Then you do not clearly understand the physical difference between forces and potential fields. See my paper addressing the L-W potential at:
“Reply to comments on ‘The speed of gravity’”, Phys.Lett.A 262, 261-263 (1999)."
In the article "The Speed of Gravity - Repeal of the Speed Limit" featured prominently on this web site, TVF writes:
"So ftl propagation in forward time is definitely possible; and gravitational and electrodynamic forces are examples of such ftl propagation."
I could proliferate such quotations ad nauseum. This has been one of the main points at issue in EVERY discussion that TVF has ever had (with any knowledgable person), and he fully stands behind his claim that the electric force propagates at many times the speed of light. I have now provided quotes extending over a period of years, including messages to this board, articles featured on this board, and a published paper. Frankly, why I should have to cite these references here, of all places, is baffling, but apparently none of the participants here has ever acquainted themselves with TVF's
actual ideas.
Anyway, it shouldn't surprise you that TVF claims superluminal electric force, because his whole rationale for claiming that the force of gravity propagates superluminally is that lack of aberration implies superluminal propagation. The first thing any knowledgable person points out in response is that this isn't limited to just gravity, because there is no aberration in the ELECTRIC force either, a fact which TVF does not dispute. Hence, if TVF's claim that lack of aberration in the direction of a force implies nearly instantaneous propagation is correct, then (as TVF has repeatedly and emphatically asserted) the electric force must propagate almost instantaneously.
Honestly, I can't tell if you folks are just pretending to be totally unfamiliar with TVF's ideas, or if you are really totally unfamiliar with his ideas. And I'm not sure which of those alternatives is more troubling to contemplate...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 7 months ago #16646
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[nonneta] "Another alternative, as suggested in the previous message, would be to turn the site into an online tutorial on how to treat incoherent and indefensible ideas respectfully – which will be accomplished by banning people who don’t address such ideas favorably – but I doubt there would be much interest in such a site."
This is an odd complaint to make in a thread that was created specifically for the posts of a person " ... who <doesn't> address such ideas favorably ... ". It even has your name on it.
===
Finding a problem in how a theory handles one phenomenon does not automatically invalidiate the entire theory. If it did we would have had to abandon SR long ago. Despite its lack of physical explanations for some things, I'm not quite ready to pronounce it dead. At least not all of it.
Believe it or not, the thing we are trying to do here is find out how nature works in the physical sense, rather than prop up a particular theory or a particular part of a particular theory. Aberration comes into play in the case of forces, if the force is the result of something that propagates from source to target. Like the repulsive force that light waves exert on things. We only see it in a few cases, like dust particles and balloon satellites, because it is a very weak force that is proportional to surface area rather than mass.
I'm not conviced that Tom is right about the physical specifics of the electrical and magnetic and electromagnetic interactions. That was part of what we were talking about when you arrived. Part of the reason for this disagreement is that he thinks that the entrainment of eysium is dynamic and I think it has to be static.
We can't both be right. But we can both be wrong.
Your complaints are based (at least partially) on theory dependent assumptions from other theories. One of them is that there is no difference between physical and conceptual existence. The nature of reality is in dispute here.
Until we come to some sort of understanding on that issue it seems a waste of time to work on things that grow out of it. So, back to the basics?
LB
This is an odd complaint to make in a thread that was created specifically for the posts of a person " ... who <doesn't> address such ideas favorably ... ". It even has your name on it.
===
Finding a problem in how a theory handles one phenomenon does not automatically invalidiate the entire theory. If it did we would have had to abandon SR long ago. Despite its lack of physical explanations for some things, I'm not quite ready to pronounce it dead. At least not all of it.
Believe it or not, the thing we are trying to do here is find out how nature works in the physical sense, rather than prop up a particular theory or a particular part of a particular theory. Aberration comes into play in the case of forces, if the force is the result of something that propagates from source to target. Like the repulsive force that light waves exert on things. We only see it in a few cases, like dust particles and balloon satellites, because it is a very weak force that is proportional to surface area rather than mass.
I'm not conviced that Tom is right about the physical specifics of the electrical and magnetic and electromagnetic interactions. That was part of what we were talking about when you arrived. Part of the reason for this disagreement is that he thinks that the entrainment of eysium is dynamic and I think it has to be static.
We can't both be right. But we can both be wrong.
Your complaints are based (at least partially) on theory dependent assumptions from other theories. One of them is that there is no difference between physical and conceptual existence. The nature of reality is in dispute here.
Until we come to some sort of understanding on that issue it seems a waste of time to work on things that grow out of it. So, back to the basics?
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 7 months ago #19556
by Larry Burford
[nonneta] “So you claim that all “real” masses are ultimately composed of “unreal” entities with zero mass, and hence something comes from nothing. This is blatent “creation ex nihilo”. Likewise you assert that all real entities of positive volume are composed of unreal entities of zero volume, and that all real entities of positive radius are composed of unreal entities of zero radius. Needless to say, no finite number of zeros (real or unreal), nor even a countably infinite number of zeros, can sum to a positive value, so you are proposing that the finite (zero) somehow becomes infinite (a continuum). All this is in blatent violation of the principles that you claim to espouse.”
My apologies, I was sure I mentioned that no real (physical) thing is made of substance.
It exists as a concept. Kind of like a coordinate axis. I suppose this kind of thing can be said to be real in a way, but not in the same way as a ruler.
[nonneta] “ ... you haven’t defined “radius” or “mass” ... “
Perhaps a dictionary should be added to the list of references Tom suggested earlier. If we cannot rely on at least some of the work others have done in the past we are going to be at this for a long time.
Hmmm. Is there something about the dictionary definitions that you see as incompatible with “physical” entities?
[nonneta] “By the way, neither of the two mutually exclusive definitions of “primitive” you mentioned is correct. A primitive element of a conceptual framework need not be “small, and conversely the smallest things need not be primitive.”
My apologies again. I could have sworn I discussed examples of this sort of thing, like galaxies being some of the primitive entities comprising galactic clusters. And substance, the “conceptual” smallest possible thing, not being the “physical” smallest thing.
[nonneta] “ ... is there some objective distinction between mathematical descriptions and physical explanations?”
Since you’ve mentioned this several times, I guess it is significant to you. Hmmm, “objective”? I hope you are not a solipsist. If you are, we will never be able to see eye to eye.
To me the distinction seems so obvious that I forget it is not that way for everyone. And that means it needs to be nailed down. I’m not sure what you are looking for, so I’ll just pick what seems (to me) like an obvious starting point.
Can we agree that there is a difference between a mathematical object and a physical object?
Consider a sphere and a soccer ball as examples, respectively, of a mathematical object and a physical object. They have some similarities. Three dimensional, very symmetrical (“round“), their ratios of surface area to volume are smaller than for other three dimensional “things”.
The same equation can be used to describe both of them. Exactly in the case of the sphere, approximately in the case of the soccer ball. It would take a fairly complicated set of equations to describe the soccer ball exactly.
===
And they have some differences. Suppose I place a soccer ball in the center of a soccer field, and suppose I also write some equations that describe a sphere of the same size in the same place.
I can kick the soccer ball. but not the sphere. The soccer ball can be used to move another soccer ball. The sphere cannot move a soccer ball
The sphere is a concept. I can visualize it, but not kick it. I can even visualize the conceptual version of the soccer ball. the one described by the aforementioned set of equations. In my mind, or rendered on a monitor, it looks a lot like a physical soccer ball. But I still can’t kick it. Until I feed those equations into a Santa Clause Machine and build a physical soccer ball (one that I can kick), it is “just” a set of equations.
I suspect, however, that this is not going to satisfy your definition of “objective”.
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[nonneta] “So you claim that all “real” masses are ultimately composed of “unreal” entities with zero mass, and hence something comes from nothing. This is blatent “creation ex nihilo”. Likewise you assert that all real entities of positive volume are composed of unreal entities of zero volume, and that all real entities of positive radius are composed of unreal entities of zero radius. Needless to say, no finite number of zeros (real or unreal), nor even a countably infinite number of zeros, can sum to a positive value, so you are proposing that the finite (zero) somehow becomes infinite (a continuum). All this is in blatent violation of the principles that you claim to espouse.”
My apologies, I was sure I mentioned that no real (physical) thing is made of substance.
It exists as a concept. Kind of like a coordinate axis. I suppose this kind of thing can be said to be real in a way, but not in the same way as a ruler.
[nonneta] “ ... you haven’t defined “radius” or “mass” ... “
Perhaps a dictionary should be added to the list of references Tom suggested earlier. If we cannot rely on at least some of the work others have done in the past we are going to be at this for a long time.
Hmmm. Is there something about the dictionary definitions that you see as incompatible with “physical” entities?
[nonneta] “By the way, neither of the two mutually exclusive definitions of “primitive” you mentioned is correct. A primitive element of a conceptual framework need not be “small, and conversely the smallest things need not be primitive.”
My apologies again. I could have sworn I discussed examples of this sort of thing, like galaxies being some of the primitive entities comprising galactic clusters. And substance, the “conceptual” smallest possible thing, not being the “physical” smallest thing.
[nonneta] “ ... is there some objective distinction between mathematical descriptions and physical explanations?”
Since you’ve mentioned this several times, I guess it is significant to you. Hmmm, “objective”? I hope you are not a solipsist. If you are, we will never be able to see eye to eye.
To me the distinction seems so obvious that I forget it is not that way for everyone. And that means it needs to be nailed down. I’m not sure what you are looking for, so I’ll just pick what seems (to me) like an obvious starting point.
Can we agree that there is a difference between a mathematical object and a physical object?
Consider a sphere and a soccer ball as examples, respectively, of a mathematical object and a physical object. They have some similarities. Three dimensional, very symmetrical (“round“), their ratios of surface area to volume are smaller than for other three dimensional “things”.
The same equation can be used to describe both of them. Exactly in the case of the sphere, approximately in the case of the soccer ball. It would take a fairly complicated set of equations to describe the soccer ball exactly.
===
And they have some differences. Suppose I place a soccer ball in the center of a soccer field, and suppose I also write some equations that describe a sphere of the same size in the same place.
I can kick the soccer ball. but not the sphere. The soccer ball can be used to move another soccer ball. The sphere cannot move a soccer ball
The sphere is a concept. I can visualize it, but not kick it. I can even visualize the conceptual version of the soccer ball. the one described by the aforementioned set of equations. In my mind, or rendered on a monitor, it looks a lot like a physical soccer ball. But I still can’t kick it. Until I feed those equations into a Santa Clause Machine and build a physical soccer ball (one that I can kick), it is “just” a set of equations.
I suspect, however, that this is not going to satisfy your definition of “objective”.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 7 months ago #16648
by nonneta
Replied by nonneta on topic Reply from
Off topic comments deleted by LB. (Remember what I said about this being OUR definition, not yours?)
[nonneta] “ .. if you wish to discuss more general ideas in the philosophy of science, such as your purported distinction between physical explanations and mathematical descriptions, I request that you start a different thread … “
Nice try, but no cigar.
[nonneta, 18 Mar 12:08:19 in the original thread] “Just to warn you in advance, when you give me your example, I'm going to show you that all you have provided is a mathematical description. Then I'll show you that there are really two kinds of mathematical descriptions, those that you label "physical explanations" and those that you don't label "physical explanations". Then we will examine what distinguishes the former from the latter, and we'll find that it is a purely artificial and subjective distinction, based (in your case) on unjustified (and unjustifiable) prejudices, and moreover that your prejudices are irrevocably inconsistent with empirical facts. At that point the discussion will probably need to be moved to a different venue, since we will begin to actually think about physics in a meaningful way … “
I replied that this sounded interesting, and asked you show me how it worked with gas molecules and sound as an example of a physical explanation.. I’m still waiting.
Then I offered the example of a physical soccer ball. And again I’m left waiting.
Perhaps you can do what you say (SHOW me that what I call a physical object is in fact indistinguishable from a mathematical object). But SAYING that this is the case is not the same as SHOWING that it is the case.
To be clear. Focus on the sphere and the soccer ball. Show me that there is no difference between what I call a mathematical object and a physical object.
===
That is what is on topic, for now.
For everyone else, would you mind standing by for a bit, while I try get this cleared up? Of course, if you have a comment or question that is on this topic, by all means fire away.
[nonneta] “ .. if you wish to discuss more general ideas in the philosophy of science, such as your purported distinction between physical explanations and mathematical descriptions, I request that you start a different thread … “
Nice try, but no cigar.
[nonneta, 18 Mar 12:08:19 in the original thread] “Just to warn you in advance, when you give me your example, I'm going to show you that all you have provided is a mathematical description. Then I'll show you that there are really two kinds of mathematical descriptions, those that you label "physical explanations" and those that you don't label "physical explanations". Then we will examine what distinguishes the former from the latter, and we'll find that it is a purely artificial and subjective distinction, based (in your case) on unjustified (and unjustifiable) prejudices, and moreover that your prejudices are irrevocably inconsistent with empirical facts. At that point the discussion will probably need to be moved to a different venue, since we will begin to actually think about physics in a meaningful way … “
I replied that this sounded interesting, and asked you show me how it worked with gas molecules and sound as an example of a physical explanation.. I’m still waiting.
Then I offered the example of a physical soccer ball. And again I’m left waiting.
Perhaps you can do what you say (SHOW me that what I call a physical object is in fact indistinguishable from a mathematical object). But SAYING that this is the case is not the same as SHOWING that it is the case.
To be clear. Focus on the sphere and the soccer ball. Show me that there is no difference between what I call a mathematical object and a physical object.
===
That is what is on topic, for now.
For everyone else, would you mind standing by for a bit, while I try get this cleared up? Of course, if you have a comment or question that is on this topic, by all means fire away.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 7 months ago #16785
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
If aberrations are observed due to increasing elysium densities then there is no problem. We live on a gravitational mass. There is some elysium build-up around us that distorts even our light-based view of outer space. I am not sure what the specific problem you have with electrical force being FTL besides the fact that you say it doesn't. Please explain. I guess I am not a knowledgeable person...
Mark Vitrone
Mark Vitrone
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 7 months ago #16649
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
To all concerned: what is the electrical force? Is it distinct from the light carrying medium and the gravitational flux. Does it involve a particle or does it not?
We speak of "electromagnetism". The magnetism part could simply be focussed or linearized gravitational flux. If so, then a part of "electromagnetism" is ftl.
Mathematical equations quantify physical phenomena, they do not explain it. I use theories and mathematical models to design a process plant. When actual startup of the plant begins, Reality prevails and my mathematical model falls to wayside. More often then not, my model is not incorrect; it is incomplete.
Metascience undoubtedly has limitations. That doesn't make it wrong; it means that it is incomplete. I don't understand the utility of QED "peeing matches". (Gotcha, editor)
Gregg Wilson
We speak of "electromagnetism". The magnetism part could simply be focussed or linearized gravitational flux. If so, then a part of "electromagnetism" is ftl.
Mathematical equations quantify physical phenomena, they do not explain it. I use theories and mathematical models to design a process plant. When actual startup of the plant begins, Reality prevails and my mathematical model falls to wayside. More often then not, my model is not incorrect; it is incomplete.
Metascience undoubtedly has limitations. That doesn't make it wrong; it means that it is incomplete. I don't understand the utility of QED "peeing matches". (Gotcha, editor)
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.330 seconds