Full list of physics concepts with circular definition?
 

There are physics concepts with circular definition. Like work and energy. For example: what is energy? Energy is capacity to do work. What is work? Work is energy being transfered to the system ....

The same with charge, time. What else?

Does existence of "circular" concepts implies that those concepts are 1) basic building blocks of universe; 2) we have little clue about them. However, we can use those concepts to describe world around us and make our lives easier.

For example, in materials science, one can easily obtain a formula relating hardness of an alloy to its composition using design of experiment techniques. The formula will reliably predict hardness of the alloy. However, coefficients of that formula (and formula itself) are mostly meaningless.

Does something similar occur in physics? "We have little clue what is energy. However, we can use that concept to our practical advantage".

Is any hope to crack some circular concepts in the future?

Well, first of all you're giving really layman's definitions of what we talk about. Technically, work is defined as the line integral of a path through a force vector field, and we declare that [B]F[/B] d[B]r[/B] = dE where we don't really specify an interpretation of dE until we start dealing with the concepts of energy. If you pay close attention, the definition of the potential energy is carefully set so that we can deal with the conservation of a scalar quantity if a force has certain characteristics (irrotational, for instance).

Really if you see mechanics derived straight from [B]F[/B] d[B]p[/B]/dt you get a good feeling for the unity in classical mechanics, similarly with Maxwell's equations. There really aren't that many "circular" definitions in physics except for when you're scratching the surface and don't really relate the larger picture to a few basic postulates.

[QUOTE=PhysMachine]Well, first of all you're giving really layman's definitions of what we talk about. Technically, work is defined as the line integral of a path through a force vector field, and we declare that [B]F[/B] d[B]r[/B] = dE where we don't really specify an interpretation of dE until we start dealing with the concepts of energy. If you pay close attention, the definition of the potential energy is carefully set so that we can deal with the conservation of a scalar quantity if a force has certain characteristics (irrotational, for instance).

Really if you see mechanics derived straight from [B]F[/B] d[B]p[/B]/dt you get a good feeling for the unity in classical mechanics, similarly with Maxwell's equations. There really aren't that many "circular" definitions in physics except for when you're scratching the surface and don't really relate the larger picture to a few basic postulates.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I am physics layman. OK, there is formula to substitute layman wording. Still, your formula and force field changes nothing principially. F*distance=Energy. Thus, definition of work or energy (smart or layman) are mutually related. Feynman, in his Physics, wrote that physicist do not really understand what energy is about. Therefore, they do not really understand what is work about. The same with charge, the same with time. The same with force and mass, after all. I never have met a satisfactory explanation what force is about. Only formulas which do not really explain much, just introduce new parameters (impulse, mass) and derive the definition of force from those parameters. And conversly, some books derive definition of mass and impulse from definition of force. Circle is closed. One may write bunch of formulas and use phisicist's lingo to hide this sad fact. But fact is: those formulas are circular and do not explain much (on the fundamental level). In about the same fashion as mat. sci. hardness formulas do not explain why hardness of an alloy is as it is, they just enable precise calculations of that hardness.


The questions:

What is energy?

What is charge?

What is force?

What is mass?

What is....?

stand. Again, there are bunch of the simple and convoluted formulas relating those things. But, do they really give answers to the above questions?

I think it was Einstein who told a famous sentence about simplicity in physics. I do not remember it precisely but the meaning of it was something like this: "If you cannot explain a physical phenomenon without using formulas, probably, you do not really understand that phenomenon yet."

That's why we have concepts. I am confident that my concept of mass is the same as yours. Physics doesn't start with math ; it starts with concepts.

Having said that, I haven't fully grasped what energy actually is, lol.

[QUOTE=dixonmassey]
The questions:

What is energy?

What is charge?

What is force?

What is mass?

What is....?[/QUOTE]

What kind of answer would u expect? Language itself is circular. If u try to define something u have to do so in terms of something else. These are base concepts in the sense that explaining them any further will not make our understanding of them any easier. In other words, defining energy as the ability to do work is the simplest definition of energy and trying to explain it further will not make our comprehension better.

Why do u have a problem with this definition?

[QUOTE=dixonmassey]I think it was Einstein who told a famous sentence about simplicity in physics. I do not remember it precisely but the meaning of it was something like this: "If you cannot explain a physical phenomenon without using formulas, probably, you do not really understand that phenomenon yet."[/QUOTE]

I have not seen this quote before but I very much concur with it. It seems to say (more eloquently) what I have argued for a long time.

"Our dependance upon mathematical concepts without an underlying Physical Model has lead us down ludricrus paths and we have, and are, wasting a great deal of time pursueing impossible and worthless concepts - i.e. time travel, infinities, etc."

unfortunately until we can let go of this "something" conceptialisation we will never find the answer to these questions. We only look at the effect not the cause.

if I said to you that energy was an imbalnce in time past and future occuring in the now, you will say "prove that this is so" and I would say how can something that is essentially non-existent be proved.

For instance we measure light only by it's effect and yet we have no idea what it really is, or should I say isn't.

We measure magnetic fields by their effect, Yet if I suggest that a negative pole is a Past bias in spacetime, it is discounted as fantasy becasue the past is non-existant.
Yet some will argue that matter is compressed spacetime.....but what do they mean by this? Are they just using the words spacetime for fun or what?

They say that it is conpressed spacetime but when a singularity is suf=ggested as a cause for this compression for some reason it seems ludicrous. Yet I ask what causes spacetime to fold so densely if not for a singularity. One that is governed by that very spacetime compression.
Why is it so hard to understand that a singularity of absolute vacuum or nothing is responsible for compressing not matter, but space time to creat matter and it's inherent energies. and the gravity that pervades all teh universe.
Why is that so hard to understand as a possible answer to those questions?

[QUOTE=dixonmassey]There are physics concepts with circular definition. Like work and energy. For example: what is energy? Energy is capacity to do work. What is work? Work is energy being transfered to the system ....
[QUOTE]

Do some research on the correct mathematical definitions of both and post your findings here. I'm sure they wont be circular! :)

Yeah, the concept of "energy" comes from a mathematical treatment of Newton's laws.

First, consider our force [B]F[/B]. Now consider that force activing over a differential distance, d[B]r[/B]. We define the work done by that force as dW = [B]F[/B]*d[B]r[/B], which in turn we call dT, the differential change in kinetic energy. Now, the expression for kinetic energy comes from [B]F[/B] = m[B]a[/B] = m d[B]v[/B]/dt, and d[B]r[/B] = [B]v[/B]dt, so then the above becomes

dT = m d[B]v[/B]/dt*[B]v[/B] dt

Integrating this gives that

T = 1/2 m [B]v[/B]^2

the familiar equation for kinetic energy. Now dealing with the potential energy, we pull out some given theorems from vector calculus and invent a quantity defined so that T + V = E, a constant, for certain systems.

If you're really interested in watching a solid discussion and derivation of classical mechanics, I'd recommend the Corben and Stehle "Classical Mechanics" 2nd Edition. It's in Dover, and it's extremely thorough for being so brief.

[QUOTE=MacM]I have not seen this quote before but I very much concur with it. It seems to say (more eloquently) what I have argued for a long time.

"Our dependance upon mathematical concepts without an underlying Physical Model has lead us down ludricrus paths and we have, and are, wasting a great deal of time pursueing impossible and worthless concepts - i.e. time travel, infinities, etc."[/QUOTE]
the quote is "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." attributed to Einstein.

i strongly disagree with the sentiment. i can't even explain how to work the VCR to my grandmother. does that mean i don't understand the VCR? I can solve a Rubik's cube in 1:30, but I can't explain how to solve it, even to very smart people, without hours to spare and a chalkboard.

[QUOTE=lethe]the quote is "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." attributed to Einstein.

i strongly disagree with the sentiment. i can't even explain how to work the VCR to my grandmother. does that mean i don't understand the VCR? I can solve a Rubik's cube in 1:30, but I can't explain how to solve it, even to very smart people, without hours to spare and a chalkboard.[/QUOTE]

HeHe I would have to agree. :D

[QUOTE=lethe]the quote is "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother." attributed to Einstein.

i strongly disagree with the sentiment. i can't even explain how to work the VCR to my grandmother. does that mean i don't understand the VCR? I can solve a Rubik's cube in 1:30, but I can't explain how to solve it, even to very smart people, without hours to spare and a chalkboard.[/QUOTE]

You can explain principles of VCR's operations in two sentences/no formulas to the more or less prepared audience. Rubik's cube is not exactly a physical phenomenon but mechanical principles of its work (hinge joints and so on) could be explained without formulas. Solving the cube is totally another matter.

Should math come in the front of the phenomenological understanding or not? Should you have the faintest grasp of the physical principles before writing tonnes of formulas and simulations in order to deduct the very same principles?

In a graduate school, I had a direct boss - professor in the applied math. We worked together on the "basic materials science" project. Professor had superb knowledge of math/programming (she was a lousy teacher though, very lousy) and zero knowledge of physics/materials science. God, her "advanced" simulations (which, I guess, were done very well from a mathematician's standpoint) were utterly worthless otherwise. Eventually, somewhow she managed to play with bunch of stuff in her code to match experimental data and simulations. However, in my opinion, those "simulations" showed nothing/explained nothing except proving the obvious truth "when somebody plays with a code for a long time he'll get what he/she wants". 80-90% of professors/principal "investigators" out there are engaged in the similar worthless projects of the zero value for the science and technology (not speaking of the generating mountains of waste).

I understand well all the math behind the Energy concept. Still, all the math does not explain the concept of energy per se. The only thing math does is to express energy in the terms of other concepts. The other concepts are expressed in the terms of Energy in order to explain them (In college physics books, at least).

"Holy spirit, etc." and "Energy" concepts have at least two things in common: both are used to explain how world works (by different groups of people), neither group of folks can explain what exactly primary mover of their Universe is about.

Energy is just that, it's a physical quantity related to work. It drops out mathematically from Newton's laws, and all of the other things that we do with energy can be derived starting from Newton's laws. So really energy is a quantity changed by a force acting on a system of particles over a given displacement, so that's what energy is.

[QUOTE=PhysMachine]Energy is just that, it's a physical quantity related to work. It drops out mathematically from Newton's laws, and all of the other things that we do with energy can be derived starting from Newton's laws. So really energy is a quantity changed by a force acting on a system of particles over a given displacement, so that's what energy is.[/QUOTE]

then, what is force?

Force is something we take as a postulate that, through experimental work, has been shown to be equal to the mass times the acceleration. We just assume it in Newton's laws, and experimental evidence has supported that it works time and again. It's fundamental, so you can't "derive" Newton's laws from anything more fundamental. Nobody has any idea why Newton's laws work, it's just that they do.

Newton didn't invent the terms "Force", "mass" and "Energy", but having found clear mathematical relationships in the movements of bodies, he applied those terms to the various mathematical parts of his equations.

You have a ball on a table. If you apply a constant pushing motion the ball will accelerate. We can measure acceleration precisely using distance and time, two absolute fixed values. Using the same constant force we push different sized balls, until we discover a ball which when pushed has precisely half the acceleration of the first one. This ball has exactly twice the amount of "matter" in it as the first one. Now we can measure "mass", and by creating a combination of different masses we now have something we can put on a balance and measure the masses of other objects. Now we take a mass and we apply different pushes to it until we have a push which accelerates the 2 x m object at the same rate as the first object. Therefore a force twice as large was being applied, and we have a means of measuring force. All of this implies the ability to apply forces, and the amount of force-applicability of something is a limited supply. Allow a spring to pull an object, and eventually the spring will reach equilibrium and stop pulling the object. Allow a ball to roll down a slope and up another slope, and the ball will slow down (due to the opposing force of friction) and finally whatever it is about the position of the ball that allows it to move will "run out". The Use-up-ability of the moving forces is what we call energy.

So lets return to the questions:

What is energy?

What is charge?

What is force?

What is mass?

What is....?

The answer is that "energy" is the term we use to describe the amount we can move objects using force. We plug this "energy" term into our equations and we know how long we can move stuff for. "Charge" is the term we use to describe the affectability of an object to an electromagnetic field. We plug this "Charge" term into our equations and we know how much a forcefield will move a charged object like an ion. "Force" is the term we use to describe how hard we can push stuff to move it. We plug this "Force" into our equations and we know how much acceleration a given mass will achieve. "Mass" is the term we use to describe how hard we must push something to get it to move as we want - objects with more mass are harder to push. We plug this "mass" term into our equations and we know how much force to apply.

My point is this: We don't know [b]what[/b] "energy", "charge", "mass", "force" are - but if we [b]did[/b] know, we wouldn't be able to do anything [i]with[/i] that! The words are what we plug into mathematical equations to get answers. It is the mathematical equations that are useful, that are practical. Asking "What is force" doesn't help you [i]apply[/i] your knowlege. But F=ma [i]does[/i] help.

Richard Feynman ran into this problem when assessing physics text books for use in schools. There was a page showing, i don't know, the sun, a windmill, a boy on a bicycle, and asking of each of them, "What makes it go?" And he thought he had a good idea of how it was going to explain how the heat of the sun moved air in the atmosphere, moved a windmill which ground corn to make food to feed the boy, or whatever. But when he turned the page he found it just said, for each illustration, "Energy makes it go". But that doesn't [i]tell[/i] you anything! You might as well say, "Pixies make it go"!

At the end of the day, there [b]are[/b] only equations. Stephen Hawking said, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" That is a fundamental question, but it may be unanswerable. The only way to a unified theory is to continue with the mathematical work. The fact that our descriptions of phenomena are all mathematical does not mean that we cannot discover answers through them. In fact the reverse is true. We cannot discover a unified theory without a fundamental understanding of the existing theories, that they are right as far as they go, and that they work as far as they go.

Unfortunately, this only tells us what energy can do or has done. It does not tells us what energy is.

If I had to make some sort of guess or give a description I would think it is some form of excess pressure generated at the time of the Big Bang or an ongoing creation of space which seeks to stabilize at its lowest common level - i.e entrophy. That suggests a flowing space causing gravity and the illusion of time flow.

Could be BS but then I haven't seen anyother descriptions.

[QUOTE=MacM]Unfortunately, this only tells us what energy can do or has done. It does not tells us what energy is.

If I had to make some sort of guess or give a description I would think it is some form of excess pressure generated at the time of the Big Bang or an ongoing creation of space which seeks to stabilize at its lowest common level - i.e entrophy. That suggests a flowing space causing gravity and the illusion of time flow.

Could be BS but then I haven't seen anyother descriptions.[/QUOTE]

Yep...it is a BS guess!

[QUOTE=Paul T]Yep...it is a BS guess![/QUOTE]

Yep, and as I stated I don't see your description. Perhaps you could enlighten us with a better one.

[QUOTE=MacM]Unfortunately, this only tells us what energy can do or has done. It does not tells us what energy is.

If I had to make some sort of guess or give a description I would think it is some form of excess pressure generated at the time of the Big Bang or an ongoing creation of space which seeks to stabilize at its lowest common level - i.e entrophy. That suggests a flowing space causing gravity and the illusion of time flow.

Could be BS but then I haven't seen anyother descriptions.[/QUOTE]
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 [i]any[/i]?

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...."

[QUOTE]We deal with energy as a mathematical variable so that we avoid saying, "If I had to make some sort of guess...." [/QUOTE]

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)

[QUOTE=MacM]Unfortunately, this only tells us what energy can do or has done. It does not tells us what energy is.
[/QUOTE]
What makes you even think it has any meaning outside of it's mathematical context?

I have two points I've been trying to make: one is, knowing exactly [i]what[/i] 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.

[QUOTE=Silas]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 [i]any[/i]?[/quote]

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.

[quote]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...."[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Quantum Quack]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)[/QUOTE]

Excellent summation. Thanks.

[QUOTE=AndersHermansson]What makes you even think it has any meaning outside of it's mathematical context?[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Silas]I have two points I've been trying to make: one is, knowing exactly [i]what[/i] 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.[/QUOTE]

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 [color=red][b]the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................[/b][/color]

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

[color=red][b]According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;[/b][/color] 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.

[QUOTE=MacM]Now this is funny. Are you a true scientist or just a buff?[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=AndersHermansson]I don't see the relevance.[/quote]

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

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]

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 [i]that[/i] aether, then he'd clearly taken leave of his senses! :P 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.

[QUOTE=Silas]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. [/quote]

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.)

[quote] So if Einstein was talking about [i]that[/i] aether, then he'd clearly taken leave of his senses! :P [/quote]

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.

[quote] 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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote]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.[/quote]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.

[QUOTE=Silas] 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.[/quote]

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?

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Quantum Quack]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.[/quote]

I concur.

[quote]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[/QUOTE]

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. :D

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...... :D .


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[quote]You seem to like to distort what has been said. I made no mention of a conspiracy. [/quote]Likewise, MacM. I did not say you mentioned conspiracy, I said you made it sound like there was a conspiracy.[quote]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.[/quote]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.

[QUOTE=Silas]MacMLikewise, 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.[/QUOTE]

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?