To Martillo: Some observations about subjects you have recently mentioned: closed minds, new theories, Newton, scientific methods, Crackpots etc. In MacM's uniKEF I explained to Physics Monkey why I even bother to argue with MacM (and most have stopped trying, so perhaps I am uniquely foolish). I do so because my opinion of him is like mine of you. Intelligent, creative people with good minds. As a former physics professor, to see such good minds lost to the "crackpot logic" (see it below) hurts me and challenges me, as it should any teacher worth their salt (old Roman expression* from which "salary" comes - see I am hopeless - I can't stop trying to teach, even in retirement, and I am foolish. - I try to teach people I know will not learn.) But back to the point of this post: As editor of the CRACKPOT proceeding, (You know the full name of the conference already - those who do not can find it in prior post) I have some expertise in knowing about "crackpot logic." It resembles the mystic "7 fold way" in that it has seven steps: 1 "I claim...." 2 "It must be true" 3 "The math is hard;" 4 "But since it must be true, I need not do it." 5 "The results would just be the same as standard theory, except they do differ where standard theory has not yet been tested." 6 "Why is it that others minds are so closed they can understand this?" 7 "And they call themselves Physicists! - he,he,he Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! " Do you recogniz any thing here? I expect not. Let me speak on Newton then: Newton followed the first three steps exactly. Well, almost exactly. He had notebooks full of geometric proofs before he began to write his great book. Thus, he starts most proofs in that book with "I say..." not, "I claim ..." Generally "claim" tends to admit that the mater is still open to discussion, but as he had the rigorous proofs before him as he wrote, he wrote "I say..." as the introduction to most. BTW, if as I suspect, you have never read Principles of mathematics take a look at it. You will be, as I was years ago, amazed to see what a powerful tool geometry can be in the hands of a genius. -I do not mean "analytical geometry." I mean things like: "Let line AB be any cord of circle C and let line DE be perpendicular to AB and pass thru the center of C .... etc. With this tool only he proves theorems, limas, corollaries, etc that I bet you can not, even with the much better tools now available to you. It is a truly amazing display of talent. Newton found step three a challenge , not an excuse to go on to step 4. Although he makes no use of it in Principles of mathematics, he wanted to make numerical predictions that could be tested, and the math of his day was not up to the task. He solved that problem too - He invented calculus-. Have you at least heard of it? I did no see any in the little bit of your "New light..." site I tasted, but I have always operated on the theory that one need not eat all of a rotten egg to know it is rotten, so perhaps you have some brilliant (even a "new light" you claim) displays of math there? You seem to be exactly on track thru steps 4, 5, and 6, but you are a little off course in 7. Not much, only a little. You have not in the post I have read ever put in the: he,he,he, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I know I can not change your thought pattern or logic. Year of trying wtih similar case have taught me that, but I do recommend you get back exactly to the crackpot logic of step 7. I.e. lighten up a little. Stick in a few " he,he,he, and "tongue-out" icon or two, We can all benefit from a little humor. If this is difficult for you ask MacM to help you - he is an expert, no offense intended. I enjoy my arguments with him more because of his skills in this regard. He is not only intelligent, creative, etc but also Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (see name of symbol if you don't know it.) * BTW that is not first hand knowledge - I am old, but not that old, he,he,eh.
Back to the discussion at hand...it seems that most everyone agrees on the wave properties of light with the particle property being in dispute. I, as usual, take the opposite stance. Waves propogate from a source and transfer their energy whichin a a medium. A wave propogates at a given velocity (based upon the medium it is traveling though) and decrease in aplitude in direct relation its "length"...are you saying that a sphere of a photon is emitted from the sun and decreases in amplitude every moment the "sphere" gets larger?...because if not, then you are saying that energy is created as the wave continues to increase in size, yet also maintain its amplitude. Now, let a photon be a bit of information and the "wave" properties originate as a result of the single photons probability of being anywhere. The "speed of light" is therfore an average of all probable locations a photon can be exist in x amount of time. By observation the photons probability of existing , can cause interferance with itself, meaning there are some places said photon will exist and some places it will not exist, however, this cannot be known without the location (in 4d) of the observer being defined. - KitNyx
Billy T, By the way I fully believe in Newton theories like F=ma and that Gravity exists due to the Gravity Force = KM1M2/r2 while you and all the modern physicists deny them!!! For you F=dp/dt and mass varies with velocity and gravity is due to spacetime deformation, things Newton never talked about!!! My theories are totally compatible with Newton thoughts, yours don't. One final comment: why don't you try to discuss physics in spite of "crackpot's manual", etc. You shoud post those irrelevant and stupidly big posts may be in a psichology forum... There you will also realize about parrots' behavior.
KitNyx, I liked this. The wave model cannot explain the photoelectric effect! But listen to Fo3 that have a new theory: "Wave Packets"...
Not much problem with what you say but it is a little vague at spots and only verbal (no math) and not very new, very old in fact. For example: I am not clear what your "opposite stance" is exactly. I also have a little trouble with the propagation being explained by "single photons probability of being anywhere." I assume you do not want "everywhere" to include the back side of Planet Pluto etc. but only points that are "near-by" where the photon currently is. I.e. near where the photon has already propagated to. (Correct me if I am assuming wrong on this. - Your post is vague about just how much of space is included in "everywhere." Surely, you did not intend to include the backside of PLuto, did you?) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Unfortunately your theory of light propigation, even if modified to replace your simple "everwhere" with "everwhere very near by," does not seem to have any "forward bias." That can be easily corrected. - A near contemporary of Newton (Huygen) had a theory, very similiar to yours (if I understand your drift). Like you, Huygen thought that from the current location of the "photons," the "new ones," generated by the dying "old ones" (but he spoke of "wavelets" not "photons" - That term came about 300 years later.) or "daughter wavelets" as he called them, were born created in all possible near-by space. However, he did not let the probably be random or vague as you do. Huygen was both mathematically specific and had the good sense to not assume they were equally likely to be going backwards into the "everywhere near-by" space, so he included a "cosine strength factor" in his theory. (Cosine of the "right/left spread angle" or twice angle relative to the line between where they recently were and where they currently are.) that gives zero probability to exactly backwards and unity probability to forward propagation. If you adopt Huygen's cosine factor, you will be only a little more than 300 years late. Most people in eastern cultures have forgotten about Huygen, so perhaps if you make your theory a little less vague and steal some ideas from Huygen, you can still publish your theory in some Romanian or Trukish journal. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I want to warn you not to comment on "difraction" - Newton said about every I think you could (and possibly a lot more) long before you were born, but he did not get "refraction" right. Huygen did - see later text. Newton was a strong supporter of the "light is a particle" side of the dispute. (The dispute pre-dates quantum mechanic by at least 300 years. - The ancient Greeks also held that light, as it relates to vision, was particles that shot out of the eyes, but I am wandering again...) I think it was Newton who noted that when the particles of light pass thru a very fine slit, a significant fraction hit one of the edges of the slit. Those hitting the right edge bounce into the left space behind the slit and conversely those that stike the left slit bounce into the right side space behind the slit. It is the further bouncing with center of the beam particles as those from both edges pass thru the more central part of the light beam that causes the pattern observed. - Note also as the slit is slowly opened, the central beam is made wider, less of the "slit bouncers" make it thru the wider central section. Those that do still get thru were particially swept along with the flow before getting thru and so the "difraction pattern" first narrows and then disappears if the slit gets too wide. (Can you do better than that? - I doubt it.) It is interesting to note (at least to me) that "genius Newton" was wrong in one of his arguments with Huygen. Newton built a math model of how light particle rays should bend as they passes from air into glass etc - what we now call "refraction." It predicted it would be as the ratio of the TANGENTS of the relative speed of light in air and glass. He not only knew these speed were different, but knew about the dispersion of light also, but I am wandering again. Newton was wrong and Huygen whose constantly self regenerating wavelet theory is closer to the truth (Maxwell's equations) had the law of refraction correct. It goes as the SIN of these speeds. (Or as we now say: sin of the indicess of refraction, not the tangets. The bend angle is small and for small angles there is very little difference between SIN and TAN. I think both men went to their graves fully convenced the other was wrong. - Much like most the disputing posters here will.) Back to your vague post: can you be a little more specific about "x"? Is this period in the second range? I think not. In the nanosecond range? Perhaps, etc. Just what time period are you speaking of? PS - Why not adopt Huygen's old theory? Compared toyours, it is both more accurate (no propagation into the backside of the wavefront's "everywhere near-by") and it is mathematically precise, not just words; but, no modern physicist will follow your ideas, because Maxwell got it all correct, without any "ad hoc" assumptions such as: the daughter wavelets spreading everywhere near-by have their probability (intensity) distribution peaked in the forward direction because it is modulated by a cosine function, etc.
Billy T, thank you for the patronization. Your sarcasm was especially effective in being a tool for constructive criticism. Tell me, did Jack explain all of the above to you? Just wondering. And no, Huygen's work was on the wave properties of light. I feel no need to steal his work and play it off as my own. In all actuallity, I find this whole discussion absurd. Tell me, why do we think that subatomic "particles" must be either particles or waves...all they need to be is a total of their observed properties. They need be neither point particles or waves, the question is irrelevant. I was just trying to 1) change the subject to something more constructive and 2) stimulate thought by briefly describing the wave properties as a result of probability. Personally, I enjoy reading peoples ideas and theories. I enjoy intellectual stimultation, however, I spent hours in Sciforums trying to follow math that I later reasoned was either pointless nonsense or was so abstract it symbolized or described nothing that the writer was attempting to prove. Instead of making people wade through equations they cannot or do not want to understand...I proposed an idea and if they want more information or better explainations they can ask for it. You however, did nothing but ridicule...with facts and figures that are bombastically abstract and disjointed that I for one could not understand what you where trying to say, other than the ridiculing tone of course(of course, I read that your "textbook" was just as noncontiguous, by the way - would not a conglomerate of monopoles be a...uh...magnet)... I find this amazing coming from someone who can appear to have a conversation about UniKEF. In fact, I am not sure BillyT and MacM are not one and the same. The idea I presented was one presented by David Deutch, a physicist at Oxford University. One of his ideas is that the wave functions of particles are a result of inteferance caused by probability. I promise, his book "The Fabric of Reality" was more grounded in physics than yours. So, if you want equations...google him. As for wavelets, I am not sure what you are referring to especially since they where first defined and used in information systems when? In the mid-70's or 80's? That is the 1970's, not the 1670's when Huygen lived. Curious. - KitNyx
Oh and as for my archaic ideas...please show me a reference to quantum computing (that is the field I was studying when first heard the Copenhagen Interpretation and other theories inwhich the wave function is not "reality" based.) prior to the 1970's. But, perhaps you are right...for me physics is a hobby. But, I can go elsewhere if people are jack$%*'s about discussing it...I feel no need to whip mine out, so stand there with your pants down if you insist...I will find something better to do. Thanks for your time. - KitNyx
I think you are fully correct in the above. It is a good view. Too bad so many want to extrapolate their every day experience and for example insist light must be either wave or particle. In addition to advocating light is waves, in contrast to Newton's "light is particles," Huygen developed a nice graphical way to show difracation, forward propagations, refractions effects. That was what I was telling you is basically your theory 300 or more years ago. If do not know his graphical scheme I will either try to describe it or Google (for you) a site that does.
yes it would, but not like any you have ever seen - they all have dipole fields (both N and S poles). At least until it collapsed into a black hole. After that I don't know. Static electric fields (not EM waves) are thought to get out by many who know much more GR than me. So I bet static magnetic fields would too. BTW it might only take a couple of monoples to make a black hole. All theories predict they are very very heavy. The smallest mass I have seen predicted is E16 times the mass of a proton. The largest mass I recall seeing is about E24 proton masses for each monopole. If you find one, you would be very very rich. You can rent it to people doing high energy physcis. It is very easy to accelerate and big accelerator (very expensive) need not be built. The volume of a monopole is even less well known. a very small mass in a very very small volume can make a black hole. Perhaps the reason none have been found is all most all that big bang predicts should have been produced have become black holes and since they are small BHs evaproated away by now. tiny BHs only last a few seconds. What happens to their magnetic field in this scenario, I have not the faintest idea.
martillo, You are right that modern physicists have developed a number of theories that extend and complement Newton's original work by correcting it where it was wrong and making sure it survives where it worked so well. However, you seem to be a bit confused about the history of Newton and his ideas. First, it is a common misconception that Newton wrote F=ma when in fact he wrote his second law as F = dp/dt. As everyone here knows, these two are the same when mass is constant as it is in the simplest applications, so Newton could have easily written F=ma and been wrong, but he got it right by writing F=dp/dt. No modifcation of Newton's laws were required to describe rocket motion for instance. Secondly, though Newton wrote down his law of unversal gravitation, he again noted in the Principia that that his law made no sense! He correctly realized that the action-at-a-distance principle that his law embodied seemed very unphysical. Nevertheless, he used the law to explain Kepler's laws because it worked so well despite the fact that he knew it must be approximate. So Newton and modern physicists are a bit more in tune than you might think.
As usual, PM is 100% correct. I might just add that in Principles ... or Optics... (I am confused as have read both, years ago) he offers a "explanation" of how gravity "works" but quickly afirms it is nonsense. MacM's uniKEF idea is quite similar in several aspects, but some Newton's "cosmic flux" comes out of the sun as sort of negative momentum particles most of which, like MacM's cosmic flux, just pass thru everything with no interaction but a few are absorbed. Don't trust me on this. My memory of the details is faulty, but I am sure Newton tried to tell how gravity "works"/ explain it mechanistically, but concluded this was impossible and adopted the modern view PM described above: Never mind how or why, Lets just get some math that quantatively predicts everything observed about "this thing called gravity." Too bad he did not know about his G = Mm/r^2 failure to work exactly for Mercury. If he had, I bet that great mind would have already have produced a MOND theory to take care of the precession of Mercury without destroying the great success of the simple version he did invent.
Physics Monkey, I have made a search in the internet about rocket motion equations and all the sites agree in the equation: F = m(dv/dt) = -u(dM/dt) where u is the speed of the gases expeled relative to the rocket. It is evident that it is used the equation: F = ma for the force and not: F = dp/dt The equation F = dp/dt would introduce transversal accelerations components when the mass varies as it happens with Lorentz Transforms but this is shown to not be present in the movement of rockets! Then the real equation for force (without any relativistic effects) is: F = ma Classic Mechanics is right.
Billy T, I totally agree with this. He would have produced a theory without any space-time deformation!
martillo, I fail to see how you can make the claim the rocket equations are derived using F=ma when you have explicitly written a time derivative of mass in the formula. How could such a term arise if F=ma is being used. The rocket equation is derived using F=dp/dt not F=ma. Also, you have dodged the issue. You claim classical mechanics is 'right' and I agree that it works rather well for a wide variety of phenomenon. However, the bottom line is that Newton, the founder of classical mechanics, wrote in his original text the equation F=dp/dt not F=ma. Do you deny this? You can't strictly have F=ma and classical mechanics be 'right' at the same time because the two are at odds with each other.
Physics Monkey, They all agree that the force acting on the rocket is due to the expelled mass and is F = -u(dm/dt) and that the equation of motion is: F = ma If it is considered F = dp/dt we should have: dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = vdm/dt + mdv/dt = F = -udm/dt and this is another equation! I know Newton wrote F = dp/dt but never thinking about mass variation! I agree with all text books where the right equation is F = ma
martillo, I'm afraid you've completely missed it. The rocket equation is derived using conservation of momentum which is a consequence of F=dp/dt.
Physics Monkey, Yhey use the conservation of momentum, right , but considering the total momentum of rocket + fuel at any moment and state dp/dt = 0. After that they derive the equation of motion of the rocket alone as: m(dv/dt) = -u(dm/dt) and specifically say that the right side corresponds to the force on the rocket (which has a mass that varies with time). It is clear that what is finally applied to the rocket to determine its movement is the equation F = ma !
Is it true that light only appears to behave as a particle when energy (observation) is added? I think this could be an important clue. Perhaps that addititional energy creates a "path of least resistence" similar to the way an electrified plate will shock your finger when touched.
