McCoin Last Thread

[MacM]

I would like to know what your criteria was for this statement, e.g. your own opinion, some survey of all scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical science journals, the experimental vs theoretical science budget (US or other?), etc.

Modern physics is what physics has been ever since Galileo Galilei - a mixture of theoretical (mathematical) and experimental physics. The current theories do have "physical views" - they match the physical observations.

But "physical views" may mean something different to you since you seem to have your own definitions and terms for many things.

And why "modern" and "current"? Mathematics has been a vital part of physics (and all science) since at least Galileo's time. Are you about to throw away all science since then because it is too mathematical for your tastes?

Basic Physics such as the Bohr Atom are physical concepts (even though that no longer applies). Current physics lean far more into higher mathematics and little if any physical concepts. i.e. - Strings with 11+ dimensions, etc.

The problem with math is that given sufficient degrees of freedom one can produce whatever results one seeks but saying with 11D we can now encompass gravity is simply meaningless.

 

[Reality Check]

Basic Physics such as the Bohr Atom are physical concepts (even though that no longer applies). Current physics lean far more into higher mathematics and little if any physical concepts. i.e. - Strings with 11+ dimensions, etc.

The problem with math is that given sufficient degrees of freedom one can produce whatever results one seeks but saying with 11D we can now encompass gravity is simply meaningless.

So by "physical concepts" you mean things that we perceive physically, i.e. the way we see the world as determined by our evolutionary history (what I like to call the ape brain perspective).

This of course neglects that logical part of the human brain. We never see things that move fast wrt the speed of light. Thus all relativistic effects are "non-physical" according to your definition. But we have designed experiments to explore what happens at high speeds. Ditto for most of modern physics (see the list at the end of this post).

Or maybe your definition of physical is "things we can describe in pretty pictures (like the Bohr atom)". Guess what - there are lots of pretty pictures for modern physics, e.g. the quantum mechanical pictures of atomic orbitals. And there are lots of pretty pictures for string theory.

With 11+ dimensions we can encompass gravity. Gravity is curvature in spacetime (4D). Adding more dimensions allows the incorporation of other forces. The current string theory has too many degrees of freedom to be fully predictive. But that applies only to that theory.

If your issue was only with string theory then you would not be alone.
But your issue seems to be with all mathematics in physics. Perhaps you can point out the "degrees of freedom" in the following that allows them to produce whatever results one seeks:

• Newton's laws
• Maxwell's equations
• Special relativity
• General relativity
• Quantum mechanics

 

[MacM]

So by "physical concepts" you mean things that we perceive physically, i.e. the way we see the world as determined by our evolutionary history (what I like to call the ape brain perspective).

This of course neglects that logical part of the human brain. We never see things that move fast wrt the speed of light. Thus all relativistic effects are "non-physical" according to your definition. But we have designed experiments to explore what happens at high speeds. Ditto for most of modern physics (see the list at the end of this post).

Or maybe your definition of physical is "things we can describe in pretty pictures (like the Bohr atom)". Guess what - there are lots of pretty pictures for modern physics, e.g. the quantum mechanical pictures of atomic orbitals. And there are lots of pretty pictures for string theory.

With 11+ dimensions we can encompass gravity. Gravity is curvature in spacetime (4D). Adding more dimensions allows the incorporation of other forces. The current string theory has too many degrees of freedom to be fully predictive. But that applies only to that theory.

If your issue was only with string theory then you would not be alone.
But your issue seems to be with all mathematics in physics. Perhaps you can point out the "degrees of freedom" in the following that allows them to produce whatever results one seeks:

• Newton's laws
• Maxwell's equations
• Special relativity
• General relativity
• Quantum mechanics

Actually the math is necessary, useful and required but to assert there is no fabric to space but then give it physical attributes of permeability, etc.
To allow it to contract, expand, curve, etc is shear nonsense.

 

[Reality Check]

Actually the math is necessary, useful and required but to assert there is no fabric to space but then give it physical attributes of permeability, etc.
To allow it to contract, expand, curve, etc is shear nonsense.

So it is just spacetime that you have a problem with.

The sheer nonsense is to ignore that the scientific method tells us that the best description of gravity that we have requires that space and time contract, expand, curve, etc. If you can come up with a better scientific theory of gravity that does not need the curvature of spacetime then scientists will use that instead. As soon as that happens, your "sheer nonsense" will become actual science rather than your own personal opinion based on your own personal prejudices.

As far as I know space is never given attributes such as permeability. Are you thinking about the permeability of free space and other constants?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Actually the math is necessary, useful and required but to assert there is no fabric to space but then give it physical attributes of permeability, etc.
To allow it to contract, expand, curve, etc is shear nonsense.

So, how do you feel about time?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Once again I want to remind the physics experts here that while the persons who start and prolong these threads here may leave with no better understanding than when they started, there are folks like myself who learn.

In pondering MacM's claims, I stumbled across this site about Gravity Probe B that discusses the fabric of spacetime (http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html). A few more dots were connected for me.

Perhaps MacM feels like Einstein who said that to express physical laws without coordinates is like "describing thoughts without words."

 

[sol invictus]

Actually the math is necessary, useful and required but to assert there is no fabric to space but then give it physical attributes of permeability, etc.
To allow it to contract, expand, curve, etc is shear nonsense.

You've erected some kind of straw man and are busily trying to knock it down. No one "asserts there is no fabric to space"[time]. Just the contrary. But physicists don't use the word "ether" to describe it, because that word implies properties that spacetime simply doesn't have (like a rest frame).

As very often happens in physics, naive expectations are proven wrong by experiments. In the 19th century nearly everyone believed in an ether. They were wrong, unless you stretch the term so far it bears almost no relation to its original conception.

 

[RussDill]

I think the best line of inquiry here is a thought experiment. Suppose man colonizes Mars. We'll need a GPS system for Mars. We build some satellites on Earth, and accelerate them over to Mars and into Mars orbit. We build some on Mars and put them into Mars orbit.

According to MacM, they accelerated from different initial reference frames and should thus behave differently. Is this a correct line of thinking MacM?

[Note, I utilize the "MacM" usage of acceleration here]

 

[MacM]

I think the best line of inquiry here is a thought experiment. Suppose man colonizes Mars. We'll need a GPS system for Mars. We build some satellites on Earth, and accelerate them over to Mars and into Mars orbit. We build some on Mars and put them into Mars orbit.

According to MacM, they accelerated from different initial reference frames and should thus behave differently. Is this a correct line of thinking MacM?

[Note, I utilize the "MacM" usage of acceleration here]

No. Once the satellites occupy the same frame they will tick the same. They will however have a different time accumuation history before reachingh that point. Assume Mars has been colonized and the GPS is being constructed at the same time on Mars and Earth. They will clearly have accumulated different amounts of time when berought together but will now be ticking at the same rate.

 

[MacM]

So, how do you feel about time?

Time is an attribute of an ergetic 3D Space, not a dimension in it's own right.

To reverse time you must reverse all universal energy flow.

 

[MacM]

I would like to know what your criteria was for this statement, e.g. your own opinion, some survey of all scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical science journals, the experimental vs theoretical science budget (US or other?), etc.

Modern physics is what physics has been ever since Galileo Galilei - a mixture of theoretical (mathematical) and experimental physics. The current theories do have "physical views" - they match the physical observations.

But "physical views" may mean something different to you since you seem to have your own definitions and terms for many things.

And why "modern" and "current"? Mathematics has been a vital part of physics (and all science) since at least Galileo's time. Are you about to throw away all science since then because it is too mathematical for your tastes?

Not to mathematical but to unphysical. You seem to have forgotten that math used to be used to better define physical concepts. Today math is proposed as the concept without any physical understanding. Much like Newtonian Gravity. "Some mysterious force effuding from all mass"

 

[MacM]

Once again I want to remind the physics experts here that while the persons who start and prolong these threads here may leave with no better understanding than when they started, there are folks like myself who learn.

In pondering MacM's claims, I stumbled across this site about Gravity Probe B that discusses the fabric of spacetime (http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html). A few more dots were connected for me.

Perhaps MacM feels like Einstein who said that to express physical laws without coordinates is like "describing thoughts without words."

Actually more simple than that. I envision gravity a a mechanical (physical) process due to an energy flow. That concept actually predicts the 1/r^2 relationship locally but an enhanced gravity over Newton on Galatic scales (Which now requires some mysterious Dark Matter); plus would produce the accelerating expansion of the universe (now requiring some mysterious Dark Energy).

Frankly I suspect what is now called Dark Energy is my 1954 UniKEF; which causes all three features of gravity.

It is also testable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually more simple than that. I envision gravity a a mechanical (physical) process due to an energy flow. That concept actually predicts the 1/r^2 relationship locally but an enhanced gravity over Newton on Galatic scales (Which now requires some mysterious Dark Matter); plus would produce the accelerating expansion of the universe (now requiring some mysterious Dark Energy).

Alright, what's its functional form? Surely you can write down an equation which indicates the strength of your gravitational field as a function of distance. If it's not 1/r², what is it? What's the equation?

 

[MacM]

You've erected some kind of straw man and are busily trying to knock it down. No one "asserts there is no fabric to space"[time]. Just the contrary. But physicists don't use the word "ether" to describe it, because that word implies properties that spacetime simply doesn't have (like a rest frame).

As very often happens in physics, naive expectations are proven wrong by experiments. In the 19th century nearly everyone believed in an ether. They were wrong, unless you stretch the term so far it bears almost no relation to its original conception.

Color "red" above your assumptions are showing. "Absence of Evidence isNOT Evicence of Absence". Try to remember that. Perhaps you can ignore the fact that o know absolute rest can be identified but that does NOT mean it is not there.

My own view of space if not of theoriginal aether but of a dynamic energy flow creating space. There was never a Big Bang but merely a Big Rip. The Big Rip eliminates that pesky inflationary period predicted singuoarities, etc.

The Rip is a form of bifurcated energy where nothing was ever created.

(N)othingness--------------> (+S)omethingness + (-S)omethingness = "0"

That process is still on going and produces gravity and the expansion.

 

[MacM]

Alright, what's its functional form? Surely you can write down an equation which indicates the strength of your gravitational field as a function of distance. If it's not 1/r², what is it? What's the equation?

Not so simple. If I'm correct this energy flows from every spatial ordinate point. The universe is finite but expanding. Calculus shows that locally this view produces the Newtonian view but it also predicts that where Netownian Gravity tends toward"0" as "r" approaches infinity, in UniKEF gravity has a component approaching "1". This yields 1/r^2 locally but greater gravity on galatic scales and as seperation increases beyond where the sources of penetrating energy between bodies exceeds sources for energy pushing bodies together then there becomes an accelerating expansion.

If I am correct (some testing suggests I am) then there is a geometrical component to gravity heretofore not measured or considered. That is given two spheres and two cubes of equal masses. placed the same distance apart you will find a very slight difference in gravity.

Gravity is NOT Fg = G * m1 * m2 / r^2. That is integration to a point source isn't valid.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not so simple. If I'm correct this energy flows from every spatial ordinate point. The universe is finite but expanding. Calculus shows that locally this view produces the Newtonian view but it also predicts that where Netownian Gravity tends toward"0" as "r" approaches infinity, in UniKEF gravity has a component approaching "1".

So something like 1/r² + 1 then. Or how about 1/r² +1/(1+1/r²), if you want the correction to vanish at small r. There are lots of equations which have different limiting behavior in different regimes, that's no excuse. Your inability to find an equation for your model means that you can't actually do calculations with your model. Which makes it, well, not much of a model.

If I am correct (some testing suggests I am) then there is a geometrical component to gravity heretofore not measured or considered. That is given two spheres and two cubes of equal masses. placed the same distance apart you will find a very slight difference in gravity.

It's already been pointed out to you in another thread that this is what you would expect given Newtonian gravity. 1/r² is for a point source: for an extended mass, you need to integrate over different r's. For spherically symetric bodies the integral conveniently works out to 1/r² for r being the single distance to the center, but for other shapes (such as a cube), the integral does NOT work out so trivially. If you want to express the field in terms of only r to the center, you get all sorts of extra terms (quadrupole, octopole, etc). If you can show that the observed field is different from what a full Newtonian calculation should show for a cube, that would be one thing, but it's expected to be different from a sphere. This is freshman level physics, and you're showing ignorance of it.

Gravity is NOT Fg = G * m1 * m2 / r^2. That is integration to a point source isn't valid.

You've got it backwards: you integrate from a point source to find the field of an extended source, not the other way around.

 

[Reality Check]

Not to mathematical but to unphysical. You seem to have forgotten that math used to be used to better define physical concepts. Today math is proposed as the concept without any physical understanding. Much like Newtonian Gravity. "Some mysterious force effuding from all mass"

At what point was math used to "define physical concepts"?
Experiments are used to better define physical concepts.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Time is an attribute of an ergetic 3D Space, not a dimension in it's own right.

To reverse time you must reverse all universal energy flow.

I assume you mean "energetic" rather than "ergetic." I tried to look up the deifinition of "energetic 3D space" - the only references in all of Google were written by you. Please define.

Why would I want to reverse time? Do I also want to reverse matter?

 

[MacM]

At what point was math used to "define physical concepts"?
Experiments are used to better define physical concepts.

Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts..

 

[Ziggurat]

Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts..

Uh, no. This is simply wrong. Math, for example, is what led to the prediction that electromagnetic fluctuations could travel as waves, and that this might explain what light was.