Full list of physics concepts with circular definition?

But you keep expressing the need to have a physical description of the Universe. Since you admit that your concept is only one of those possible, what is the point of having any?

Again, I exhort you to understand that physicists and cosmologists pursue the mathematical route because that way it is not open to interpretation. We deal with energy as a mathematical variable so that we avoid saying, "If I had to make some sort of guess...."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whilst I agree with what you have said I only have a slight but important distinction to draw.

We deal only with the effect of energy and not the energy itself. Now you will probably say that what I have suggested is irrelevant or unecessarilly pedantic.

I see no problem with running math simulations on the effects of pheno. but I think it worth to consider that we have yet to deal with the underlying substance of what causes all these effects.

It is so easy to talk of energy as if it is a complete unto itself statement , as if the word "energy" some how defines itself. Also the use of the word force is often relegated to some sort of abstraction that can be applied.

We often forget than when we talk of these things we are dealing only with observable effects and not the underlying causality of those forces and energies.

This is I think what MacM is argueing, and he in no way is attempting to deride the math just only wanting to clarify what it is you are expressing with that math.

I guess the thing that sticks out is that our entire physical knowledge is based on observations of the effects of things we can not understand. Until the actual understanding of these things is complete all this work and research could be improperly premised meaning that when the nature of gravity and magnetism etc if founded the science we have is somewhat precarious ( not unuseable but precarious all the same)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What makes you even think it has any meaning outside of it's mathematical context?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have two points I've been trying to make: one is, knowing exactly what it is does not help us predict its behaviour or make use of it. My second point is, imposing an understandable physical model is likely to impede your understanding and restrict your thinking, as the aether did in the 19th Century.

I also agree with AndersHermansson. There may be nothing at the bottom except pure mathematics, after which is just Hawking's statement about "what is it that breathes life into the equations?" - a question I believe to be unanswerable.

 

Because understanding the physical process we can elimiinate the regimes of inapplicable mathematics and there worthless conclusions rather that dabble for 100 years in fantasies about our universe. Because then an only then will we understand.

Initial guess are preludes to testing and verification. To not guess and accept mathematics blindly leads to false conclusions.

 

Excellent summation. Thanks.

 

Now this is funny. Are you a true scientist or just a buff?

 

I do not accept your unanswerable and unknowable conclusion. That is to defeat the purpose and process of science. To not seek the physical underlying principles reflected in test data is to allow mathematics to lead us into fantasy land and incorrect conclusions, wasting time and resources.
Regarding an ether.

********************************
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einsteinan address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden

************* Extracts from Einstein's Speech *******************

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................

Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
*****************************************************

Perhaps you spend to much time listening to todays physicist, which have re-interpreted Relativity and make claims in Einstein's behalf which he did not claim.

 

I don't see the relevance.

And no I don't really see myself as a scientist yet. I pissed away alot of years being spoiled but I'm trying to make up for it now at university.

 

The relevance is a true scientist would want to know as much as possible what he can conclude is truth.

A fair and encouraging response. Good luck.

 

When I say aether, of course I refer to the 19th century conception of an aether in which light was assumed to propagate through like waves through water. Such propagation assumed that a light beam fired off from a source moving at c would be measured to have a speed of 2c. This was shown to be false by the Michelson-Morley experiment which showed that light had precisely the same velocity in the direction of earth's travel and perpendicular to it. So if Einstein was talking about that aether, then he'd clearly taken leave of his senses!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However, whatever he may have theorised about the propagation of light in 1920, it was 6 years before the Uncertainty Principle and more years before the Copenhagen interpretation. Now, I'm not saying that CH is necessarily the correct answer, and Einstein himself was against it, but the important point is this: Einstein's personal opposition did not by itself invalidate the theory. Science goes where science is led, preferably not by prejudice by the opinions of those who made earlier contributions but who may very well be wrong on other matters. Einstein himself was a true scientist - he always admitted when he was wrong.

 

Actually you continue to mis-state the facts as do virtually everyother physicist. I really fail to understand why. MM (and many other tests since) DID NOT show precisely the same velocity. In fact every test including MM has shown a cyclic change which coincides with the earth's motion of rotation vs its orbit around the sun.

The issue was and actually is, that this signal WHICH IS PRESENT is not in accordance to the relative velocity change being measured. It is a minor fraction of such velocity BUT IT IS THERE.

So being truthful one should not say MM proved no ether. But infact that it proves an ether of unkown properties (i.e. - is not the static ether that was being sought.)

Clearly he wasn't but nor did he say "There is NO ether" but just the opposite "There MUST BE an ether". My point was not in support of an ether perse but of the falicy of current physicists of putting words into Einstien's mouth which do not belong there and falsely stating the case for an ether.

It would be nice if todays physicist had the same demeanor rather than hunkering down and lying as part of there support and proof of Relativity by a complete distortion of the actual record. There is abundant material historically, and some recently showing, a cyclic change in light signals where that cycle corresponds to earths motion. It just doesn't mathematically fit a static background rest reference.

That is to say the evidence is for a different ether with different properties, not that there is no ether. Unfortunately todays scientist seem rather determined to not look further for it since that would undermine their precious Relativity.

 

Bring the intelligence up a notch. I'm not disputing Einstein stated that there was an aether and by that he meant an aether of different properties to those of the 19th Century aether. My point was that the 19th Century conception of an aether led to preconceptions about the nature of the Universe which required a whole new generation of physicists to see past. This is germane to our discussion of your desire to find a physical model. Again, a physical model which is thought of before we've discovered all the "what" of the Universe is going to be misleading and take us into blind alleys.

Don't talk utter nonsense. You make it sound like there's a worldwide conspiracy of physicists determined to obscure your so-called "truth". That is not how the scientific method works. Anything that is stated as a theory is pored over and rigorously examined for error and misconception before it becomes universally accepted in the scientific community. They don't just add it to a dogmatic bible and then suppress all evidence to the contrary.

 

I would argue the opposite. Complex mathematics cannot be visualized. Hence physical models are not likely to evolve from them. A general understanding of something can cause us to wonder how it is so and physical modeling can be done. The mathematics then can confirm or falsify our view.

Mathematics only in the most general way can serve to guide our developement of a physical model. i.e. - Relativity's gamma function.

We can and should be looking for physical means of it being caused - generally. Some understanding can be made and that understanding certainly will not expand to include an infinity or singularity. We thereby get a better understanding of the limits of the mathematics of Relativity.

You create an impossible task to suggest we must rely on mathematics to produce the physical model. Just where does one start to concieve of a physical singularity or a physical infinity?

You seem to like to distort what has been said. I made no mention of a conspiracy. I notice your statement does not address the fact that virtually every modern physicists, even our science books, mis-state the true status of the history and findings regarding an ether. And they mis-state what Einstien said.

I see no basis for a conspiracy but I do see blind ignorance. that is being taught and so convienced of something that nothing else is or will be considered.

I am not saying they won't analyze another theory but they won't consider alternatives, until they are pushed directly in their face and then the effort is not as much to duplicate a finding or verify but to find the flaw and discredit.

And yes I understand falsifying is an important and necessary part of validation but the tone and statements being made tell the underlying truth.

There is no interest in overturning Relativity. This is the very basis of the personal attacks before and/or in lieu of any analysis. In our court system we will not allow somebody to become a juror if they display a predjudice - i.e. "I think he might be guilty".

But the first response to a new idea in the scientific community is "It is not likely because Relativity disagrees and Relativity has been right for 100 years".

It is not conspiracy it is arrogance.

 

I tend to agree with you MacM but it must be remembered that to counter a robust theory like relativity requires a very robust counter theory.

Obviously the better a theory is the harder it is to overturn.

Just as a matter of interest Something I observed here yesterday would cause concern.

I have a large 6inch diameter quartze crystal sphere, it is nearly perfect in it's geometry.

I placed it in my home office so that direct sulight coming into the room fell on the sphere.

The sphere, of course, magnified the light and on it's opposite to the light side a flare could be witnessed.

No wthe interesting thing about this is the flares spikes coming from the sphere were also curved like the sphere and were about 3 inches long.

So the effect was the white light was spiked spherically from the ball. It looked like as if tiny wires of white light were curling away from the ball.

Like a hand of fingers.

Now I woudl love to knwo how relativity can deal with this simple observation.

1) the light spikes were visable as 3 dimensional
2) they were curled outward and inward and visable from any angle.
3) they appeared stationary.
4) the immediate space around the ball seemed free of distortion.
5) this was witnessed by my partner and myself and observed not as an optical illusion because each spike was hot at it's end point, almost hot enough individually to burn a hole in paper. And confirmable by it's heat.

So the question is how does the light coming from the sphere bend to replicate the sphere externally and how is it that light can be seen with out reflecting off something as a symetrical curved flare. ( about 40 of them in the form of a clawed hand)

Just a little puzzle that I am sure there is an answer too

 

I concur.

I would not presume to know of the phenomenon you speak of but I find it unlikely from my understanding of physics and that suggests you are trolling here.

Could be wrong but if I am I would love to see your sphere in action. That indeed will require some rather indepth analysis to describe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can see the possibility of imperfections causing multiple focal points with hot spots around the sphere. I do not see curved light rays in space and perhaps that is the illusion since you are looking at a curved surface as a backdrop.

 

Nope could be seen side on and the hot spots were about 3 inches from the surface of the sphere.

Me troll......ha...never......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.


Any way I am waiting for the sun to be again at the same angle ( about 2 pm)

and do a little more observing, just for fun.....

The magnification of the sphere is at least *50

But any way the pheno is sure to repeat .....

 

I'll take some pic next time and post them here.....

 

I don't think Einstein is needed to explain light matters which would have been dealt with by Newton.

MacM

Likewise, MacM. I did not say you mentioned conspiracy, I said you made it sound like there was a conspiracy.

I've nothing to hand regarding this nor your source for Einstein's statements. But physics textbooks will generally quote a scientist when he is considered right and not quote him when he is considered wrong. They don't mention Einstein's views on the aether because those views are not accepted by the scientific consensus. In any case, books on physics by physicists are books on physics, after all, not books about the history of physics. Books on physics will generally give you a thorough grounding in the life and achievements of Isaac Newton, but there will be nary a mention of his alchemical work, nor his numerological studies of the Bible.

 

Don't attempt to shift the issue. I have not been commenting on the issue of the existance of an ether. I commented on the issue that books and physicists routinely mis-state history on this issue.

Your claim that only ideas considered truth get quoted but those not considered truth don't, doesn't cover the problem "Mis-quoting" Einstein and falsely claiming negative results for the MM and other ether tests. It is not a matter of not reporting that he said those things but additionally a matter of claiming he said just the opposite and that MM and other ether tests had negaitive results when they did not.

You question "My Sources". It happens to be a matter of public record from the speech he made at the University. To suggest the information is somehow false is to be disengenious.

Now I have not claimed a conspiracy but what possible reason can you give for the fact that physicists routinely claim that the MM experiment (and others) plus Einstein proved there was no ether?

That simply is a totally false statement. The truth is Einstein said Relativity makes no sense without an ether, MM and other experiments have each and every one shown some form of ether results but just not the one they were looking for.

Why this great disparity. The only reason seems to be that to acknowledge these facts destroy's Relativity. Now perhaps it is not a conspiracy but something is the hell wrong here. What is it?