- Thank you received: 0
Relativity and a Solar Sail
21 years 7 months ago #3521
by hal
Replied by hal on topic Reply from
Gregg,
In math, there is internal consistency, and for mathematics, this is all that matters. It is possible that this consistency is universal, for example n-dimensional space really exists, or complex numbers have some physical meaning, but we didn't come to it yet.
Physics use math as a tool to describe the observations and to put ideas in a clear way for everybody, thus avoiding confusions like "I say "apples", you understand "oranges"". This is how the equations appear. Then somebody manipulates the equation, and derives some new information about the event investigated. Thus the positron existence was predicted by Dirac, the wave properties of the electron by de Broglie, etc.
Suppose you discovered the magnetic field of a current flowing into a straight copper wire. You ask yourself "Where does this field come from?". There are two possibilities:
- electrons moving from left to right in the copper
- protons moving from right to left in the copper
The effect of both is all the same - the magnetic field. For some reason you like more protons than electrons, and you state that it is the second possibility that holds (providing some argument in favour of it). The scientific community accepts your theory, as it describes very well the fenomenon, and at the moment there is no observation contradicting it. Then there comes Mr. Hall and discovers the effect named after him. This effect contadicts your theory, which is therefore falsifyed. This is, more or less, how the things go in physics.
I see you are a hard supporter of the ether idea. Well, this idea has more than a hundred years history. I suggest to you to learn something more about it - for example, search for "Michelson-Morley", or "ether" or "aether" on the web. You will find tons of articles, most of it pure bullshit, but if you have enough patience, you will make your own picture of the argument. Start with descriptions of the experiments made, then read comments and conclusions. Sincerely, I will be pleased to discuss with you.
I will not comment here the absurdities about the universe collapsing over a proton.
Yours
Hal
In math, there is internal consistency, and for mathematics, this is all that matters. It is possible that this consistency is universal, for example n-dimensional space really exists, or complex numbers have some physical meaning, but we didn't come to it yet.
Physics use math as a tool to describe the observations and to put ideas in a clear way for everybody, thus avoiding confusions like "I say "apples", you understand "oranges"". This is how the equations appear. Then somebody manipulates the equation, and derives some new information about the event investigated. Thus the positron existence was predicted by Dirac, the wave properties of the electron by de Broglie, etc.
Suppose you discovered the magnetic field of a current flowing into a straight copper wire. You ask yourself "Where does this field come from?". There are two possibilities:
- electrons moving from left to right in the copper
- protons moving from right to left in the copper
The effect of both is all the same - the magnetic field. For some reason you like more protons than electrons, and you state that it is the second possibility that holds (providing some argument in favour of it). The scientific community accepts your theory, as it describes very well the fenomenon, and at the moment there is no observation contradicting it. Then there comes Mr. Hall and discovers the effect named after him. This effect contadicts your theory, which is therefore falsifyed. This is, more or less, how the things go in physics.
I see you are a hard supporter of the ether idea. Well, this idea has more than a hundred years history. I suggest to you to learn something more about it - for example, search for "Michelson-Morley", or "ether" or "aether" on the web. You will find tons of articles, most of it pure bullshit, but if you have enough patience, you will make your own picture of the argument. Start with descriptions of the experiments made, then read comments and conclusions. Sincerely, I will be pleased to discuss with you.
I will not comment here the absurdities about the universe collapsing over a proton.
Yours
Hal
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 7 months ago #5682
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
The absurdity lies in the equations and their associated presumptions, not in reality. When equations fail to predict what actually happens, the equations are at fault, not reality.
Gregg Wilson
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.187 seconds