- Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

All About Circuits - Newsgroup Archive
These forums contain an archive of usenet posts relating to electronics. These usenet posts are a great resource. Click the 'search' link to search for a topic, or browse through the posts.
Back To:

please note - you cannot post on these forums. this is a usenet archive, new posts are not permitted. please visit our forums to create a new post

Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

All About Circuits - Newsgroup Archive Forum Index -> sci.physics.electromag

Author

Message

suzysewnshow
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 12:10 am Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

[snip]

Quote:

Sergey
I reason that if no astronomer was present in Newton's era to correct
the manner in which Newton formatted his gravitational agenda by
unauthorised use of two incompatible astronomical views,I have no
reason to believe that it could be achieved in the present
climate.Astronomers previous to Flamsteed calculated orbits of planets
against the motion of the Earth,after Flamsteed it amounted to
calculating them against the background stars with Newton fudging as
much as possible by way of combining Roemer and Kepler seperate but
overlaping insights.

I could not find the words *Saturation* or *Hysteresis* in your paper
so am wondering how these well known effects were accounted for in the
ferromagnetic cores used in your experiment. Your description sounds
much like a fluxgate magnetometer so I would expect these can't be
ignored.

MAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN FERROMAGNETIC MATERIALS
http://physics.nad.ru/Physics/English/mag_txt.htm
http://www.mines.edu/fs_home/tboyd/GP311/MODULES/MAG/NOTES/fluxgate.html
-------------------
Kind regards,
Sue...

Oriel36
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au (suzysewnshow) wrote in message news:<e0a23188.0408291210.35c7a06a@posting.google.com>...

Quote:

[snip]
Sergey
I reason that if no astronomer was present in Newton's era to correct
the manner in which Newton formatted his gravitational agenda by
unauthorised use of two incompatible astronomical views,I have no
reason to believe that it could be achieved in the present
climate.Astronomers previous to Flamsteed calculated orbits of planets
against the motion of the Earth,after Flamsteed it amounted to
calculating them against the background stars with Newton fudging as
much as possible by way of combining Roemer and Kepler seperate but
overlaping insights.

I could not find the words *Saturation* or *Hysteresis* in your paper
so am wondering how these well known effects were accounted for in the
ferromagnetic cores used in your experiment. Your description sounds
much like a fluxgate magnetometer so I would expect these can't be
ignored.

MAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN FERROMAGNETIC MATERIALS
http://physics.nad.ru/Physics/English/mag_txt.htm
http://www.mines.edu/fs_home/tboyd/GP311/MODULES/MAG/NOTES/fluxgate.html
-------------------
Kind regards,
Sue...

Ah,the innocense !.

Did nobody here yet tell you that your education is just beginning and
soon you will not know what or who you are attacking or defending.

OTOH,if you want to be a famous scientist,well let me tell you how it
is done.Find the nearest historical figure and praise him without
end,call his work profound, delicate,elegant,powerful,ect and then
proceed to do a hatchet job on him.Write as many escape clauses as you
can so that you appear to agree with everyone and nobody at the same
time and profess puzzlement with a particular experiment that suits
your purpose.

Worked for Isaac and Albert which is why this forum represents the
epitome of the universal law of escape clauses.

Sergey Karavashkin
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

Dear Oriel,

I am pleased at least that I was not kidding you as to Faraday's
insight. Wink

Now as to Newton, in the light of your words

Quote:

I am not to have a quote mining war on account of Newton

I would only mention, it is so easy to reason about past, not so easy
to look ahead. The problem is not in the trifles of which you are
trying to re-draw Newton's portrait like an opportunist who steeled
Kepler's ideas and took "flight on the back of a common astronomical
crow". Newton had some other task - to join separate results, and at
his level of knowledge he has accomplished this task successfully.
Descartes who tried to formulate mechanical laws, neither Leibnitz
with his great achievements in differential calculus, nor Kepler who
has established the laws of planetary orbital motion and whom you are
so much defending derived the gravity law in the Newton's form - in
the form of equal gravitational and inertial masses. None of them has
formulated in mathematically rigorous form the laws of mechanics which
even now work fine in all areas of science and engineering. If
speaking, what Newton used to achieve his aim, we have to mention that
he took the idea of infinitesimals from his teacher. The first law of
mechanics - the law of inertia - he took from Galileo, the law of
equal action and counteraction - from Descartes who took it from
Aristotle, and so on. Not this is the point. The point is, he gave us
the FIRST mathematical formulation of laws for mechanics and
gravitation on whose basis we can calculate and analyse. And in limits
which Newton outlined the experimental check of these laws is
impeccable. We have to understand it before accusing someone in
somewhat. Wink

And it would be much better if you roll up your sleeves
and develop our knowledge of nature. Believe me, this is much more
difficult than to accuse others that they do not love the nature. Wink

Then you will understand, for example, that if in one part of his
theory one denied the aether, introducing convenient postulates, as
Einstein did, and in the second part introduced the aether, he should
not wonder, why finally these parts appear irrelevant.

And concerning Newton's attitude to the idea of aether, I already
explained you and cited Newton. The problem of aether impeding bodies'
motion actually existed and was partly lifted only after the wave
nature of light and unified nature of EM field and light were
established - in 19th, not in 17th century. In Descartes' vortex
theory this difficulty took its place in full size. It even now is not
fully lifted, it only is shifted deeper to the phenomenology. It can
be solved only after we will have solved the structure of particles.
Quarks, gravitons, meson fields will hardly help, as well as string
theory, fractals etc. They have been built on fantasies, not on
observed and checked phenomena. They are not the way. The way is where
the conception passes from hypothesis to the name of theory only after
multiple check from different sides and the main, when it is closed -
when the results obtained in different ways are fully consistent with
each other and with experiments.

On this way we may not choose from a broad scope of revelations only
some convenient, shutting our eyes to inconvenient revelations of an
effect, as the supporters of photon theory do. To be true, the
hypothesis has to corroborate ALL possible experimental results. One
experiment with which this hypothesis does not match can kill it. With
it, if the conception on the whole has been built without bias, the
negative experiment will only better outline its limits of
applicability and open the way to clear our understanding up. Just
this occurs with Newton's conception in passing to sub-light
velocities. But if the postulates were selected for the author's
convenience, just as in GR, SR, QM, QED, photon theory and so on, one
inconsistent experiment can destroy the whole building of existing
conception. This is what we all see now, under great displeasure and
highly aggressive behaviour of supporters of above conceptions and of
people who like to "think the physics out".

And we may not think any authority in the science as an infallible
god, as you are trying to represent and to accuse Newton. I told you
already, we have to consider Newton's results in the context of data
available at his time. His result is what is important. And the result
is, his mechanical laws impeccably work at small velocities. There are
still only vain attempts to re-phrase the Newton's law of gravity, as
I already told you. And I would like to emphasise, namely Newton's law
was the prototype of Coulomb's law, and we can say, this was the start
point in the search of unified field theory. It would not be good of
us to accuse Newton of what the descendants have fantasised excessive,
or made not well, or distorted. He made his part well, and this part
became a stage of new understanding of physical laws and of philosophy
as well. Wink

Sergey Karavashkin
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:43 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au (suzysewnshow) wrote in message news:<e0a23188.0408291210.35c7a06a@posting.google.com>...

Quote:

Dear Suzy,

You naturally could not find in our paper these words - SATURATION and
HYSTERESIS, as these phenomena do not effect the pattern of induction
emf change with distance from the core. We measured in
not-ferromagnetic space, and the aim of experiment was to register the
fact of increasing either decreasing emf when we moved the outer side
of loop away from core. These phenomena could affect only the general
amplitude of emf in relation with frequency, or the distortion of the
shape of sinusoidal current; in this case, when the amplitude of
voltage in the primary winding was constant, it was of no importance,
just as the decrease of emf amplitude with falling frequency which you
can see in the plots of our paper. We showed the frequency range only
in order to show the independent pattern of emf variation with respect
to frequency when moving the outer side of loop away from core.
Nothing more. ;-)

And you are right of course, the hysteresis is very interesting
phenomenon, and its phenomenology still keeps many unexpected things.
The orientation of magnetic moments of domains which is currently used
to substantiate the hysteresis not always well describes the observed
processes. This would be a separate interesting study, with all our
wish it would be impossible to include it into one paper, and even
into one trend of fan of subjects studying the nature of magnetic
field. We still have to sort these things out without ferromagnets,
then their turn will come. ;-)

Kind regards to you,

Sergey

Sergey Karavashkin
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

Quote:

Dear Oriel, I don't know, what namely do you mean under a quote mining
war which you are saying you do not undertake. But I don't also see
the difference: you are reviling Isaac and Albert and praying Kepler.
Other gods, same bows. Wink

I'm afraid, it does not add you a real love
to physics, and because of this reviling you only close before
yourself the door to understanding the essence of phenomena - if you
really wanted it. ;-)

Sergey

Sergey Karavashkin
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

Dear Lee, unfortunately, I have not the full text of this letter, only a part in the Russian-language monograph by V.P. Kartzev on the history of development of electromagnetic ideas "Adventures of great equations" [Znanie, Moscow, 1970, p. 178-179]. Above the cited before, this book contains Faraday's final words explaining the aim of this letter. Here I am citing them in reverse translation: << Faraday wrote that he had a wish "to secure this discovery for myself by a definite date and thus to have a right, in case of experimental corroboration, to claim this date as the date of my discovery. At present, as far as I can know, no one of scientists except me has such insight" >> I can only add, this is a trustworthy author, you can refer to him. I am pleased if it can be of help. If someone can prompt, where can we get a full text, I would be grateful. Still I have what I have. ;-) Sergey

Oriel36
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:32 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0409051042.556b7f80@posting.google.com>...

Quote:

Dear Oriel,

I am pleased at least that I was not kidding you as to Faraday's
insight. Wink

Now as to Newton, in the light of your words

I am not to have a quote mining war on account of Newton

I would only mention, it is so easy to reason about past, not so easy
to look ahead.

Classical mechanics or celestial motion reduced to terrestial
ballistics was formatted with a contrived view that geocentric and
heliocentric orbits are equivalent.This equivalency is the basis for
mean Earth/Sun distances and involves a meshing of axial rotation with
orbital motion as a single sidereal motion.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif

It may not be so easy to look ahead but with the Newtonian view it
becomes impossible and would have been impossible even in his era.

The problem is not in the trifles of which you are

Quote:

trying to re-draw Newton's portrait like an opportunist who steeled
Kepler's ideas and took "flight on the back of a common astronomical
crow".

He took flight on the back of an astronomical crow,he determined mean
orbital distances through Flamsteed's erroneous assumption for axial
rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency.The purpose Flamsteed
sought the equivalency was in determining terrestial longitudes by way
of celestial sphere positions,Newton simply switched it to an orbital
equivalency.

Newton had some other task - to join separate results, and at

Quote:

his level of knowledge he has accomplished this task successfully.
Descartes who tried to formulate mechanical laws, neither Leibnitz
with his great achievements in differential calculus, nor Kepler who
has established the laws of planetary orbital motion and whom you are
so much defending derived the gravity law in the Newton's form - in
the form of equal gravitational and inertial masses.

Sounds great until it is now realised that orbital variations exist
and cause ice ages which in turn affect geological features and leave
a recorded history of the geological and astronomical history of the
planet.With Newton's mechanical view there is no mechanism for the
change from less elliptical to more elliptical in terms of either mass
or acceleration (insofar as Kepler's second law applies regardless of
the degree of the elliptical motion) notwithstanding that the template
for mean Earth/Sun distances is already wrong.

None of them has

Quote:

formulated in mathematically rigorous form the laws of mechanics which
even now work fine in all areas of science and engineering. If
speaking, what Newton used to achieve his aim, we have to mention that
he took the idea of infinitesimals from his teacher. The first law of
mechanics - the law of inertia - he took from Galileo, the law of
equal action and counteraction - from Descartes who took it from
Aristotle, and so on. Not this is the point. The point is, he gave us
the FIRST mathematical formulation of laws for mechanics and
gravitation on whose basis we can calculate and analyse.

This goes to prove my point that behind the supposedly highly
contentious conceptual differences arising from the early 20th
century,all sides will run home to momma and defend Newton.The only
verification worthwhile is actually going outside and determining that
the Earth is rotating in and out of its orbital shadow rather than
sunrise and sunset which would be valid under the Newtonian scheme.The
early 20th century concepts basically reduced this quasi-geocentric
view further to homocentricity and it remains stuck there.

And in limits

Quote:

which Newton outlined the experimental check of these laws is
impeccable. We have to understand it before accusing someone in
somewhat. Wink

And it would be much better if you roll up your sleeves
and develop our knowledge of nature. Believe me, this is much more
difficult than to accuse others that they do not love the nature. Wink

Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer never needed an aether,it is useless for
investiagating astronomy and the underlying geometry between observed
planetary motions and their actual motions.The difficulties arising
from Newtonian astronomical framework was causing great difficulties
in the mid 19th century in determining the Sun attracting the Earth
and the Sun illuminating the Earth but only in the 1930's with
galactic observations making their appearance could questions of
Keplerian motion really be answered.

Quote:

Geologists don't do 'thought-experiments',they recognise the Earth's
geological evolutionary history embedded in rocks and attempt to work
out how events unfolded through surface features.Because astronomical
records of orbital variations show up in geological records it is now
possible to achieve cosmological modelling by incorporating the
mechanism for orbital variations as variations in the solar system's
motion from a cyclical 100 000 year variation from an inner and outer
galactic orbit.

How dumb relativists look by imagining that as you look into space it
represents the astronomical 'past' other than the
geological/astronomical past embedded in sedimentary laying in rocks.

Quote:

Your argument is with those who determine that all things must be
filtered through an experiment whereas the conceptions of
geological/astronomical history requires only the ability to make
correct correlations.Steno in the 17th century determined that
sedimentary layers which are observed to be vertical on the side of
mountains were once in geological times to be horizontal,this type of
reasoning can be refined to the point with sedimentary classifications
without disturbing the underlying principle.Relativity is the symptom
of a disease brought on by Newton for the underlying astronomical
principles on which he formulated his ballistic agenda does'nt
exist,the rotation rate of the Earth is wrong,he combines axial and
orbital motion,the stars are not fixed and what have you.

Quote:

Suit yourself for ultimately you assume that they don't work at higher
velocities and that makes you a relativist plain and simple.Orbital
variations such as Mercury's or artificial trajectories such as
Pioneer 10 have a better astronomical setting after the motion of the
solar system around the galactic axis was discovered but you remain
stuck in the era where none of this was known.

There are

Quote:

still only vain attempts to re-phrase the Newton's law of gravity, as
I already told you. And I would like to emphasise, namely Newton's law
was the prototype of Coulomb's law, and we can say, this was the start
point in the search of unified field theory. It would not be good of
us to accuse Newton of what the descendants have fantasised excessive,
or made not well, or distorted. He made his part well, and this part
became a stage of new understanding of physical laws and of philosophy
as well. Wink

I am satisfied that as long as you remain looking for experimental
evidence you are going nowhere for like geology,astronomy can only be
accomplished in principle insofar as the time and distance scales
reflect the enormity and magnificence of the cosmos.Whether the
effects of finite light distance from distant supernova and their
parent galaxies or the actual relationship between the observed
position of galaxies to our own and to each other in determining
structure and motion,none of it can be discerned by the claustraphobia
of lab top experiments or silly opinions that mascerade as
'thought-experiments'.

Quote:

You have no reason to complain,your views will always receive an
airing as the methods and ends to which you tend are the same.In
strenghtening the areas of the relationship between geology,terrestial
evolution,climatology and astronomy,people have found a better way to
appreceate the connection between humanity and its surroundings,you
can wax lyrical on final theories and how complicated it all is but
namedropping and labelling is such a poor excuse,this being now the
sole purpose of physics and physicists.

Quote:

The same, it is their manner - to answer about astronomical history of
the Earth to the thesis substantiating the succession of Faraday and
Maxwell insights, to speak of Foucault pendulum in respond to the
citation from Faraday about finite speed of propagation of magnetic
interaction. Wink

You belong to a different era even though it still remains firmly
entrenched in society.The horror of the Newtonian labyrinth was
superceded by the early 20th century one where men call out to each
other from dead ends that have grown in number exponentially in recent
times.The way out is always an option and not that difficult a step to
take,either by recognising the Newtonian astronomical template to be a
quasi-geocentric one or more productively to incorporate the solar
system's motion around the galactic axis and its influence on
heliocentric planetary orbital motion.

Sergey Karavashkin
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

Dear Lee, Sorry for being late: I only now could respond. It is my great pleasure that my post stimulated someone's thought. This was just a purpose for which I wrote. There is lot of problems in electromagnetism, and they all are not so simple as it seems for the first glance. You are raising the problem of tangential electric Ampere's force and even wonder that I am speaking not in "common terms". And I really am speaking in other terms, just because I know unsuccessful attempts to reveal this tangential electric force. Don't be surprised, Ampere's experiment with a wire under the current moving along parallel currents does not tell of tangential electric force. If you draw the solenoidal magnetic field around primary currents, you will understand, this experiment is an open variant of unipolar motor. The only experiment which would be able to establish magnetic field as doing not existing is to obtain the induction with direct current. Only then we would have a right to say of tangential electric force, and that magnet, though it re-directs the inertia of magnetic field, in reality is not the magnetic field. If this field which you are calling magnetic has the same properties as electric field has, it would have to affect stationary charges. If not, these are different fields. I wish you to obtain the induction with direct current, but until you have not it done, we have to understand each other in our "different" languages. And there is no sense to suppose that Maxwell would be able to express your views mathematically. First of all, he based on conservation laws for stationary fields. As we have showed in our papers, this is incorrect. And we showed it in rigorous mathematics. I think, you saw our materials; if you have no wish to admit them, this is your reason, not the difference in languages. Our concoction whose taste we feel supposes first the priority of experiment and logic of proof, not personal ambitions. Simple claims that we write in other language or we are incorrect cannot convince. The same as to a turning magnet. If you do not obtain a current excited just in the circuit you wish, this does not mean a least that the current will not be excited when turning the magnet. While in our paper we described not a paradox; with the example of unipolar generator we showed Maxwellian formulation unable to describe processes of such kind. And to the point, you are saying, you have your experiments described somewhere; could I read about them? It would be rather interesting to discuss also what you have done, comparing our results. Kind regards, Sergey

Sergey Karavashkin
Guest

Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2004 11:26 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0409080532.551fa572@posting.google.com>...

Quote:

selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0409051042.556b7f80@posting.google.com>...
Dear Oriel,

I am pleased at least that I was not kidding you as to Faraday's
insight. Wink

Now as to Newton, in the light of your words

I am not to have a quote mining war on account of Newton

I would only mention, it is so easy to reason about past, not so easy
to look ahead.

Classical mechanics or celestial motion reduced to terrestial
ballistics was formatted with a contrived view that geocentric and
heliocentric orbits are equivalent.This equivalency is the basis for
mean Earth/Sun distances and involves a meshing of axial rotation with
orbital motion as a single sidereal motion.

http://www.eumetsat.de/en/mtp/images/sidereal.gif

It may not be so easy to look ahead but with the Newtonian view it
becomes impossible and would have been impossible even in his era.

I do not look ahead so easy. Indeed, Ticho de Brahe connected
Ptolemy's and Copernicus' systems. Kepler's mechanics in no way
contradicts this relation, and I do not see any reason to accuse
someone in simplification, because the geometrical re-calculation is
possible when passing from one frame to another. Basically, tensor
analysis on which the supporters of Relativity ground their reasoning
is in its essence the same merely geometrical re-calculation; in this
form it was developed by Riemann, Yegorov, Lobachevsky.

I am sorry to say, but in this case you are demonstrating just the
sophistry against which Bacon appeared, and not only he.

Quote:

The main value of Newton's work are not his astronomical calculations
per se. He carried out all his astronomical calculations in order to
build the phenomenology of gravitational interaction. The value of
Newton's work is in his formula for gravitational interaction. I
already wrote you of it. To reduce his Principia to merely
astronomical calculations is just inadmissible primitivisation which
you are seeking in others.

Quote:

This does not lessen Newton's achievements. With all his genius,
Newton could not and had not to answer all questions. He was not god,
like we all. But he gave us the tool which allowed us to calculate and
to analyse, in that number things of which you are speaking. I can
repeat, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes did it not. And this
sounds really exactly and more correctly reflects Newton's
significance than what you are trying to attribute to him. And as to
ice ages and historical records in geology, we still have to prove
conventional interpretations correct. For today, there exist many
versions, but they all have more difficulties than answers.

Quote:

When you write down these deviations in the view of phenomenology of
process, you will use the concepts of force and mass in Newton's
interpretation. You and we all still have no other way - of course, if
you yourself do not refine the concept of mass as measure of inertia
and phenomenology of gravitational interaction. And I see no problem
that Newton did not account some nuances of dynamics. He emphasised
that he considers stationary processes without transients. Yes, it was
a restriction. But this was beginning, and from this view this all was
natural. To take into account the transients about which you are
writing, we have to account moments of inertia. In frames of Newton's
dynamics they appeared much later. In particular, we in our paper "On
physical nature of postulate of existence of stable stationary states
of oscillators"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#quant

showed the condition under which spiral arms are formed when
disbalance of masses causes moments of inertia. It would be too early
to require this from Newton. This all will gradually find its
solutions in frame of Newton's mechanics. Just Newton's, because just
Newton's laws will be the basis of advanced calculations. And the fact
that Newton did not analyse in Principia such concepts as moments of
inertia of 1, 2, 3 etc. orders does not weaken his work, as all these
calculations have been made on the basis of his calculus and
phenomenology of mechanics.

Quote:

Just the basis which was built in the early 20th century has to dye
fully with all what was grounded on it later, so it will not defend
Newton. The features of relativistic mechanics revealed by Lorentz, in
no case by Einstein, will be essentially improved in frames of
Lorentz' conception, and will find themselves out of frames of
Newton's mechanics. So they with all their wish will be unable to
defend Newton, as they are out of area of applicability of Newton's
phenomenology.

Quote:

I already wrote you: if you have an improvement in your disposal, both
me and colleagues would like to see just your improvement, not a
distortion of Newton's studies to satisfy what you want. Please write
yours, and we will analyse it together. ;-)

Quote:

The
early 20th century concepts basically reduced this quasi-geocentric
view further to homocentricity and it remains stuck there.

Sorry again, but here you feast your eyes upon phrases - Bacon just
appeared against it. The meaning of Einstein's GR (if, speaking of the
early 20th century, you are meaning GR) is other. And the problems are
other. These usually are theologians who speak of so-called
quasi-geocentric and homocentric approach. As far as I can understand,
we discuss the physics of processes, so hardly someone will dare to
defend geocentric approach here. I am afraid, is it a simple
verbality. One thing I cannot understand: if you have some solutions,
show them, but do not accuse Newton of what he has not. Do at least a
thousandth part of what Newton did for his time and his level of
science development.

Quote:

And in limits
which Newton outlined the experimental check of these laws is
impeccable. We have to understand it before accusing someone in
somewhat. Wink

And it would be much better if you roll up your sleeves
and develop our knowledge of nature. Believe me, this is much more
difficult than to accuse others that they do not love the nature. Wink

For the level at which these authors made their calculations, they
really needed no aether, and namely in this meaning Newton says in the
above citation that you gave. But staying at the level of geometric
calculation, we will stay at the level of 17th century. Whilst Newton
has already broken through the boundaries of this phenomenology, when
introduced the concept of force to the condition of planetary
interaction. But when we are speaking of, what causes this
interaction, of conditions of light propagation - here we find
necessary to note the medium which carries the EM oscillations and
gravitational interaction. Even Einstein understood it, not in vain he
introduced aether to GR, or he would have nothing to warp. To warp the
geometry - it is a bluff. Only materiality can be warped, and we have
before to define the terminology of warping. This was Bergmann who
tried to do so in frames of GR, and his attempt tore to shreds the
axiomatics of Einstein's approach. Though he did not understand it.

The difficulties arising

Quote:

from Newtonian astronomical framework was causing great difficulties
in the mid 19th century in determining the Sun attracting the Earth
and the Sun illuminating the Earth but only in the 1930's with
galactic observations making their appearance could questions of
Keplerian motion really be answered.

I don't think so. If under 30th you are meaning the Hubble's
regularity, I can only mention that on different forums the
phenomenology of Doppler red shift was reasonably beaten. This is a
separate large issue which is partly enlightened in our paper "On the
nature of red shift of metagalaxy"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#hubble

In that paper we gave the phenomenology of physical process causing
the Hubble red shift, free of discrepancies of Doppler interpretation.
Our interpretation in no way exceeds Newton's mechanics, and the fact
that it lifted ALL discrepancies of conventional interpretation
defends Newton's approach. Again, all accusations that Newton did not
write the Bible of physics are simplification based on feebleness of
this who states. Newton gave us the basis and the possibility to
develop it correctly. He had not to give us everything. And we have to
develop, not to blame him. Where he was inexact - we have to correct,
where the processes exceed his phenomenology - we have to develop and
to improve. This will be a good way to progress. While you are
permanently reducing this all to merely geometrical astronomy. I can
assure you, this subject was ate in 17-19th centuries, and we cannot
advance, doing not taking into account the phenomenology of physical
processes. You are playing with a shadow, and some other authors
statistically select numbers - both things are useless, as they do not
deepen our understanding. If you understand it, this will be the
principal result of our dialogue, or, as far as I can see, you already
began to limit it to geometrical approach. You do not advance new
arguments. You do not give more powerful interpretations than Kepler
and Newton gave. While without it our dialogue has been already
accomplished.

Quote:

And concerning Newton's attitude to the idea of aether, I already
explained you and cited Newton. The problem of aether impeding bodies'
motion actually existed and was partly lifted only after the wave
nature of light and unified nature of EM field and light were
established - in 19th, not in 17th century. In Descartes' vortex
theory this difficulty took its place in full size. It even now is not
fully lifted, it only is shifted deeper to the phenomenology. It can
be solved only after we will have solved the structure of particles.
Quarks, gravitons, meson fields will hardly help, as well as string
theory, fractals etc. They have been built on fantasies, not on
observed and checked phenomena. They are not the way. The way is where
the conception passes from hypothesis to the name of theory only after
multiple check from different sides and the main, when it is closed -
when the results obtained in different ways are fully consistent with
each other and with experiments.

Geologists don't do 'thought-experiments',they recognise the Earth's
geological evolutionary history embedded in rocks and attempt to work
out how events unfolded through surface features.

They also have their insights and predictions. For example, the
discovery of Yakut diamonds was a breakthrough in understanding the
geological structure of crust. This discovery has been made
theoretically. It is not worthy to offend geologists. ;-)

Quote:

If speaking of the very possibility, this is surely basically
possible, but we read these records made with almost effaced
cuneiform, in unknown language. This is just the problem of physics to
decipher these records correctly and exactly and then to base on them
our models. So I'm afraid, your claims are too premature and bravura,
and I would be more pleased if you instead it deciphered at least one
symbol in this cuneiform. This is what we are trying to do (in that
number). This is what I ask you, still without result. Let us leave
slogans for politicians, for election campaign.

Quote:

How dumb relativists look by imagining that as you look into space it
represents the astronomical 'past' other than the
geological/astronomical past embedded in sedimentary laying in rocks.

The nature is many-sided. Looking to cosmos, we see one things, in
stones we see others. These are different symbols of cuneiform.
Something is common, and something different, each has its nuances.
This all surely are parts of some general process occurring in the
universe. Relativists, limiting themselves to the warping, throw out
many things necessary for understanding general processes. And trying
to fantasy the phenomenon, they come to marasmus. But this is another
matter. Nothing to say that the longer we are discussing the farther
we leave the initial subject - electromagnetism. I would be pleased if
you explain me, what is the relation between these subjects. ;-)

Quote:

We really have to filter all ideas through experiments, and even not
through one but through series of experiments. The same in astronomy:
until Cassini did not reach Saturn, they did not see that rings
consist of dirty ice. Before this, they could think whatever. The
same, they supposed Jupiter consisting of hydrogen, cold up to
metallic state, until their messenger burned in hot ammonia of upper
layers of atmosphere. They expected ocean on Venus and channels on
Mars. Recently NASA published an image of one galaxy, NGC 4622,
stating that one its spiral goes clockwise and another - oppositely.
After we published our paper on spiral galaxies (mentioned above),
they considered it again and drew their spirals more correctly, in
accordance with what we proved. True, they did not refer to our paper
nor us, but these are already matters of their punctilio in authorship
of which Americans so much like to speak. We publishing their images
strongly refer to them and never forget to describe the authors'
interpretation, if appropriate. Wink

Quote:

If speaking of, in what I am stuck, this is the physics of processes.
We really have to improve the mechanical laws for large velocities,
but Einstein's relativism does not follow from this. When we say
"relativist", we always mean that of Einstein, and forget that the
trend of relativity appeared long before Einstein. It is not worthy
to confuse them. We have to improve the phenomenology of mechanics at
large velocities, but not with Einstein's absurd postulates. So I
never become relativist because of understanding that we have to do
it. They will long wait. ;-)

I only cannot catch one thing: do you want to hang on me some dogs?
Why I every time hear from you about some my imaginary limitedness?
Could you obtain at least one tenth part of results which we already
have obtained, after this we will speak of my limitedness. Still I see
that you are limiting yourself to scholasticism. While we not only
account the galactic orbiting of the Sun, we show the cause and
regularity of this orbiting. Still no one could do it. We show the
causes, why stars and galaxies evolve and why they never can collide
with each other, while most astrophysicists stuff their computers with
calculations of galaxy cannibalism. And you are speaking of ellipses
variation, saying nothing about causes, why these elliptic
trajectories can form. If we speak of limitedness, this concerns
people who instead to study, fantasies the phenomena. While we
rigorously prove ours.

Quote:

There are
still only vain attempts to re-phrase the Newton's law of gravity, as
I already told you. And I would like to emphasise, namely Newton's law
was the prototype of Coulomb's law, and we can say, this was the start
point in the search of unified field theory. It would not be good of
us to accuse Newton of what the descendants have fantasised excessive,
or made not well, or distorted. He made his part well, and this part
became a stage of new understanding of physical laws and of philosophy
as well. Wink

I think, you are hardly satisfied with it. The same as hardly one
could study seriously the galaxies without Hubble's experimental
basis. I can tell you it responsibly. And where to are we going? We
are going from one discovery to a next, from one experiment to a next,
from one solution to a next. Yes, you are going from one slinging mud
at one to the slinging at a next, from fantasying one thing to a next,
from labelling one author to labelling the next. Still I see, we have
different paths, and with such approach they will hardly cross.
Possibly, this is for better. Each has his own way.

Quote:

I see, you not so much attentively analysed our papers. Unlike many
others, we not often refer to other authors; usually our original part
of work refers only to mathematical operations. And we already are the
authors of final theories. We have yielded a full amount of solutions
for 1 D models in many-body dynamics; in this area we left other
authors only to solve applied problems. We also extended this complex
of solutions for the theory of electric filters, and in frames of
linear filters we much exceeded the level of solutions possible for
conventional methods. Of course, we cannot do everything, but we have
dug much. We even feel pleasure when glance back. But this is not the
only aim, because in some areas we put the start points, expecting the
next generations of researchers. Basically, this is an usual way of
development. Something has been done before us and was passed to us,
something we have to pass to the next generations. Wink

If not so, we
would still wear pelts and brandish cudgels. Wink

Quote:

Again and again. To see the way out, one has to have a wish to see the
essence, not to try to squeeze things into frames of his own today
understanding. Every way is the surmount, surmount himself first of
all. I mean the analysis of relations and solving the problems,
renewal, creation, matching of new relations. We have to do this all
at once, in order the cut out material to do not tear at our seams.
But judging by your theses, you have found some quasi-term of
quasi-geocentric template and reduced Newton's genius to this, having
no wish to see that his genius is not in this but in the tool which
allows us to improve, and these improvements will more and more agree
with experiments. I already wrote you above: whatever model will you
choose, as soon as you start your calculations, you will use Newton's
mechanical laws. This is an unquestionable argument against all your
accusations. ;-)

Sergey

Oriel36
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0409181126.30673159@posting.google.com>...

Quote:

geraldkelleher@hotmail.com (Oriel36) wrote in message news:<273f8e06.0409080532.551fa572@posting.google.com>...
selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0409051042.556b7f80@posting.google.com>...
Dear Oriel,

I am pleased at least that I was not kidding you as to Faraday's
insight. Wink

Tycho connected them with a quasi-geocentric system with the three
inner planets circling the Sun unfortunately it meant that Mars would
intersect the orbit of the Sun under the Tychonian system

Newton was quasi-geocentric in a much more damaging way.In the
Scholium IV of the Principia, which is the basis of much of the early
20th century concepts,only in definiting absolute/relative time does
he venture into a definition that is not his opinion but was a
commonplace mathematical bridge between the natural unequal day and
the 24 hour clock day - the Equation of Time.

The reason for the awful acceptance of axial rotation through 360
degrees to 23 hours 56 min 04 sec generates the notion of axial
rotation to absolute space and to subsequently to aether, from there
into the MMX and then you know what happened in 1905 .It does not
seem to bother anyone that Newton did not consider a medium in
formulating his ballistic agenda so if a medium played no part in
definitions of time,space,place and motion then what do those
definitions represent ?.

In short,Newton went to a lot of trouble insofar as he made things as
ambiguous as he could,to shift the focus from mean orbital distances
drawn through the center of the planet's orbit to mean Sun/Earth
distances,mathematicians might not care but it locks everyone into a
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency that nobody today would
want.

Relativity is just giving up and making everything homocentric.Like
the complaint of a nobel prize winner twenty years ago that
mathematics has gone from being a tool to describe nature to where
theorists think mathematics is nature itself !.

Kepler's mechanics in no way

Quote:

contradicts this relation, and I do not see any reason to accuse
someone in simplification, because the geometrical re-calculation is
possible when passing from one frame to another. Basically, tensor
analysis on which the supporters of Relativity ground their reasoning
is in its essence the same merely geometrical re-calculation; in this
form it was developed by Riemann, Yegorov, Lobachevsky.

Sergev,out of respect for the difficulties that both of us face in
approaching this matter and that it would be an endless task to see
ourselves clear to furthering something new,it is almost required to
go back to Keplerian motion and see what we have from 21st century
perspectives and basically leapfrog Newtonian ballistics as a basis to
build on.

In the mid 19th century they were facing enormous difficulties insofar
as they had no difficulties with the Sun attracting the Earth without
a mediun but they had great difficulties with the Sun illuminating the
Earth without one.This was a direct result of the unauthorised
astronomical format inherited from Newton where axial and orbital
motion was combined into a single sidereal motion.The benefits of that
unauthorised procedure is that independent axial rotation is hidden
away in orbital motion and forgotten about but as you see it turns up
everytime you wish to consider how light behaves by using the concept
of a medium.Ultimately the homogenisation of axial and orbital motion
causes such severe obstacles that they are worth dropping.

Quote:

I am sorry to say, but in this case you are demonstrating just the
sophistry against which Bacon appeared, and not only he.

The purely mathematical mind finds anything other than axioms to be
intolerable whereas the intuitive mind does'nt need them.Time,space
and motion are not so much things to be defined as they are a canvas
upon which all happens.What was unnerving,and for many years,was that
Newton appeared to be defining the difference between the natural day
and the 24 hour clock day normally as the Equation of Time but cross
referencing it with his format for determining Keplerian motion from
mean Sun/Earth distances displays a truly awful procedure in
converting Flamsteed's stellar circumpolar/axial rotational
equivalency to a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.

In short,with the Baconian view of beginning with doubts and moving to
certainty and applying it to Newtonian mechanics,everything withers
ahead of it,the astronomical format is all wrong,it introduces a
fishbowl universe,relevent insights are lost beyond recovery and it is
not possible to consider the nature of light,magnetism and
incorporating greater motions and their affect on planetary
heliocentric motion and these just to mention a few of the obstacles.

Quote:

The problem is not in the trifles of which you are
trying to re-draw Newton's portrait like an opportunist who steeled
Kepler's ideas and took "flight on the back of a common astronomical
crow".

He took flight on the back of an astronomical crow,he determined mean
orbital distances through Flamsteed's erroneous assumption for axial
rotational/stellar circumpolar equivalency.The purpose Flamsteed
sought the equivalency was in determining terrestial longitudes by way
of celestial sphere positions,Newton simply switched it to an orbital
equivalency.

The main value of Newton's work are not his astronomical calculations
per se. He carried out all his astronomical calculations in order to
build the phenomenology of gravitational interaction. The value of
Newton's work is in his formula for gravitational interaction. I
already wrote you of it. To reduce his Principia to merely
astronomical calculations is just inadmissible primitivisation which
you are seeking in others.

You do not help your own cause insofar as you alone can accept what
Newton said or follow Albert who attempts to tell you what Newton
said.All that bulltalk of action at a distance.

"I likewise call attractions and impulses, in the same sense,
accelerative, and motive; and use the words attraction, impulse or
propensity of any sort towards a centre, promiscuously, and
indifferently, one for another; considering those forces not
physically, but mathematically: wherefore, the reader is not to
imagine, that by those words, I anywhere take upon me to define the
kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or the physical reason
thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to
certain centres (which are only mathematical points); when at any time
I happen to speak of centres as attracting, or as endued with
attractive powers. "

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time

If you substitute 'geometrical' for 'mathematical' in the above
passage the whole thing becomes clearer and to be fair to Newton,there
is absolutely nothing to indicate a justification of Albert's
contention -

"It was Newton's theory of gravitation that first assigned a cause for
gravity by interpreting it as action at a distance, proceeding from
masses. Newton's theory is probably the greatest stride ever made in
the effort towards the causal nexus of natural phenomena. And yet this
theory evoked a lively sense of discomfort among Newton's
contemporaries, because it seemed to be in conflict with the principle
springing from the rest of experience, that there can be reciprocal
action only through contact, and not through immediate action at a
distance."

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html

It is just easier to follow Newton's line of reasoning as he goes on
to define time,space,place and motion in the Scholium than follow the
fabrication of the early 20th century.I assure you Newton's
definitions are far more interesting in what they conceal rather than
what they reveal.

Quote:

Newton had some other task - to join separate results, and at
his level of knowledge he has accomplished this task successfully.
Descartes who tried to formulate mechanical laws, neither Leibnitz
with his great achievements in differential calculus, nor Kepler who
has established the laws of planetary orbital motion and whom you are
so much defending derived the gravity law in the Newton's form - in
the form of equal gravitational and inertial masses.

Sounds great until it is now realised that orbital variations exist
and cause ice ages which in turn affect geological features and leave
a recorded history of the geological and astronomical history of the
planet.

This does not lessen Newton's achievements. With all his genius,
Newton could not and had not to answer all questions. He was not god,
like we all. But he gave us the tool which allowed us to calculate and
to analyse, in that number things of which you are speaking. I can
repeat, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes did it not.

For mathematicians Newton is a genius but given the astronomical
damage done in order to get his ballistic theory to work from 17th
century observations there is a case for shading off into a genius of
opportunism.People who are incapable of dealing with the unauthorised
astronomical procedure Newton slipped in,by shifting the value of
axial rotation from the principles of the 24 hour clock day to the
principles of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,are also incapable of
appreceating why aether/relativity arguments will always be circular
within the 17th century error.

And this

Quote:

sounds really exactly and more correctly reflects Newton's
significance than what you are trying to attribute to him. And as to
ice ages and historical records in geology, we still have to prove
conventional interpretations correct. For today, there exist many
versions, but they all have more difficulties than answers.

Kepler's second law ,which suffered most from the reduction of mean
orbital distances through the center of planetary orbits to Newtonian
mean Sun/Earth distances, provide the basis for understanding the
onset of ice ages.Northern hemisphere summers are longer during an ice
age while simultaneously Southern hemisphere winters are more brutal
hence the engine for glaciation.

http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html

You can actually see it for yourself in the above animated exaggerated
comparisons of orbital variations,if it becomes a matter of proof then
it simply is not worth it.

Quote:

With Newton's mechanical view there is no mechanism for the
change from less elliptical to more elliptical in terms of either mass
or acceleration (insofar as Kepler's second law applies regardless of
the degree of the elliptical motion) notwithstanding that the template
for mean Earth/Sun distances is already wrong.

When you write down these deviations in the view of phenomenology of
process, you will use the concepts of force and mass in Newton's
interpretation. You and we all still have no other way - of course, if
you yourself do not refine the concept of mass as measure of inertia
and phenomenology of gravitational interaction. And I see no problem
that Newton did not account some nuances of dynamics. He emphasised
that he considers stationary processes without transients. Yes, it was
a restriction. But this was beginning, and from this view this all was
natural. To take into account the transients about which you are
writing, we have to account moments of inertia. In frames of Newton's
dynamics they appeared much later. In particular, we in our paper "On
physical nature of postulate of existence of stable stationary states
of oscillators"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#quant

Again,this is where the damage is done in drifting between
astronomical formats to experiments within human experience.For
decades they have given up the pretence of seperating illusions of
planetary and wider cosmological motions from their actual motions and
have taken up the habit of pasting gravitational solutions directly on
to observation contrary to Copernicus,Kepler et al.

To keep things current,Keplerian motion is better explained by
incorporating the influence of galactic orbital motion of the solar
system on planetary heliocentric orbital motion than keeping all
motion isolated to the solar system.Because Newton has set up a
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency,you are locked into that
view and to all intents and purposes the rest of the universe may as
well not exist whereas incorporating the galactic orbital motion is
more productive in determining why axial rotation is constant and
orbital motion varies in terms of Kepler's second law and further into
long term variations,why axial orientation is the way it is and why
the perihelion advance of Mercury owes its existence to the solar
system's galactic orbital motion.

Quote:

showed the condition under which spiral arms are formed when
disbalance of masses causes moments of inertia. It would be too early
to require this from Newton. This all will gradually find its
solutions in frame of Newton's mechanics. Just Newton's, because just
Newton's laws will be the basis of advanced calculations. And the fact
that Newton did not analyse in Principia such concepts as moments of
inertia of 1, 2, 3 etc. orders does not weaken his work, as all these
calculations have been made on the basis of his calculus and
phenomenology of mechanics.

Well the relativists are always going to stick you the mechanistic
Newtonian view and rightly so and it appears you make no attempt to go
back to that Newtonian view and determine that it is Newton causing
the problem with a medium necessary to consider light as a
wave.Between Newtonian absolute space and absolute time you are
losing the argument,not in that these things are important to me but
the relativistic arguments are built on the Earth's motion to an
aether Newton did'nt consider and absolute time which is where Newton
made that momentous and awful switch.

Quote:

None of them has
formulated in mathematically rigorous form the laws of mechanics which
even now work fine in all areas of science and engineering. If
speaking, what Newton used to achieve his aim, we have to mention that
he took the idea of infinitesimals from his teacher. The first law of
mechanics - the law of inertia - he took from Galileo, the law of
equal action and counteraction - from Descartes who took it from
Aristotle, and so on. Not this is the point. The point is, he gave us
the FIRST mathematical formulation of laws for mechanics and
gravitation on whose basis we can calculate and analyse.

This goes to prove my point that behind the supposedly highly
contentious conceptual differences arising from the early 20th
century,all sides will run home to momma and defend Newton.

Just the basis which was built in the early 20th century has to dye
fully with all what was grounded on it later, so it will not defend
Newton. The features of relativistic mechanics revealed by Lorentz, in
no case by Einstein, will be essentially improved in frames of
Lorentz' conception, and will find themselves out of frames of
Newton's mechanics. So they with all their wish will be unable to
defend Newton, as they are out of area of applicability of Newton's
phenomenology.

Sergev,it will always be a rigged argument,I have little heed in late
19th and early 20th century concepts for they are overheated concepts
in the absence of the observational insights that made their
appearance in the late 1920's.Basically,if galactic structure and
motion was not big enough to alter things conceptually I do not know
what is but when galaxies were discovered they simply changed the
'fixed stars' everywhere to galaxies everywhere and kept on talking as
if nothing happened.

Quote:

The only
verification worthwhile is actually going outside and determining that
the Earth is rotating in and out of its orbital shadow rather than
sunrise and sunset which would be valid under the Newtonian scheme.

I already wrote you: if you have an improvement in your disposal, both
me and colleagues would like to see just your improvement, not a
distortion of Newton's studies to satisfy what you want. Please write
yours, and we will analyse it together. ;-)

It is more graceful to incorporate the solar system's galactic orbital
motion as an influence on heliocentric planetary motion both Keplerian
and long term variations than keeping all motion within an isolated
solar system as the sole influence.

Primarily,the astronomical records of these variations are maintained
in climatological records via geology and glaciation rather than
attempting to view astronomy by looking directly into the 'past' ala
relativity.In this respect,a long term orbital variation apart from
annual Keplerian motion facilitates a more reasoned view on the Sun's
solar output which remains constant through an ice age,whatever other
advantage their arises is secondary but ultimately it is making that
shift to a greater galactic axis of rotation while retaining the
dominance of heliocentric planetary motion would upset those who wish
to retain the 17th century stance.

Quote:

The
early 20th century concepts basically reduced this quasi-geocentric
view further to homocentricity and it remains stuck there.

Sorry again, but here you feast your eyes upon phrases - Bacon just
appeared against it. The meaning of Einstein's GR (if, speaking of the
early 20th century, you are meaning GR) is other. And the problems are
other. These usually are theologians who speak of so-called
quasi-geocentric and homocentric approach. As far as I can understand,
we discuss the physics of processes, so hardly someone will dare to
defend geocentric approach here. I am afraid, is it a simple
verbality. One thing I cannot understand: if you have some solutions,
show them, but do not accuse Newton of what he has not. Do at least a
thousandth part of what Newton did for his time and his level of
science development.

It is difficult to defend someone who begins definitions by stating
that the 'vulgar ' do not understand time,space,place and motion and
then goes out of his way to be as ambiguous and tangled as
possible.Nobody really comments on the Scholium IV and that is just
what Newton wanted for who would want to admit to being vulgar.It was
an effective ploy for Newton and it certainly worked until another
opportunist came along with a better line of bulltalk.

Quote:

And in limits
which Newton outlined the experimental check of these laws is
impeccable. We have to understand it before accusing someone in
somewhat. Wink

And it would be much better if you roll up your sleeves
and develop our knowledge of nature. Believe me, this is much more
difficult than to accuse others that they do not love the nature. Wink

Which is why you will never find yourself clear to discuss the
properties of light,magnetism if you wish to consider a medium.Taking
Newton at face value in making no attempt to make astronomical
translations from geocentric to heliocentric and attributing
everything to 'gravity' must have looked great in his era but it
remains a poorly constructed ballistic theory that leaves you blind
when it comes to Roemer's insight on finite light distance among other
things.What would have looked like a decent attempt to explain
planetary orbital motion in the 17th century now looks like a
reduction of planetary motion to terrestial ballistics and that Sergev
appears like intellectual greediness.

Even Einstein understood it, not in vain he

Quote:

introduced aether to GR, or he would have nothing to warp. To warp the
geometry - it is a bluff. Only materiality can be warped, and we have
before to define the terminology of warping. This was Bergmann who
tried to do so in frames of GR, and his attempt tore to shreds the
axiomatics of Einstein's approach. Though he did not understand it.

To understand what went wrong in the 20th century and why theorists
today now think nature is mathematics, a more dignified approach must
be taken to Newton's Principia and a mindset entirely indiffent to
hagliographic concerns.Most are too intimidated or too in love with
calculus to bring the astronomical structural framework Newton used in
determining mean sun/earth distances and which destroys your
electromagnetic concerns which would otherwise be perfectly
reasonable.Again,all operating within the same mistake,originating at
Flamsteed and built on by Newton.

Quote:

The difficulties arising
from Newtonian astronomical framework was causing great difficulties
in the mid 19th century in determining the Sun attracting the Earth
and the Sun illuminating the Earth but only in the 1930's with
galactic observations making their appearance could questions of
Keplerian motion really be answered.

I don't think so. If under 30th you are meaning the Hubble's
regularity, I can only mention that on different forums the
phenomenology of Doppler red shift was reasonably beaten. This is a
separate large issue which is partly enlightened in our paper "On the
nature of red shift of metagalaxy"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#hubble

In that paper we gave the phenomenology of physical process causing
the Hubble red shift, free of discrepancies of Doppler interpretation.
Our interpretation in no way exceeds Newton's mechanics, and the fact
that it lifted ALL discrepancies of conventional interpretation
defends Newton's approach. Again, all accusations that Newton did not
write the Bible of physics are simplification based on feebleness of
this who states. Newton gave us the basis and the possibility to
develop it correctly. He had not to give us everything. And we have to
develop, not to blame him. Where he was inexact - we have to correct,
where the processes exceed his phenomenology - we have to develop and
to improve. This will be a good way to progress. While you are
permanently reducing this all to merely geometrical astronomy. I can
assure you, this subject was ate in 17-19th centuries, and we cannot
advance, doing not taking into account the phenomenology of physical
processes. You are playing with a shadow, and some other authors
statistically select numbers - both things are useless, as they do not
deepen our understanding. If you understand it, this will be the
principal result of our dialogue, or, as far as I can see, you already
began to limit it to geometrical approach. You do not advance new
arguments. You do not give more powerful interpretations than Kepler
and Newton gave. While without it our dialogue has been already
accomplished.

The Roemerian insight of finite light distance is tiny at a local
level but would be enormous at intergalactic scales,here again there
is no room to move within the celestial sphere which is a consequence
of the astronomical framework inherited from Newton.Astronomers
determine galactic coordinates by using constellations which are
features of axial rotation and orientation to Polaris,an illusion in
other words and a fishbowel illusion at that.

Moving on to the changing orientation of local Milky Way stars to the
remaining galaxies,it is possible in principle to determine via
supernova data the actual positions of galaxies to each other and to
us from apparent positions determined by finite light distance otr the
Equation of Light as it was once known.It is a huge cosmological
jigsaw puzzle but if the wrong figure axial rotation of the Earth is
accepted as it is using the Newtonian astronomical framework there is
very little sense in taking it further.

Quote:

They are modelling crustal development from a flat and stationary
Earth while I point out the Equatorial bulge determines astronomical
origins for structural features.Somehow astronomical/terrestial
motions mesh due to the different stresses between constant
axial,variable orbital and long term orbital variations but like
physics counterparts,these concerns are set aside for multiple
universes,clashing branes,strings and other exotica.

Quote:

Because astronomical
records of orbital variations show up in geological records it is now
possible to achieve cosmological modelling by incorporating the
mechanism for orbital variations as variations in the solar system's
motion from a cyclical 100 000 year variation from an inner and outer
galactic orbit.

If speaking of the very possibility, this is surely basically
possible, but we read these records made with almost effaced
cuneiform, in unknown language. This is just the problem of physics to
decipher these records correctly and exactly and then to base on them
our models. So I'm afraid, your claims are too premature and bravura,
and I would be more pleased if you instead it deciphered at least one
symbol in this cuneiform. This is what we are trying to do (in that
number). This is what I ask you, still without result. Let us leave
slogans for politicians, for election campaign.

It cannot always be attack,even if you see an assault on the
astronomical format of Newton,it turns out the constrictions of that
format are all part of the same thing,for me as for you.I do not
attempt to tell you what you wish to hear for you have your dignity
and I respect that but how far are you willing to go to uphold a 17th
century view that caused more trouble than it was worth.

Quote:

How dumb relativists look by imagining that as you look into space it
represents the astronomical 'past' other than the
geological/astronomical past embedded in sedimentary laying in rocks.

The nature is many-sided. Looking to cosmos, we see one things, in
stones we see others. These are different symbols of cuneiform.
Something is common, and something different, each has its nuances.
This all surely are parts of some general process occurring in the
universe. Relativists, limiting themselves to the warping, throw out
many things necessary for understanding general processes. And trying
to fantasy the phenomenon, they come to marasmus. But this is another
matter. Nothing to say that the longer we are discussing the farther
we leave the initial subject - electromagnetism. I would be pleased if
you explain me, what is the relation between these subjects. ;-)

Yes,yes I understand the problem and relativists beg you to follow
them down into their absurdities and too many oblige.Warped with
respect to what but not it becomes an irritation with the only
attribute that they have as much originality as a ham sandwich while
appearing to be discussing 'profound' issues.The whole relativistic
thing is as novelistic as the day it was conceived and it ends in the
same way.

Quote:

On this way we may not choose from a broad scope of revelations only
some convenient, shutting our eyes to inconvenient revelations of an
effect, as the supporters of photon theory do. To be true, the
hypothesis has to corroborate ALL possible experimental results. One
experiment with which this hypothesis does not match can kill it. With
it, if the conception on the whole has been built without bias, the
negative experiment will only better outline its limits of
applicability and open the way to clear our understanding up. Just
this occurs with Newton's conception in passing to sub-light
velocities. But if the postulates were selected for the author's
convenience, just as in GR, SR, QM, QED, photon theory and so on, one
inconsistent experiment can destroy the whole building of existing
conception. This is what we all see now, under great displeasure and
highly aggressive behaviour of supporters of above conceptions and of
people who like to "think the physics out".

Your argument is with those who determine that all things must be
filtered through an experiment whereas the conceptions of
geological/astronomical history requires only the ability to make
correct correlations.Steno in the 17th century determined that
sedimentary layers which are observed to be vertical on the side of
mountains were once in geological times to be horizontal,this type of
reasoning can be refined to the point with sedimentary classifications
without disturbing the underlying principle.Relativity is the symptom
of a disease brought on by Newton for the underlying astronomical
principles on which he formulated his ballistic agenda does'nt
exist,the rotation rate of the Earth is wrong,he combines axial and
orbital motion,the stars are not fixed and what have you.

We really have to filter all ideas through experiments, and even not
through one but through series of experiments. The same in astronomy:
until Cassini did not reach Saturn, they did not see that rings
consist of dirty ice. Before this, they could think whatever. The
same, they supposed Jupiter consisting of hydrogen, cold up to
metallic state, until their messenger burned in hot ammonia of upper
layers of atmosphere. They expected ocean on Venus and channels on
Mars. Recently NASA published an image of one galaxy, NGC 4622,
stating that one its spiral goes clockwise and another - oppositely.
After we published our paper on spiral galaxies (mentioned above),
they considered it again and drew their spirals more correctly, in
accordance with what we proved. True, they did not refer to our paper
nor us, but these are already matters of their punctilio in authorship
of which Americans so much like to speak. We publishing their images
strongly refer to them and never forget to describe the authors'
interpretation, if appropriate. ;-)

Look Sergev,there is a force to keep the Earth orbiting the
Sun,another 'dark force' keeping the stars moving round the Milky Way
and another making the galaxies fly apart,it is easier for me to
consider smaller rotations within bigger rotations and leave the
mechanism for these rotations aside.It must have been great in the
early 20th century to talk of 'warped space' for orbital motion but
when the greater galactic rotational motion showed up never mind the
intergalactic motions,most of what was conceived in the 1910's should
have been jettisoned let alone that it is still feverishly
'discussed'.

Quote:

And we may not think any authority in the science as an infallible
god, as you are trying to represent and to accuse Newton. I told you
already, we have to consider Newton's results in the context of data
available at his time. His result is what is important. And the result
is, his mechanical laws impeccably work at small velocities.

Suit yourself for ultimately you assume that they don't work at higher
velocities and that makes you a relativist plain and simple.Orbital
variations such as Mercury's or artificial trajectories such as
Pioneer 10 have a better astronomical setting after the motion of the
solar system around the galactic axis was discovered but you remain
stuck in the era where none of this was known.

If speaking of, in what I am stuck, this is the physics of processes.
We really have to improve the mechanical laws for large velocities,
but Einstein's relativism does not follow from this. When we say
"relativist", we always mean that of Einstein, and forget that the
trend of relativity appeared long before Einstein. It is not worthy
to confuse them. We have to improve the phenomenology of mechanics at
large velocities, but not with Einstein's absurd postulates. So I
never become relativist because of understanding that we have to do
it. They will long wait. ;-)

Making things go faster is what got men into a lot of trouble a
century ago,to me it makes no difference and less so when it is just
easier to incorporate greater rotations which have been left
unattended for 80 years.

Quote:

I only cannot catch one thing: do you want to hang on me some dogs?
Why I every time hear from you about some my imaginary limitedness?
Could you obtain at least one tenth part of results which we already
have obtained, after this we will speak of my limitedness. Still I see
that you are limiting yourself to scholasticism. While we not only
account the galactic orbiting of the Sun, we show the cause and
regularity of this orbiting.

To be precise,it is the solar system's galactic orbital motion with a
line drawn through the center of the Sun galactic orbital path,just as
astronomers calculated orbital motion through the center of the
planet's orbit rather than Sun/Earth distances favored by
Newton.Basically it is unlocking that galactic orbital path and
determining influences on the planets at a distance from the central
orbital galactic orbital path centered on the Sun.

While I can't at present show you a necessary graphic,I will show you
what it is not.

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/ilt/T629191a.gif

Still no one could do it. We show the

Quote:

causes, why stars and galaxies evolve and why they never can collide
with each other, while most astrophysicists stuff their computers with
calculations of galaxy cannibalism. And you are speaking of ellipses
variation, saying nothing about causes, why these elliptic
trajectories can form. If we speak of limitedness, this concerns
people who instead to study, fantasies the phenomena. While we
rigorously prove ours.

Ah Sergev,yours is a lonesome endeavor.All the effort is given today
not to prove Einstein right but to prove that men have'nt been wasting
their time chasing rainbows.The stakes are now so high that even if
they get the result they want that it won't make the slightest bit of
difference to the wider world who have long since stopped
listening.There was a time when men would fall mute at the mention of
gravitation or time travel but today's concerns are not those of
decades ago and you can only tell people for so long that they won't
understand nature even as they are a part of it.The result is now two
forms of fundamentalism and I genuinely feel sorry that even if your
efforts are excellent,the prevailing atmosphere is so poisoned that
good or bad,any new insight will be lost in the babble.As Yeats
said,the worst now have the most conviction with nobody around with
the temprement or the courage to call a halt and especially the
anonymous institutional representatives of science.

Quote:

And it is a natural thing that any theory is then
improved or added. If you see, how can you improve it - do it, not
revile the author. If you understood the meaning of mass as the
measure of inertia, or if you have revealed the nature of
gravitational interaction - again, it is not worthy to accuse Newton.
Show us your results with the same proof as it is done in classical
physics. If your meaning contradicts Newton laws, prove it
experimentally. If in one part it corresponds and in another does not,
show that you are right, too. Have you any problem? ;-)

I am satisfied that as long as you remain looking for experimental
evidence you are going nowhere for like geology,astronomy can only be
accomplished in principle insofar as the time and distance scales
reflect the enormity and magnificence of the cosmos.Whether the
effects of finite light distance from distant supernova and their
parent galaxies or the actual relationship between the observed
position of galaxies to our own and to each other in determining
structure and motion,none of it can be discerned by the claustraphobia
of lab top experiments or silly opinions that mascerade as
'thought-experiments'.

I think, you are hardly satisfied with it. The same as hardly one
could study seriously the galaxies without Hubble's experimental
basis. I can tell you it responsibly. And where to are we going? We
are going from one discovery to a next, from one experiment to a next,
from one solution to a next. Yes, you are going from one slinging mud
at one to the slinging at a next, from fantasying one thing to a next,
from labelling one author to labelling the next. Still I see, we have
different paths, and with such approach they will hardly cross.
Possibly, this is for better. Each has his own way.

Yes indeed,it is remarkable that the human spirit will overcome the
most stubborn obstacles and manage to get something done just as life
survives even the worst natural catastrophes and goes on.Unfortunately
men now impose obstacles on each other and for almost nothing,a man's
opinion a century ago and the ability of men to grasp that he put the
universe into the hands of men who operate by equations.The universe
will tell its own story and in its own way,that much I do know Sergev.

Quote:

It is so easy to relive everyone and everything.. . This is not the
way to the truth. Truth does not like mud, mean tricks, labels. Truly
loving the laws of nature, you would know it, not only trade the
slogans and labels. This is the monopoly of supporters of Relativity
and photon theory. This is just why the truth is out of their
interest. ;-)

You have no reason to complain,your views will always receive an
airing as the methods and ends to which you tend are the same.In
strenghtening the areas of the relationship between geology,terrestial
evolution,climatology and astronomy,people have found a better way to
appreceate the connection between humanity and its surroundings,you
can wax lyrical on final theories and how complicated it all is but
namedropping and labelling is such a poor excuse,this being now the
sole purpose of physics and physicists.

I see, you not so much attentively analysed our papers. Unlike many
others, we not often refer to other authors; usually our original part
of work refers only to mathematical operations. And we already are the
authors of final theories. We have yielded a full amount of solutions
for 1 D models in many-body dynamics; in this area we left other
authors only to solve applied problems. We also extended this complex
of solutions for the theory of electric filters, and in frames of
linear filters we much exceeded the level of solutions possible for
conventional methods. Of course, we cannot do everything, but we have
dug much. We even feel pleasure when glance back. But this is not the
only aim, because in some areas we put the start points, expecting the
next generations of researchers. Basically, this is an usual way of
development. Something has been done before us and was passed to us,
something we have to pass to the next generations. Wink

If not so, we
would still wear pelts and brandish cudgels. ;-)

We receive up until recently a very slanted view of human history and
certainly in the physics arena it would appear that before the Greeks
everyone was brandishing cudgels and wearing pelts.It is though a
background history emerges that is more satisfying than the sterile
trajectory that puts mathematicians in the best light as though they
were the summit of reasoning when the Greeks themselves admitted that
their knowledge was fragmentary from earlier civilisations and
especially in astronomy and geometry.They were just the first to write
things down.

Quote:

Or to leave unanswered inconvenient citations from
Maxwell about aether and from Einstein - about the problems that he
has put into the underpinning of GR. As a scientists truly loving the
nature and standing for separation of conceptions, you surely
understand it well. And not only understand, but follow this principle
in your actions and discussions. Do not you agree with me? ;-)

Sergey

You belong to a different era even though it still remains firmly
entrenched in society.The horror of the Newtonian labyrinth was
superceded by the early 20th century one where men call out to each
other from dead ends that have grown in number exponentially in recent
times.The way out is always an option and not that difficult a step to
take,either by recognising the Newtonian astronomical template to be a
quasi-geocentric one or more productively to incorporate the solar
system's motion around the galactic axis and its influence on
heliocentric planetary orbital motion.

Again and again. To see the way out, one has to have a wish to see the
essence, not to try to squeeze things into frames of his own today
understanding. Every way is the surmount, surmount himself first of
all. I mean the analysis of relations and solving the problems,
renewal, creation, matching of new relations. We have to do this all
at once, in order the cut out material to do not tear at our seams.
But judging by your theses, you have found some quasi-term of
quasi-geocentric template and reduced Newton's genius to this, having
no wish to see that his genius is not in this but in the tool which
allows us to improve, and these improvements will more and more agree
with experiments.

The tool has now become the object and that Sergev is what faces
me,you and everyone else,as I mentioned earlier,the nobel lauriate
mentioned 20 years ago that the theorists were beginning to think
mathematics is nature rather than the tool it once was and certainly
he was prescient in those remarks.

Newton wrestled to get mean orbital distances to fit mean Sun/Earth
distances,while chunks of this can be salvaged there is too much
astronomical damage otherwise insofar as orbital motion is framed
within a geocentric/heliocentric orbital equivalency.What parts to
save and what not is not my area but this is hardly possible where men
languish in relativistic homocentricity and dispute it as a valid
concept when it is little more than a cartoon.

I already wrote you above: whatever model will you

Quote:

choose, as soon as you start your calculations, you will use Newton's
mechanical laws. This is an unquestionable argument against all your
accusations. ;-)

Sergey

That's the price Sergev,choose Newton's mechanical program and you
bind yourself to the validity of 17th century conceptions of the role
the rest of the universe plays,in Newton's case - none .

"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."

In our time there is little room to set these things out as I would
wish even with great graphics availible and besides most people have
difficulty with the way I express things as though it were an unknown
language.In this respect I thank you for being the gentleman that you
are, for somehow you will realise that this perspective is done
almost in an isolation that is and always was intolerable.If
anything,there emerges a more intimate relation to surroundings,either
astronomical or terrestial than when I began with now only humanity
the mystery and that is not bad at all.

For one thing,it is a major achievement to continue a thread without
the descent into invective and one line statements and if anything it
shows that views can be discussed without falling into the trap of
namedropping and namecalling,pity Sergev that there are not more
participants of your calibre who can move beyond the slogans and
mantras.

Regards

Gerald

robert j. kolker
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: Maxwell's and Faraday's formulations of induction

Oriel36 wrote:

Quote:

Relativity is just giving up and making everything homocentric.Like
the complaint of a nobel prize winner twenty years ago that
mathematics has gone from being a tool to describe nature to where
theorists think mathematics is nature itself !.

Wrong. The experiments indicate what nature is. The mathematical models
are kept honest by insisting that any prediction derived from them be
born out by experimental corroberation. Math is the model. The facts
revealed by experiment is nature showing herself to us. Theories (i.e.
models) serve, facts rule.

Bob Kolker

Display posts from previous:

All About Circuits - Newsgroup Archive Forum Index -> sci.physics.electromag	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

sitemap